Talk Religion And Be Nice About It

[RoboBlue]

@Femme:

The Jews were not the only ones who's sins were referenced. There are tons and tons and tons of references to the actions of people who disobeyed their prophet and thus met consequences. What I'm getting at, is that it's not the people who are condemned in the Quran, it is their actions that are condemned.

Thank you for responding. I understand that the Jews aren't the only ones made an example of, but I can easily see how putting an entire community to death for the crime of worshipping the golden calf could be used to defend bad ideas.

@Hanz:

this.
arabs and muslims don't hate jews just for their religion. there might be a minority where they do, but the majority hate them because of israel's treatment of palestinians. in jordan specifically, almost half of the population are naturalized palestinians who got forced out of their homes in 60s. so you can see why they hate them.

It's worth noting that some middle-eastern nations have an officially stated institutional bias against non-Muslims. Saudi Arabia specifically identifies atheists as terrorists, and non-Muslims are forbidden from visiting Mecca and Medina. I've heard that believers really aren't racially profiled, though.

[Johnny B. Decent]

To be fair, Saudi Arabia is a pretty terrible place.

[wolfwood]

@SmokerSan:

Of course, "Jews can't be trusted" is anti-Semitism.

Absolutely. I'm mostly just saying that anti-semitic opinions and feelings can stem from many places, and even those with a legitimate gripe in the bottom aren't neccesarily above being challenged on their abusive rhetoric or implications. Much in the same way that European conservatives can have a fair point in that current infrastructure is not up to the challenge of large scale immigration and integration, yet still be explicitly racist when they put forth claims that muslims are by themselves incapable of integrating into European society. Palestine and the refugee crisis aren't, to me atleast, things that can outright excuse bad behaviour and thought patterns, it may be where a lot of the basis of these opions stems from, but it's a huge leap from i think x is being handled badly to the perpetuation and continuation of hate with x as the legitimate cover.

Oh well just a stream of thoughts i splattered out there, carry on folks

[Femme]

@RoboBlue:

Thank you for responding. I understand that the Jews aren't the only ones made an example of, but I can easily see how putting an entire community to death for the crime of worshipping the golden calf could be used to defend bad ideas.

Sure, but if you are holding a bias that Islam is the only religion who holds the position that the followers of Moses were punished for their actions then you might need to look into both Christianity and Judaism for their stances. Also you should consider that Pharoah and his people were also punished with floods, locusts, water turned to blood, etc., for keeping Moses and his followers from leaving.

Moses' story is incredibly important in Islam beginning with how he escaped death as a baby from the decision of his mother to send him away, to his time in adolescence among the pharaoh's family, to his guidance to prophethood. He is the only prophet who spoke directly to God, and he performed miracles by God's leave that should have left not an atom of doubt about his prophethood to those who witnessed it.

So after witnessing the literal sea opening by his command and running through it to escape, God decreed that those who turned back on their word and went back to worshipping an object of their own making would be punished, similar to how previous communities where were tested. Those communities that received a prophet were the only ones who were tested so harshly because they had a living representative of God with them, and they were the ones who saw miracles performed with their own eyes.

Would you say that Noah's people being put to death after having him among them for nine-hundred-and-fifty years and yet only a few people, not even one of his own sons, ended up on the ark, is also discrimination? A lot more people died.

–- Update From New Post Merge ---

@RoboBlue:

It's worth noting that some middle-eastern nations have an officially stated institutional bias against non-Muslims. Saudi Arabia specifically identifies atheists as terrorists, and non-Muslims are forbidden from visiting Mecca and Medina. I've heard that believers really aren't racially profiled, though.

Saudi Arabia is a modern country and not a representative of Islam. People love to point to Saudi to condemn Islam but like over and over any Muslim would say that Saudi doesn't represent their religion. Culture and politics does not equal religion.

Mecca and Madinah's rules are from Islam, however, because they are two cities whose only purpose is to visit for Muslim worship. To put it in perspective, just BEING anywhere in the city is considered a huge blessing. Living there, even more. The residents of Mecca and Madinah are honoured in Islam. It is considered a sacred refuge. If you end up dying there and being prayed over in either holy mosque it is a huge blessing. There are prophecies about the antichrist not being able to penetrate either city and whose borders will be protected by angels. Some Muslims spend their entire lives saving up for a trip to the cities to complete the 5th pillar of Islam, hajj, which takes place in both cities. Completing hajj is said to wipe out all of your sins and you'll start again on a clean slate.

In short, it is an active form of worship to go there and it will remain so until the end of time.

I dunno why so many non-muslims complain about not being able to visit either city. Why would you want to if you don't believe in Islam? Muslims in the millions go there in droves just to pray every year, so many that they have to restrict the number of people who can visit to not cause safety problems.

[RoboBlue]

@Femme:

Sure, but if you are holding a bias that Islam is the only religion who holds the position that the followers of Moses were punished for their actions then you might need to look into both Christianity and Judaism for their stances. Also you should consider that Pharoah and his people were also punished with floods, locusts, water turned to blood, etc., for keeping Moses and his followers from leaving.

Moses' story is incredibly important in Islam beginning with how he escaped death as a baby from the decision of his mother to send him away, to his time in adolescence among the pharaoh's family, to his guidance to prophethood. He is the only prophet who spoke directly to God, and he performed miracles by God's leave that should have left not an atom of doubt about his prophethood to those who witnessed it.

So after witnessing the literal sea opening by his command and running through it to escape, God decreed that those who turned back on their word and went back to worshipping an object of their own making would be punished, similar to how previous communities where were tested. Those communities that received a prophet were the only ones who were tested so harshly because they had a living representative of God with them, and they were the ones who saw miracles performed with their own eyes.

Would you say that Noah's people being put to death after having him among them for nine-hundred-and-fifty years and yet only a few people, not even one of his own sons, ended up on the ark, is also discrimination? A lot more people died.

Yes, I agree that the story of Noah is a more brutal example of the same mass punishment archetype common in many religious texts. There was a recent Hollywood movie that depicted him as a more flawed person, conflicted but also somewhat unsympathetic towards the people whose deaths he witnessed.

@Femme:

Saudi Arabia is a modern country and not a representative of Islam. People love to point to Saudi to condemn Islam but like over and over any Muslim would say that Saudi doesn't represent their religion. Culture and politics does not equal religion.

I'm not condemning Islam for the actions of the Saudi Arabian government, only using it as an example of hate that some Muslims have for some Jews. Israel profiles and discriminates against Palestinians, but it does so primarily by race rather than by religion (which isn't better).

@Femme:

Mecca and Madinah's rules are from Islam, however, because they are two cities whose only purpose is to visit for Muslim worship. To put it in perspective, just BEING anywhere in the city is considered a huge blessing. Living there, even more. The residents of Mecca and Madinah are honoured in Islam. It is considered a sacred refuge. If you end up dying there and being prayed over in either holy mosque it is a huge blessing. There are prophecies about the antichrist not being able to penetrate either city and whose borders will be protected by angels. Some Muslims spend their entire lives saving up for a trip to the cities to complete the 5th pillar of Islam, hajj, which takes place in both cities. Completing hajj is said to wipe out all of your sins and you'll start again on a clean slate.

In short, it is an active form of worship to go there and it will remain so until the end of time.

I dunno why so many non-muslims complain about not being able to visit either city. Why would you want to if you don't believe in Islam? Muslims in the millions go there in droves just to pray every year, so many that they have to restrict the number of people who can visit to not cause safety problems.

No one likes to be deliberately excluded or discriminated against. Mecca and Medina are important historical landmarks, and it's upsetting to know that the Saudis are actively destroying parts of them. Those two reasons are basically why for me.

[Monkey King]

@RoboBlue:

No, you clearly don't have me right.

Then I'm confused about what it is that Christianity didn't do past 300 or so AD.

You're mocking me for saying "this passage bothered me" and asking for greater clarity.

I'm not mocking you for anything. What I'm tired of (and this is actually very common) is people treading through Islam like some sort of exotic haunted house, when the vast majority of such things are bog standard stuff that anyone raised in a Christian or Jewish dominated country is super familiar with.

What?

Look at the Shtetl comment, and the Roman/Goth vs German/Italian comment again for what I mean when I say that.
There's a common tendency to talk about Jews all throughout history through the same lens of beleaguered nearly powerless WW2 era Jews in Europe.
Which is semi-understandable given Jewish history throughout medieval and early modern Europe that created that circumstance in the first place.
But that context becomes less and less applicable and relevant the farther back you go.

This is like I said, a common flawed approach, especially in the US I'd wager.

Alright, seriously… the bigotry a few people share is not a "grand conspiracy against all things Jewish top to bottom from time immemorial."

We're discussing textual and communal antipathy between religions. This is not a few people.

Maybe so, but it's still hatred based on the religion of the persons being hated, rather than based on their race.

Because when two people are fighting in that nastiest of ways, any symbols of that people become open season. This is incredibly common in land based ethnic conflicts. They all feature it and I'd be surprised to hear of one that didn't.
It can even result in stuff that essentially doesn't really make sense. Like the Catholic Ustasi regime in WW2 which furiously genocided and cleansed the Eastern Orthodox Serbs from its territory….while being basically indifferent toward the Muslims for the most part. And actually even being less genocidal overall toward the Jews. The hatred between Serb and Croats was such that the two (very similar) Christian communities were the most at odds.

So to summarize, you basically accused me of being both anti-Jewish (or at least willfully ignorant of crimes against Jews) and overly defensive of Jews. What the fuck?

The entire point throughout that was that you feature a common sort of knee jerk bizarre over-empathy toward anything Jewish in history, because of modern WW2 influenced framing. So kind of the total opposite of being anti-Jewish.
Thinking you're ignorant of Jewish suffering in post-300's Europe is also something I don't think, notice how confused and hesitant I was to say that. But your comment just has me confused so that that's all I can read from it, so I was hoping to get the explanation of what that comment actually meant.

–- Update From New Post Merge ---

@SmokerSan:

As Monkey King mentioned, people seem to forget that until last century all 3 religious groups were living peacefully with each other in almost all Middle-east and north Africa. It is the Palestine/Israel conflict that made things toxic.

It wasn't peaceful….I mean for periods of time yes....but there was plenty of tension and violence. But it lacked the super deep antipathy and almost pathological hatred that characterized the Jewish diaspora's experience in Europe.
The reason I think is that Jews experienced far more organized and heavy social isolation in Europe, which just constantly compounded and compounded on top of them to create a cycle of Europeans shunning them, and then mistrusting and loathing them in their isolation for various reasons.
"HEY YOU, YOU HAVE TO WEAR STUPID HATS AND LIVE OVER THERE ONLY. AND YOU CANT WORK MOST JOBS"
"GRRRR, WHY DO THOSE GUYS ONLY TALK WITH EACHOTHER AND DRESS SO FUNNY?? WHAT ARE THEY UP TO THOSE WEIRDOS…USRURY??? THAT THING WE WONT DO BUT THEY WILL DUE TO LACK OF OPTIONS?? HOW DARE THEY."
I would also say that historically the Muslim lands were slightly more tolerant of funky little groups on their margins. Not just the Jews, but Druz, Zorostrians, Ba'hai, Alevis, Yazidi, various Christians etc.
These groups experienced loads of problems and mistreatment at various times and levels...but they EXIST still.
Think to Europe's mega homogenization religiously speaking. Until the Protestant Reformation Western Europe was virtually one huge mega block of one Christian sect, all pagan religions stamped out, different Christian sects and movements stamped out.
The Orthodox part of Europe was a little different (there are still pagan groups in Russia for instance), but basically....hell I gotta point at the super centralization of religion and power with Rome as being a big part of that. The Jews in this environment would have been a major stand out. And the diversity offered by the Protestant Reformation didn't really help much at all given that the diversity it introduced quickly turned to localized homogeneity for the most part. That and Martin Luther was a raging anti-semite of course lol.

–- Update From New Post Merge ---

@wolfwood:

Hadn't heard that one before.

That sort of thing was very common back in the day, though it was kind of how any powerful invasive outside force was characterized. Like the Mongols and Huns. The various invasive Muslim empires definitely got it too.

–- Update From New Post Merge ---

@wolfwood:

So with that in mind it would make sense to assume that the anti-semitism is lesser the further away you live from Israel no?

Not at all. Nationalism isn't some sort of geographical proximity thing, in fact in some ways such things can be more intense and stupid the farther away you get. The more detached from the reality people are, with their information being more cartoonish and exaggerated.
For instance, comparing feelings toward the IRA in the Republic of Ireland vs Irish-Americans in the US. During the Troubles you might definitely have had plenty of Irish nationals in Ireland strongly taking the side of the Catholics, but with considerably more nuance and grayness at the same time.
Whereas Irish-Americans might be mindlessly rooting and even funding the IRA against the British occupation with likely not even a clue the Protestant North Irish exist.

And you have to understand it as nationalism, which yes can apply to religious groups as much as ethnic ones.
It will likely be the most intense in places both Muslim and Arab, and somewhat less so possibly when the Arab element is removed.

[RoboBlue]

@Monkey:

Then I'm confused about what it is that Christianity didn't do past 300 or so AD.

The Christian Bible as canonized in 300 AD contains the entirety of the Tanakh. The Quran does not. That's the difference I was highlighting.

@Monkey:

I'm not mocking you for anything. What I'm tired of (and this is actually very common) is people treading through Islam like some sort of exotic haunted house, when the vast majority of such things are bog standard stuff that anyone raised in a Christian or Jewish dominated country is super familiar with.

I think we misread each other; I picked up the Quran one day as a casual scholar of religion, and was completely unprepared for the immediate "sin and punishment" theme. Similar themes are found in the new and old testaments, but the Quran begins with a harsher tone than either of those.

@Monkey:

Look at the Shtetl comment, and the Roman/Goth vs German/Italian comment again for what I mean when I say that.
There's a common tendency to talk about Jews all throughout history through the same lens of beleaguered nearly powerless WW2 era Jews in Europe.
Which is semi-understandable given Jewish history throughout medieval and early modern Europe that created that circumstance in the first place.
But that context becomes less and less applicable and relevant the farther back you go.

This is like I said, a common flawed approach, especially in the US I'd wager.

That had nothing to do with what I was saying, though.

@Monkey:

We're discussing textual and communal antipathy between religions. This is not a few people.

I said "a few people" to emphasize the fact that I wasn't condemning entire communities or the entire religion. I have no idea how many Muslims hate Jews, or vice versa.

@Monkey:

Because when two people are fighting in that nastiest of ways, any symbols of that people become open season. This is incredibly common in land based ethnic conflicts. They all feature it and I'd be surprised to hear of one that didn't.
It can even result in stuff that essentially doesn't really make sense. Like the Catholic Ustasi regime in WW2 which furiously genocided and cleansed the Eastern Orthodox Serbs from its territory….while being basically indifferent toward the Muslims for the most part. And actually even being less genocidal overall toward the Jews. The hatred between Serb and Croats was such that the two (very similar) Christian communities were the most at odds.
Exactly.

@Monkey:

The entire point throughout that was that you feature a common sort of knee jerk bizarre over-empathy toward anything Jewish in history, because of modern WW2 influenced framing. So kind of the total opposite of being anti-Jewish.
Thinking you're ignorant of Jewish suffering in post-300's Europe is also something I don't think, notice how confused and hesitant I was to say that. But your comment just has me confused so that that's all I can read from it, so I was hoping to get the explanation of what that comment actually meant.

The Quran's second Surah had a more angry and condemning tone than I was expecting, and it gave me the impression that Muhammed (or God) had intended to outright replace the Torah with a few brief criticisms. Since then I've learned that the older writings do have some importance within Islam, but I don't really understand how the Tanakh and the New Testament fit within observant Muslim life.

[firelord111]

I really hate how iranians and shias were treated in hajj we even are not allowed to go in some places in masjid alharam these things backfire with hatred and fear from iranians to arabs which lead to that people are okay with iran backing asad in syria war because they believe if iran loses syria as ally arabs will attack iran like iraq did
I think modern sunni shia problem exists cause that iran is shia country its more racism than religious

[wolfwood]

@Monkey:

Not at all. Nationalism isn't some sort of geographical proximity thing, in fact in some ways such things can be more intense and stupid the farther away you get. The more detached from the reality people are, with their information being more cartoonish and exaggerated.
For instance, comparing feelings toward the IRA in the Republic of Ireland vs Irish-Americans in the US. During the Troubles you might definitely have had plenty of Irish nationals in Ireland strongly taking the side of the Catholics, but with considerably more nuance and grayness at the same time.
Whereas Irish-Americans might be mindlessly rooting and even funding the IRA against the British occupation with likely not even a clue the Protestant North Irish exist.

And you have to understand it as nationalism, which yes can apply to religious groups as much as ethnic ones.
It will likely be the most intense in places both Muslim and Arab, and somewhat less so possibly when the Arab element is removed.

Yeah i can see that playing out. Sort of how Americans with some distant Scandi roots will talk up a passionate storm about viking blood, rugged manliness and whatever else nobody who lives here has ever spent a moment thnking about. I guess it's an exaggeration that comes easily with that kind of survival reflex from when you base your idenitity on a passed down nationality that's been gradually slipping out of your hands.

[Lord Gaimon]

@Femme:

Saudi Arabia is a modern country and not a representative of Islam.

Why isn't Saudi Arabia representative of Islam ?

People love to point to Saudi to condemn Islam but like over and over any Muslim would say that Saudi doesn't represent their religion. Culture and politics does not equal religion.

Gulf arabs , wahabis , pakistanis and the muslim brotherhood wouldn't say that.

[firelord111]

@Lord:

Why isn't Saudi Arabia representative of Islam ?

Gulf arabs , wahabis , pakistanis and the muslim brotherhood wouldn't say that.

with same reasoning i can say iran represents islam but is that right

[Lord Gaimon]

@firelord111:

with same reasoning i can say iran represents islam but is that right

It does represent iran's and various other shias version of islam.

[Monkey King]

@firelord111:

I really hate how iranians and shias were treated in hajj we even are not allowed to go in some places in masjid alharam these things backfire with hatred and fear from iranians to arabs which lead to that people are okay with iran backing asad in syria war because they believe if iran loses syria as ally arabs will attack iran like iraq did
I think modern sunni shia problem exists cause that iran is shia country its more racism than religious

I wonder how Azerbaijani (as in the country) Shia are treated in Hajj.
If any of them even go on Hajj considering they're about as religious as Sweden is lol.

–- Update From New Post Merge ---

@Lord:

Why isn't Saudi Arabia representative of Islam ?

Well for starters its heavily dominated by a particular sub-sect (Wahabbi), which makes it statistically a bad example of Islam in general let alone anything else.

–- Update From New Post Merge ---

@Lord:

It does represent iran's and various other shias version of islam.

Iranians are twelvers, so are Azeris and other nearby Shia. But farther afield ones (like the Yemeni Shia) are not.

[SkullJoke]

@RoboBlue

The chapters in the Quran are not arranged chronologically. The first verses are in the start of Chapter 96, for instance.

[Monkey King]

@RoboBlue:

I think we misread each other; I picked up the Quran one day as a casual scholar of religion, and was completely unprepared for the immediate "sin and punishment" theme. Similar themes are found in the new and old testaments, but the Quran begins with a harsher tone than either of those.

You were unprepared for a theme of sin and punishment in an Abrahamic religion…?
As to how it starts, again its not a semi-chronological series of stories so its not gonna start with anything like Genesis.
And its not even organized in particular order, since its basically ordered by length of the passage for some reason.

That had nothing to do with what I was saying, though.

I think it does. Whether people are aware of it or not, they can fall into mental traps like this with history.

[Lord Gaimon]

@Monkey:

Well for starters its heavily dominated by a particular sub-sect (Wahabbi), which makes it statistically a bad example of Islam in general let alone anything else.

I think you're underestimating how many wahhabis and people who think like them exist.
I also been noticing more of them in my country after the revolution but that might be because of more freedom of speech

Iranians are twelvers, so are Azeris and other nearby Shia. But farther afield ones (like the Yemeni Shia) are not.

Zaidis and twelvers aren't that different really.

[Monkey King]

@Lord:

I think you're underestimating how many wahhabis and people who think like them exist.

There doesn't have to be a little amount of them for them not to be an example. There's a shitload of Catholics in the world, and even describing them as the example of Christianity would just come off as wrong. And Catholics make up about half of all Christians!

Zaidis and twelvers aren't that different really.

A lot of sects are quite similar (Catholic vs Orthodox for instance), but that doesn't change their differences existing.

[Lord Gaimon]

@Monkey:

There doesn't have to be a little amount of them for them not to be an example. There's a shitload of Catholics in the world, and even describing them as the example of Christianity would just come off as wrong. And Catholics make up about half of all Christians!

I'm not saying they are the example of islam, no sect is. Islam is not a monolith just like christianity.
what i'm saying is we shouldn't dismiss them as "not real muslims" or an outlier because that's wrong. they are one of the most popular sects.

[wolfwood]

@Monkey:

Well for starters its heavily dominated by a particular sub-sect (Wahabbi), which makes it statistically a bad example of Islam in general let alone anything else.

But on the flipside what would be a good example of Islam in general?

Most major religions are made up of sub-sections, and each of them represent a facet of said religion.

So i'd argue that it's fair to say that SA can represent one facet of Islam

[Monkey King]

Both of you are missing that Saudi Arabia is often thrown out as if it is the definitive example of what Islam is, with all its many warts and extremisms.
Sometimes innocently, often times much less so.
Lots of people probably assume the presence of Mecca and Medina means something about it being core, or purer, or something along those lines.

This isn't arguing against Wahabbism being disqualified as Islam, its arguing against it being used as THE example of Islam.
And it still remains a very poor example. For reasons I listed below to Gaimon, and that many of the extreme laws it features are unique to it.
The women not driving thing? Only country on earth to have such a law.
And what Roboblue mentioned? The thing where citizens have to be Muslim? Only country on earth to have that law.

@Gaimon:

they are one of the most popular sects.

Are they really?
-Wahabbism is of the Hanbali school, which is only really strongly rooted in the Arabian peninsula. Meaning its the only area that has it as state doctrine and the widespread cultural norm. Its not the norm in Tunisia right? Those you see are likely thinking of themselves as rebellious puritans fed up with the local status quo. Right?
-Wahabbism is dominant in Saudi Arabia, but remains mostly the particular following in the Nejd. With the Hejaz not being nearly so under its sway. This is also true in the neighboring Gulf states. So its not even all of the population of Saudi Arabia.
-Yes you see it popping up all over the place. And that's still coming from Saudi Arabia, funding and spreading it around through those schools they set up due to being filthy rich and all.

[wolfwood]

@Monkey:

Both of you are missing that Saudi Arabia is often thrown out as if it is the definitive example of what Islam is, with all its many warts and extremisms.
Sometimes innocently, often times much less so.
Lots of people probably assume the presence of Mecca and Medina means something about it being core, or purer, or something along those lines.

This isn't arguing against Wahabbism being disqualified as Islam, its arguing against it being used as THE example of Islam.

Probably has to do with us Euro-'Mericans thinking of it as an equivilent to the vatican.

Are they really?
-Wahabbism is of the Hanbali school, which is only really strongly rooted in the Arabian peninsula. Meaning its the only area that has it as state doctrine and the widespread cultural norm. Its not the norm in Tunisia right? Those you see are likely thinking of themselves as rebellious puritans fed up with the local status quo. Right?
-Wahabbism is dominant in Saudi Arabia, but remains mostly the particular following in the Nejd. With the Hejaz not being nearly so under its sway. This is also true in the neighboring Gulf states. So its not even all of the population of Saudi Arabia.
-Yes you see it popping up all over the place. And that's still coming from Saudi Arabia, funding and spreading it around through those schools they set up due to being filthy rich and all.

One of the fastest growing and internationally influential if nothing else. On that track of though i read a story yesterday about the cultural clash betwenn Syrians and the SA funded mosques in Germany, where the second and third generation German devotees scared the Syrians out of going to the mosque with their literal understanding of texts, fundamentalist guestspeakers and their harshly conservative dress codes. One would have to acknowledge that the non-representative SA Islam is much better and more effective at building their brand internationally than the chilled out regular people Islams of the world.

[Lord Gaimon]

@Monkey:

Lots of people probably assume the presence of Mecca and Medina means something about it being core, or purer, or something along those lines.

Yeah, that's why most moderates want them to be independent.

And it still remains a very poor example. For reasons I listed below to Gaimon, and that many of the extreme laws it features are unique to it.
The women not driving thing? Only country on earth to have such a law.
And what Roboblue mentioned? The thing where citizens have to be Muslim? Only country on earth to have that law.

While SA is the worst it's not the only one with extreme laws, most muslim countries have anti blasphemy laws, anti LGBT and women laws.

Are they really?
-Wahabbism is of the Hanbali school, which is only really strongly rooted in the Arabian peninsula. Meaning its the only area that has it as state doctrine and the widespread cultural norm.

Yes only gulf countries have it as state doctirine.

Its not the norm in Tunisia right? Those you see are likely thinking of themselves as rebellious puritans fed up with the local status quo. Right?

No it's not the norm here most our wahabbis leave the country because they know they can't affect anything that's why biggest number of isis foreign fighters are Tunisian.

-Wahabbism is dominant in Saudi Arabia, but remains mostly the particular following in the Nejd. With the Hejaz not being nearly so under its sway. This is also true in the neighboring Gulf states. So its not even all of the population of Saudi Arabia.

This was true a few decades ago but SA has successfully spread it around to the rest of the gulf(except oman) which was very conservative to begin with.
And they are now trying to spread around the world.

-Yes you see it popping up all over the place. And that's still coming from Saudi Arabia, funding and spreading it around through those schools they set up due to being filthy rich and all.

Yeah, but sadly i don't see people converting back to being moderates when SA isn't rich any more.
Also Saudi Arabia isn't the only one exporting Extremism there's also Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood, their affiliate Ennahda is the second biggest political party here.

[RoboBlue]

@Monkey:

As to how it starts, again its not a semi-chronological series of stories so its not gonna start with anything like Genesis.
And its not even organized in particular order, since its basically ordered by length of the passage for some reason.

That probably would've been very useful to know beforehand.

@Monkey:

I think it does. Whether people are aware of it or not, they can fall into mental traps like this with history.

I guess it could have a bit to do with my emotional response, since most of what I knew about Islam before I started reading the Quran came from either the general background noise of Israeli propaganda (they want us all dead!) or the completely uninformed leftist pro-Islam movement (Islam is the most enlightened religion of our time, they're super oppressed and they're also feminist!)

It's strange how basically all of the common knowledge Americans have about Islam is both factually dubious and completely useless.

[Monkey King]

@wolfwood:

Probably has to do with us Euro-'Mericans thinking of it as an equivilent to the vatican.

But even then, Saudi control of those cities is recent and brought out by them invading a different region then their homeland. The Saudis are from the Nejd, Mecca and Medina are in the Hejaz.

One of the fastest growing and internationally influential if nothing else.

That characterizes most fundamentalist strains in things, its true of Evangelical Christianity too, the "fastest growing" stat.
These are movements with a lot in common, and both have a radical-conservative appeal that appeals to certain sorts. But its still not pushing aside a vast and very old religious social fabric in the lands it reaches out too. And international influence….from oil money isn't quite the same thing as spiritual influence.

On that track of though i read a story yesterday about the cultural clash betwenn Syrians and the SA funded mosques in Germany, where the second and third generation German devotees scared the Syrians out of going to the mosque with their literal understanding of texts, fundamentalist guestspeakers and their harshly conservative dress codes. One would have to acknowledge that the non-representative SA Islam is much better and more effective at building their brand internationally than the chilled out regular people Islams of the world.

Its sitting on top of one one of the largest piles of cash in the world lol. And its a fundamentalist revival movement, just like in Christianity those have flashy weird fad like followings, whose strength isn't always the most long lasting thing around.

–- Update From New Post Merge ---

@Lord:

While SA is the worst it's not the only one with extreme laws, most muslim countries have anti blasphemy laws, anti LGBT and women laws.

Exactly, its the worst. My point is precisely that it exists out on a branch to begin with.

This was true a few decades ago but SA has successfully spread it around to the rest of the gulf(except oman) which was very conservative to begin with.
And they are now trying to spread around the world.

The Hejaz is still not Wahhabi. Not in the same sense as the ultra orthodox Nejd form anyway.

Yeah, but sadly i don't see people converting back to being moderates when SA isn't rich any more.
Also Saudi Arabia isn't the only one exporting Extremism there's also Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood, their affiliate Ennahda is the second biggest political party here.

I haven't seen anything to suggest Ennahda is very extremist.

[Lord Gaimon]

@Monkey:

The Hejaz is still not Wahhabi. Not in the same sense as the ultra orthodox Nejd form anyway.

It's still one of the most conservative places in the muslim world though.

I haven't seen anything to suggest Ennahda is very extremist.

they're not as extremist as Egypt's brotherhood they can't be if they want to win elections. But they've been really slowing down progress on LGBT and women's rights, and their economic policy is really right wing for some reason.

[Monkey King]

@Lord:

It's still one of the most conservative places in the muslim world though.

It is still ruled by people from the Nejd and their laws. Like a reverse Tunisia, where your southern areas may be pretty darn conservative, but the country is dominated by the considerably liberal north. And unlike Tunisia (as of so recently) Saudi isn't a democracy. So the Nejd has control in the utmost sense.
We actually had a guy here from the Hejaz (Jeddah) who may or may not still post, and he was pretty unhappy about the situation.

But they've been really slowing down progress on LGBT and women's rights, and their economic policy is really right wing for some reason.

Congratulations, you have your own Republican party!

[wolfwood]

@Monkey:

But even then, Saudi control of those cities is recent and brought out by them invading a different region then their homeland. The Saudis are from the Nejd, Mecca and Medina are in the Hejaz.

Also no be all and end all pope.

That characterizes most fundamentalist strains in things, its true of Evangelical Christianity too, the "fastest growing" stat.
These are movements with a lot in common, and both have a radical-conservative appeal that appeals to certain sorts. But its still not pushing aside a vast and very old religious social fabric in the lands it reaches out too. And international influence….from oil money isn't quite the same thing as spiritual influence.

Free flow of money combined with a theological vaccum and poor prospects can be quite a cocktail though.

Its sitting on top of one one of the largest piles of cash in the world lol. And its a fundamentalist revival movement, just like in Christianity those have flashy weird fad like followings, whose strength isn't always the most long lasting thing around.

My personal hope is that the influx of muslim immigrants from laidback normal places will temper the religious fervor of the homegrown, and not end up the other way where they get funneled into the salafist circles that are courting them with lotsa free help and goodies. And reassuringly enough the Syrian people seem mostly disturbed by people yelling at them for wearing shorts in the mosque or only having a sinful mustasche.

[Femme]

@Lord:

Why isn't Saudi Arabia representative of Islam ?

Gulf arabs , wahabis , pakistanis and the muslim brotherhood wouldn't say that.

Ehhh I think you're incorrect there. Do you know how Islam came to be? Was it in a country called Saudi Arabia, ruled by the Saud tribe? No.

–- Update From New Post Merge ---

@RoboBlue:

Yes, I agree that the story of Noah is a more brutal example of the same mass punishment archetype common in many religious texts.

Great, so I hope it's clear now that the Quran doesn't discriminate against Jews, because like I said, it's the actions that are condemned, not a people.

There was a recent Hollywood movie that depicted him as a more flawed person, conflicted but also somewhat unsympathetic towards the people whose deaths he witnessed.

Personally I'm not really interested in modern Hollywood depictions of prophets, because they basically fabricate things about the prophets just to make a better story. Curious about what other religious opinions are on the topic, though.

I'm not condemning Islam for the actions of the Saudi Arabian government, only using it as an example of hate that some Muslims have for some Jews. Israel profiles and discriminates against Palestinians, but it does so primarily by race rather than by religion (which isn't better).

I agree that the hate exists. For every Muslim I've heard expressing hate for Israel, it is 100% political rather than religious. In some ways, Judaism holds values closer to Islam than Christianity. I identify more with the Old Testament than the new.

No one likes to be deliberately excluded or discriminated against.

If tomorrow it was declared that the Vatican or some other important Christian-only religious site was declared to permit Christians only, I wouldn't be offended in the slightest. I'm not Christian, so why would I need to go there?

Mecca and Medina are important historical landmarks, and it's upsetting to know that the Saudis are actively destroying parts of them. Those two reasons are basically why for me.

That I will agree with. They could've handled the preservation of historical sites much, much better.

–- Update From New Post Merge ---

@wolfwood:

Probably has to do with us Euro-'Mericans thinking of it as an equivilent to the vatican.

That's a good point, I guess it would seem that way if one wasn't familiar with Mecca. Mecca isn't really seen as ruled by or belonging to anyone, not even the country itself. In Islam the story of how Mecca came to exist started all the way back to Abraham when his wife Hajar and son Ishmael were stranded there in the desert, and a spring miraculously appeared to quench their thirsts, which later came to be called the well of Zamzam, which is located near the Holy Mosque of Mecca. Then Abraham later rebuilt the kaba after finding the foundations that was built by Adam.

So basically the belief is that the Kaba is the world's oldest mosque, and even though the "keys" were passed from tribe to tribe, family member to family member, it belongs to no one and it's basically just a giant place of prayer, nothing else.

[Lord Gaimon]

@Femme:

Ehhh I think you're incorrect there. Do you know how Islam came to be? Was it in a country called Saudi Arabia, ruled by the Saud tribe? No.

Choosing how it came to be as islam's representative isn't much better than Saudi Arabia…

[desa]

@Captain:

I always had trouble with the act of praying, I regarded it as "asking for help to someone who will not help you," but these days, even not knowing how to pray, I pray because I know what it really means.

Genuine question:
What does praying really mean?

[RoboBlue]

@Femme:

Great, so I hope it's clear now that the Quran doesn't discriminate against Jews, because like I said, it's the actions that are condemned, not a people.

Maybe not specifically against Jews, but we've established that it does discriminate against non-Muslims in some ways. Being a nonbeliever is an action, and I really don't believe nonbelievers should be treated differently in any religion (even though it's extremely common to do so).

On a related note… what's going on here?

@Femme:

If tomorrow it was declared that the Vatican or some other important Christian-only religious site was declared to permit Christians only, I wouldn't be offended in the slightest. I'm not Christian, so why would I need to go there?

I would be. I'd probably complain about it whenever the Vatican came up in discussion, and I think a lot of people would look down on the pope for that decision.

@Femme:

That's a good point, I guess it would seem that way if one wasn't familiar with Mecca. Mecca isn't really seen as ruled by or belonging to anyone, not even the country itself. In Islam the story of how Mecca came to exist started all the way back to Abraham when his wife Hajar and son Ishmael were stranded there in the desert, and a spring miraculously appeared to quench their thirsts, which later came to be called the well of Zamzam, which is located near the Holy Mosque of Mecca. Then Abraham later rebuilt the kaba after finding the foundations that was built by Adam.

So basically the belief is that the Kaba is the world's oldest mosque, and even though the "keys" were passed from tribe to tribe, family member to family member, it belongs to no one and it's basically just a giant place of prayer, nothing else.

I don't understand. Why aren't Jews allowed to visit Mecca if they built the city and the Kaba?

[C_uggs]

@desa:

Genuine question:
What does praying really mean?

For me, personal talk with God.

[Femme]

@RoboBlue:

Maybe not specifically against Jews, but we've established that it does discriminate against non-Muslims in some ways. Being a nonbeliever is an action, and I really don't believe nonbelievers should be treated differently in any religion (even though it's extremely common to do so).

On a related note… what's going on here?

Of course it discriminates against non-believers in terms of faith. Every religion does.
In Christianity if I don't accept Jesus as my lord and saviour I am destined to hell, am I not? That is an acceptable belief because that is a core concept in Christianity.

This is like a conversation about defining what religion really is. Is it a system where you can do, say, and act however you want and get the same result in the afterlife as those who are obedient to God's rules and limits? No.

Also, I don't know anything about Indonesian politics.

I would be. I'd probably complain about it whenever the Vatican came up in discussion, and I think a lot of people would look down on the pope for that decision.

To each their own. However Mecca and Medina are not tourist destinations, they are sacred cities with a set of rules to follow if you want to visit. If one wanted to experience Islam they could walk into their local mosque and get the exact same effect.

I don't understand. Why aren't Jews allowed to visit Mecca if they built the city and the Kaba?

In the Islamic point of view, every community who followed the commands of their prophet were "Muslims". Muslim is a word that is defined as "one who submits their will to God". Every prophet was sent with the exact same message which was to leave worship of any other person, substance, or entity and worship only the One God. That is the core belief in Islam about monotheism.

One who followed Jesus was a muslim because they submitted their will to God, same with the followers of Moses. And like I said earlier, Muslims believe that prophets were Muslims too, because they submitted their wills to God and professed true Islamic monotheism. So, Abraham was a Muslim, as was his sons.

However, with the coming of Jesus and Muhammad, the last prophets, the Muslim belief is that you must also accept them as prophets and messengers of God. Rejecting Jesus as the messiah is prohibited in Islam, as is rejecting Muhammad as the last prophet.

Tl;dr Modern Judaism ≠ Islam.

–- Update From New Post Merge ---

Another subject that needs to be talked about when approaching trying to understand Islam:

[hide]It is absolutely natural to be curious about one's religion when you see it being practiced by people in both weird and wonderful ways, however I think the point has to be made that you should not use a single person or even a group of people to define a religion, because people err in ways contrary to what the religion professes.

I would not look to define Buddhism as the actions of a group of violent Buddhists killing the rohingya in Burma. My reaction would be: "Hey, does Buddhism really allow that?" I would do some research about Buddhism to understand whether those actions are acceptable or not in the lens of the religion, and I would do that by reading whatever official religious books that define Buddhism. I might ask a fellow Buddhist their opinion, but I would take their opinion only as a clue, and find the official answer myself. I would not learn about Buddhism by reading opinionated propaganda about the religion, nor would I take the example of practicing Buddhists as the perfect examples of Buddhism. I would go to the source to understand.

So I understand that people are approaching understanding Islam the exact same way, through the lens of terrorism and politics. But I think that understanding Islam should be done in the same way as what I described above. It is easy to form opinions about a religion based on what people do and say, but it's also narrow-minded. It is wiser to form opinions after reading whatever religious texts are available, and then asking questions if you don't understand. [/hide]

[wolfwood]

I'd say both has merit when it comes to understanding a religion, practiced/lived religion and theological religion are the two things that make up the religion. Especially since the textual basis is almost always open for interpretation, and wildly different interpretations are agreed upon in different sub-sects. The crux of course comes in that practioners of a religion will of course regard the texts and it's teachings as flawless and the bad stuff as errors of man. While to me as a non-practioner it will come across as different facets that aren't neccesarily any more or less theologically valid since they stem from interpretations of the same pages of text. It's probably the least common ground non-belivers and belivers will find themselves on. It's bound to get a little talking past each other isn't it?

[Femme]

@wolfwood:

I'd say both has merit when it comes to understanding a religion, practiced/lived religion and theological religion are the two things that make up the religion. Especially since the textual basis is almost always open for interpretation, and wildly different interpretations are agreed upon in different sub-sects. The crux of course comes in that practioners of a religion will of course regard the texts and it's teachings as flawless and the bad stuff as errors of man. While to me as a non-practioner it will come across as different facets that aren't neccesarily any more or less theologically valid since they stem from interpretations of the same pages of text. It's probably the least common ground non-belivers and belivers will find themselves on. It's bound to get a little talking past each other isn't it?

Absolutely, but I think that's also a discussion on culture vs. religion. Culturally, some Saudi Muslims are intolerant, restrictive, and misogynistic. Culturally, some Chinese Muslims don't fast during Ramadan because of political tensions. Culturally, some Malaysian Muslims wear the hijab just because it's what you wear in Malaysia even if you aren't a practicing Muslim.

But are all of these actions definitive of Islamic theology? It's more trying to understand the flavour that Islam takes in different places, but it's not an understanding of Islam itself.

What ties all of the millions of Muslims across the world together? It's the Quran, not culture or politics.

[wolfwood]

@Femme:

Absolutely, but I think that's also a discussion on culture vs. religion. Culturally, some Saudi Muslims are intolerant, restrictive, and misogynistic. Culturally, some Chinese Muslims don't fast during Ramadan because of political tensions. Culturally, some Malaysian Muslims wear the hijab just because it's what you wear in Malaysia even if you aren't a practicing Muslim.

But are all of these actions definitive of Islamic theology? It's more trying to understand the flavour that Islam takes in different places, but it's not an understanding of Islam itself.

What ties all of the millions of Muslims across the world together? It's the Quran, not culture or politics.

I think that's where the fact that SA has billions to pour into their international brand comes into dangerous play. They are promoting the idea that they are the purest, the most legitimate interpretation with the backing of religious symbols like mecca/kaba/etc and limitless funding. People might say oh why are people thinking that Saudi Arabia represents Islam, well it's because they are, from a perceived position of authority, putting alot of effort into telling people that they are, and quite successfully so.

[Femme]

@wolfwood:

I think that's where the fact that SA has billions to pour into their international brand comes into dangerous play. They are promoting the idea that they are the purest, the most legitimate interpretation with the backing of religious symbols like mecca/kaba/etc and limitless funding. People might say oh why are people thinking that Saudi Arabia represents Islam, well it's because they are, from a perceived position of authority, putting alot of effort into telling people that they are, and quite successfully so.

Makes complete sense that people are confused by Saudi Arabia, but that happens all the time in every Muslim country, saying their country is the islamyest. It's politics, workings of rich people within lines drawn on maps and they don't affect my faith in the slightest. Muslims believe that the world is our place of prayer. Just yesterday I dropped two of my daily prayers in an airport lounge just like whatever.

If others want to stay convinced that Saudi Arabia represents Islam than sadly that's their decision. There are millions of others who have rose above their previous mindsets and have researched, learned, and discussed with people with an open mind. Sure, it's sad that Saudi is asserting themselves as the authority in Islam but they are only the caretakers of Mecca and Madina, they didn't build them.

[wolfwood]

@Femme:

Makes complete sense that people are confused by Saudi Arabia, but that happens all the time in every Muslim country, saying their country is the islamyest. It's politics, workings of rich people within lines drawn on maps and they don't affect my faith in the slightest. Muslims believe that the world is our place of prayer. Just yesterday I dropped two of my daily prayers in an airport lounge just like whatever.

If others want to stay convinced that Saudi Arabia represents Islam than sadly that's their decision. There are millions of others who have rose above their previous mindsets and have researched, learned, and discussed with people with an open mind. Sure, it's sad that Saudi is asserting themselves as the authority in Islam but they are only the caretakers of Mecca and Madina, they didn't build them.

I'm thinking about a fairly big name in our Swedish political debate scene, he's often put forth as a well-educated history expert. Except that he doesn't actually have the degree he's been claimed to have, he's about 30 points short of his bachelors degree. But since he's been branded, introduced and treated as such, he now has, in the public mind, the credibility to be that history expert. What i'm getting at is that if people get used to thinking that a band-aid is called a band-aid then it might not make much of a difference that it's just a brand and the real article is called adhesive bandage. Which of course makes little difference in your personal faith, but public perception and the routes that are being opened for new convertes can absolutely affect the paths that a religion takes on a larger scale.

[Lord Gaimon]

@Femme:

Absolutely, but I think that's also a discussion on culture vs. religion.

Religion doesn't exist in a bubble it influences and is influenced by culture i don't think they should be viewed independently

Culturally, some Saudi Muslims are intolerant, restrictive, and misogynistic.

Theologically, islam is intolerant, restrictive, and misogynistic.

Culturally, some Malaysian Muslims wear the hijab just because it's what you wear in Malaysia even if you aren't a practicing Muslim.

The only reason the hijab exists in Malaysia is because of islam it's not Malaysian culture.

But are all of these actions definitive of Islamic theology? It's more trying to understand the flavour that Islam takes in different places, but it's not an understanding of Islam itself.
What ties all of the millions of Muslims across the world together? It's the Quran, not culture or politics.

If the Quran is the way to understand islam. How do you know which interpretation is the right one?

[Femme]

@wolfwood:

I'm thinking about a fairly big name in our Swedish political debate scene, he's often put forth as a well-educated history expert. Except that he doesn't actually have the degree he's been claimed to have, he's about 30 points short of his bachelors degree. But since he's been branded, introduced and treated as such, he now has, in the public mind, the credibility to be that history expert.

What i'm getting at is that if people get used to thinking that a band-aid is called a band-aid then it might not make much of a difference that it's just a brand and the real article is called adhesive bandage. Which of course makes little difference in your personal faith, but public perception and the routes that are being opened for new convertes can absolutely affect the paths that a religion takes on a larger scale.

On public perception of Islam: Yeah, I totally agree. That's why there's so many movements across the world of groups of Muslims trying to encourage each other to educate people about what Islam really is. Kinda like what I'm doing right now. It isn't our responsibility when a person or group or nation does horrible things in the name of Islam, but it is our responsibility to do our part in educating people. And having been part of such movements that do like volunteer work with like "Islam question and answer" tables publicly, I'd say that the majority of people are curious about what Islam really is.

Which brings me to my last point. Even though some of the burden is on the world's Muslims to promote the true Islam,it's not only our burden. The biggest responsibility for educating themselves on these sorts of issues falls on the individual, not us. People need to want to learn with an open mind. We can't force them.

On converts to Islam: Being the daughter of two converts, the wife of a convert, the sister-in-law to a convert, and the friend of tons of converts, I'd say that there is no threat whatsoever to people accepting Islam. In a hugely ironic way, sometimes people being horrified by the current day's terrorism and politics sometimes leads to them learning about what Islam really says on these issues and then converting. I've heard it from many mouths personally, it happens all the time.

–- Update From New Post Merge ---

@Lord:

Religion doesn't exist in a bubble it influences and is influenced by culture i don't think they should be viewed independently

No, that's what leads to many people developing bigoted opinions about Islam.

Here's an example:

The Quran says stealing is a sin.

A Muslim steals something.

Public goes: "OMGAD ISLAM SEZ MUSLIMS CAN STEAL STUFF!"

Muslims go: "Uh, no it doesn't. It says right here in the Quran that stealing is a sin."

Public goes: "DOESN'T MATTER, HE DID IT SO ISLAM SEZ ITS OKAY TO STEAL!"

Muslims go: "Uhhh.."

Do you see what I'm saying? If a certain country develops cultural practices then that is separate from religion.

Theologically, islam is intolerant, restrictive, and misogynistic.

That is your opinion :) I'm guessing you know all of the buzzwords that people say about Islam, I'd ask you to learn about it all in context before passing judgement.

The only reason the hijab exists in Malaysia is because of islam it's not Malaysian culture.

You missed my point :P I said the only reason some women wear hijab in Malaysia nowadays is for cultural reasons, not religious ones. Dunno if you are or if you've been to Malaysia, but if you've been there like I have, you'd understand.

If the Quran is the way to understand islam. How do you know which interpretation is the right one?

There is only one Quran. Many translations exist, but only one Quran exists. Pick the translation that has the best reputation in the language you're reading and go from there.

[Lord Gaimon]

@Femme:

No, that's what leads to many people developing bigoted opinions about Islam.

Here's an example:

The Quran says stealing is a sin.

A Muslim steals something.

Public goes: "OMGAD ISLAM SEZ MUSLIMS CAN STEAL STUFF!"

Muslims go: "Uh, no it doesn't. It says right here in the Quran that stealing is a sin."

Public goes: "DOESN'T MATTER, HE DID IT SO ISLAM SEZ ITS OKAY TO STEAL!"

Muslims go: "Uhhh.."

Do you see what I'm saying? If a certain country develops cultural practices then that is separate from religion.

I never heard of a country that has stealing as cultural practice.
And the quran also says Apostasy, homosexuality, and insulting Mohammed are sins all punishable by death.
But do you know what isn't a sin in islam? slavery, pedophilia , rape and beating your wife.
is that just culture?

That is your opinion :) I'm guessing you know all of the buzzwords that people say about Islam, I'd ask you to learn about it all in context before passing judgement.

I live in a muslim country ,most people i know are muslims ,i've read the quran twice, i read the sirah, i had 10 years of islamic "studies" class.
I think i know enough to judge.

There is only one Quran. Many translations exist, but only one Quran exists. Pick the translation that has the best reputation in the language you're reading and go from there.

I've read the quran in arabic and my conclusion is that it's a really fucked up book.

[RazgrizX]

I was raised in mildly catholic family( agnostic dad, catholic mom that doesn't really care about it) but I never bought it and pretty much been an atheist all my life. I used to be the "fuck all religions" atheist type too but I guess I've grown out of it. I still think religion does more harm than good to some extent but I see it's just naive and counter-productive to just antagonize people like that.

[Lord Gaimon]

I'm not really the "fuck all religions" type either.
And how am i antagonizing anyone?

[Femme]

@Lord:

I never heard of a country that has stealing as cultural practice.

It was a simple example that can be applied to any action seen as negative which is attributed to Islam. Women not allowed to drive in Saudi? Culture. Female genital mutiliation? Culture. Etc.

And the quran also says Apostasy, homosexuality, and insulting Mohammed are sins all punishable by death.
But do you know what isn't a sin in islam? slavery, pedophilia , rape and beating your wife.

Let's play Context! A way of understanding scary issues with a wider view!

[hide]_It is the year 578 CE, and you are living in pre-Islamic tribal Arabia.

Society is very different from your own. Women's rights were nonexistent, and they were also fair game for killing. It is absolutely normal to be upset with one of your many, many wives giving birth to a female child, and acceptable to bury the baby alive. Some men even buried their older female children alive if they were tired of them. Women did not receive equal treatment from their husbands, so some were given more from their husbands than others. Some husbands allowed their friends to have sex with their wives when they visited. Women did not have any inheritance rights. Some husbands diminished the status of his wife to untouchable, but not divorced either.

Slavery was a part of society, just as it was for pretty much the rest of the world. This is the 5th century, after all. Slaves had no rights either, and if a man impregnated his slave which was common, both she and her child would both be slaves to him. Mistreatment of slaves was, of course, common. Freeing of slaves was never done.

Marriage to children was commonplace all over the world. This is the 5th century, after all.

Suddenly Islam comes into society and it is a complete revolution. Women have rights they never had before. Men can only have a maximum of 4 wives now, and if a man can't treat them equally, then less, or none. Women have the right to inherit land and money from their deceased relatives. Women are given exclusive access to the prophet to discuss any and every concern they have, and receive justice every time. Burial of female children was abolished.

Slaves had rights they never had before. There is now great importance in Muslim society in freeing slaves. You hear of people rushing to buy slaves their freedom in hopes for rewards from God. If a man had a child with his slave, she was now had the status of a wife and he had to treat her as such, and the child seen as legitimate.

Islam is now a singular nation among numerous pagan tribes in Arabia. Apostasy means you are leaving the nation to rejoin the enemy tribes that are attacking the Muslims, so of course treason would be met with death._

You're wrong about rape and beating of wives. Both have punishments.

Homosexuality as a sin isn't unique. Did you know that the story of Lot and Sodom also are in the gasp bible?

The question of how to reconcile with marriage to children, slavery, and some of the more "shocking" practices that don't exist anymore in today's world is simple.

The world has changed, these issues do not affect the core concepts in Islam, so just forget it and move on. Is the fact that freeing slaves is no longer a thing I can do affect the core monotheism in Islam? No.
Does the fact that child marriage is taboo in most countries now affect Islamic monotheism? No.

So I now just understand that these were non-universal laws that applied to their society, just like the previous prophets had laws that applied to only their society, and it no longer applies to mine. It doesn't change anything about the concept of God in Islam so there's no need to focus on it.[/hide]

[wolfwood]

@Lord:

I live in a muslim country ,most people i know are muslims ,i've read the quran twice, i read the sirah, i had 10 years of islamic "studies" class.
I think i know enough to judge.

But you yourself are not muslim? Mind if i ask what it's like to be an atheist in Tunisia?

From your posts here it kinda seems like it's fairly relaxed place from a religious stand-point.

[firelord111]

@Femme:

but they are only the caretakers of Mecca and Madina, they didn't build them.

well you cant say thay are care taker when they destroy historical buildings and how they treat people in hajj
How they ensure the safety of people in hajj you dont need example
You know iranians cant go to hajj this year cause of politics

[SmokerSan]

@Lord:

But do you know what isn't a sin in islam? slavery, pedophilia , rape and beating your wife.

Plus royaliste que le roi? What's this? Rape? Pedophilia? Slavery? Even though one of the best deeds a human can do is free slaves?

@Lord:

I've read the quran in arabic and my conclusion is that it's a really fucked up book.

Please read the title of the thread. And have at least the slightest sign of respect to us here. You don't like it, Ok, we got it.

–- Update From New Post Merge ---

@firelord111:

well you cant say thay are care taker when they destroy historical buildings and how they treat people in hajj

That's the whole point. They are doing everything wrong with their "taking care" of them. They shouldn't have the right to ban all Iranians to go to do the pilgrim, yet they do. They are now destroying every historical aspect of those sacred cities and reducing them into huge shopping centers.

[RazgrizX]

@Lord:

I'm not really the "fuck all religions" type either.
And how am i antagonizing anyone?

I was not talking to you. The point of this thread is to discuss religion and your religious background in case you missed that.

But it's pretty telling that you thought I was

[Carmilla]

@RazgrizX:

I used to be the "fuck all religions" atheist type too but I guess I've grown out of it. I still think religion does more harm than good to some extent but I see it's just naive and counter-productive to just antagonize people like that.

I am a "fuck all religions" type without even being an atheist, lol.
It's not necessary to antagonise anything or anyone, though. I accept it as others' views but I can't stand a religion near me and I strongly dislike its concept. But I don't go "you are religious, you suck, no religion should exist". I accept that it is as it is now and that with the current condition of the world and people, it even helps some and is needed for them.

[firelord111]

@SmokerSan:

Plus royaliste que le roi? What's this? Rape? Pedophilia? Slavery? Even though one of the best deeds a human can do is free slaves?

Please read the title of the thread. And have at least the slightest sign of respect to us here. You don't like it, Ok, we got it.

–- Update From New Post Merge ---

That's the whole point. They are doing everything wrong with their "taking care" of them. They shouldn't have the right to ban all Iranians to go to do the pilgrim, yet they do. They are now destroying every historical aspect of those sacred cities and reducing them into huge shopping centers.

to be honest im kinda happy iranians cant go to hajj lately we had to pray for people who go to hajj they even recruit afghans and other people who know persian just to bother iranians and not letting them going in certain places