Islam-Violence?

[BeerShaman]

Is it true that Islam says that the Islamist religion must be spreaded even by the use of violence and war? (Our dumb f**king teacher said this in school and then she opposed it to christianism and worked out the thought htat christianism is better!) But don't matter the phrase between the: ().

[Sir Comradical]

Actually yes, Islam was spread at least partially by the sword, just ask a Sikh.

"The unbelievers among the People of the Book [Bible] and the pagans shall burn for ever in the fire of Hell. They are the vilest of all creatures." - Quran 98:6

It's quite a pathetic and backward religion to be honest. Yeah sure it's written beautifully in Arabic, but the content is pure bigotry.

Your teacher is stupid only because she thinks Christianity has a nicer history - which is wrong.

[Quail]

It's quite a pathetic and backward religion to be honest. Yeah sure it's written beautifully in Arabic, but the content is pure bigotry.

I doubt it's worse than any others.

[timbaly]

I doubt it's worse than any others.


Perhaps Buddhism isn't as bad. It doesn't really matter and it's all impossible to compare.

[Sir Comradical]

I doubt it's worse than any others.

I'd say that at an ideological level Islam is worse than Christianity and better than Judaism.

[Mood]

I'd say that at an ideological level Islam is worse than Christianity and better than Judaism.

How do you figure, exactly?

[Jazzratt]

Actually yes, Islam was spread at least partially by the sword, just ask a Sikh.

"The unbelievers among the People of the Book [Bible] and the pagans shall burn for ever in the fire of Hell. They are the vilest of all creatures." - Quran 98:6

It's quite a pathetic and backward religion to be honest. Yeah sure it's written beautifully in Arabic, but the content is pure bigotry.

Your teacher is stupid only because she thinks Christianity has a nicer history - which is wrong. When I was taught about Islam in school I was always told the initial spread led by Mohammed was relatively bloodless. Of course given the era "relatively bloodless" was still quite bloody.

Arguments with people versed in Islamic theology feel a bit more taxing than those versed in christian theology, incidentally. I'm not saying that it's a great religion that promotes scholarly thought or anything (I think the idea of such a religion is fucking laughable) but I don't think that it should be judged so harshly given the competition.

[red cat]

Actually yes, Islam was spread at least partially by the sword, just ask a Sikh.



Almost all major religions required military and economic violence for their propagation and enforcement.

[Hiero]

Islamist religion must be spreaded even by the use of violence and war?


The worrying point is not about past, which we can all agree during that all religions had armies of conquest, but that she said "must". I assuming that the original post has copied what she said with some accuracy.

The teacher is playing into the political narrative that Muslims are conspirarying to take the West by force or other means (migration).

[Widerstand]

The worrying point is not about past, which we can all agree during that all religions had armies of conquest, but that she said "must". I assuming that the original post has copied what she said with some accuracy.

The teacher is playing into the political narrative that Muslims are conspirarying to take the West by force or other means (migration).

Which is bullshit. Even the openly nutjob Muslim sects, such as the jihadist Muslim Brotherhood, only talked about fighting an occupation.

[Quail]

I think it's worrying that leftists are singling out Islam as some kind of evil religion. There's nothing wrong with criticising Islam, but it should be done in the context of all religion being oppressive. I don't think you can objectively say that one religion is worse than the others. You're on a slippery slope there.

[Widerstand]

I think it's worrying that leftists are singling out Islam as some kind of evil religion. There's nothing wrong with criticising Islam, but it should be done in the context of all religion being oppressive. I don't think you can objectively say that one religion is worse than the others. You're on a slippery slope there.

Frankly I think the singling out of Islam, or rather an intensified critical discourse about Islam, is justified on the grounds that most existing Theocracies are Islamic, that lots of the left support or sympathize with Muslim groups in their struggle against oppression, and that Islam has become object of heavy right wing/racist/xenophobic attacks.

[Quail]

Frankly I think the singling out of Islam, or rather an intensified critical discourse about Islam, is justified on the grounds that most existing Theocracies are Islamic, that lots of the left support or sympathize with Muslim groups in their struggle against oppression, and that Islam has become object of heavy right wing/racist/xenophobic attacks.
It's wrong for left groups to single out Islam and attack muslims as opposed to the religion, which I think can often quite easily happen. I obviously am not a fan of the muslim theocracies, but you have to ask yourself - if any other religion had such control, would things be any better? The answer is clearly no.

[Widerstand]

It's wrong for left groups to single out Islam and attack muslims as opposed to the religion, which I think can often quite easily happen. I obviously am not a fan of the muslim theocracies, but you have to ask yourself - if any other religion had such control, would things be any better? The answer is clearly no.

I agree with those, in fact I've brought up the same argument in regards to Anti-Zionism.

But still, I support an intensified focus on recent topics, and Islam certainly is one - and by that I don't mean per se attacks on Islam. Those are, sadly even on the left, usually quite unreflected reproductions of popular sentiments. Surely there are points about Islam that deserve to be attacked, but as you said, Islam is not an ultimate evil. And I think a critical and less polemic discussion would actually clear up a lot of confusion as to what it is and is not. Also it is necessary to defeat the myth that Islam is 'worse' than other religions, it really has a lot parallels as you said.

[synthesis]

I think the "singling out" of Islam among the Western left just reflects an intrusion of bourgeois discourse into leftist politics. (So much jargon...) It is in the interests of capital to present Islam as a "reactionary religion" and to present "Islamic theocracies" as somehow qualitatively worse than other dictatorships and subsequently many leftists are falling for it, hook, line and sinker.

[Widerstand]

I think the "singling out" of Islam among the Western left just reflects an intrusion of bourgeois discourse into leftist politics. (So much jargon...) It is in the interests of capital to present Islam as a "reactionary religion" and to present "Islamic theocracies" as somehow qualitatively worse than other dictatorships and subsequently many leftists are falling for it, hook, line and sinker.

I think many are confusing symptom with evil. Many Islamic countries are rather underdeveloped, and have never experienced massive secular movements such as the Western Enlightenment. That such countries cling to theocratic, religious "fundamentalist" (for lack of a better word) structures is inherent in their stage of cultural and economical development, not an aspect of Islam. Islam is not the cause, it merely fills the gap.

[Queercommie Girl]

I'd say that at an ideological level Islam is worse than Christianity and better than Judaism.

How is Judaism more reactionary than Christianity? Did Jews ever massacre Christians en masse like what medieval European Christians and Nazis did to Jews?

Regarding Islam, who was the invader during the time of the Crusades? Not Muslims.

As things stand now, Islam is actually more progressive than Christianity, because most Islamic countries are very poor neo-colonial nations dominated by Western imperialism, so it has a lower class basis. Whereas many strands of Western Christianity today are actively funded by Big Business and don't give a shit about the poor, like those completely insane televangelist cultists in the US.

At least Islamic fundamentalism has a concrete materialistic political foundation. Christian fundamentalism on the other hand is just an insane cult that is literally waiting for the end of the world.

Apart from Liberation Theology, there exists no partially progressive versions of Christianity in the world today. Both Protestant fundamentalism and orthodox conservative Catholicism are clearly very reactionary.

[Hiero]

Regarding Islam, who was the invader during the time of the Crusades? Not Muslims.


I guess you would have to look at Spain and the Balkans. Maybe even Cyprus for current events. Even though the Turkish government is secular, there is still the play on the Islmaic Ottoman Empire at work in Cyprus.

[Obzervi]

Why the fuck would a revolutionary defend any religion?

[Obzervi]

How is Judaism more reactionary than Christianity? Did Jews ever massacre Christians en masse like what medieval European Christians and Nazis did to Jews?

All the religions are terrible. Judaism is just as bad as Islam because it teaches exclusivity and that its followers are "chosen by God" and superior. It justifies the killing of innocent men and women in Palestine on the grounds that the land was given to them by an invisible God thousands of years ago. Christianity doesn't get a free pass either.

[Queercommie Girl]

Why the fuck would a revolutionary defend any religion?

No-one is defending religions, but "progressive" and "reactionary" are relative.

Some religions are more progressive than others. Who in their right mind would say that Liberation Theology that is very pro-poor and believe in queer rights is just as bad as televangelist fundamentalism that is extremely homophobic and don't give a shit about any poor people?

[Sir Comradical]

How is Judaism more reactionary than Christianity? Did Jews ever massacre Christians en masse like what medieval European Christians and Nazis did to Jews?

Regarding Islam, who was the invader during the time of the Crusades? Not Muslims.

As things stand now, Islam is actually more progressive than Christianity, because most Islamic countries are very poor neo-colonial nations dominated by Western imperialism, so it has a lower class basis. Whereas many strands of Western Christianity today are actively funded by Big Business and don't give a shit about the poor, like those completely insane televangelist cultists in the US.

At least Islamic fundamentalism has a concrete materialistic political foundation. Christian fundamentalism on the other hand is just an insane cult that is literally waiting for the end of the world.

Apart from Liberation Theology, there exists no partially progressive versions of Christianity in the world today. Both Protestant fundamentalism and orthodox conservative Catholicism are clearly very reactionary.

I said "at an ideological level".

[Queercommie Girl]

I said "at an ideological level".


Historical Materialism suggests that "religious teachings in the abstract" are essentially meaningless, and the only correct way to analyse religions would be to look at their concrete historical impact.

[Hiero]

Historical Materialism suggests that "religious teachings in the abstract" are essentially meaningless, and the only correct way to analyse religions would be to look at their concrete historical impact.

Excactly. At an "ideological" level laissez faire capitalism means I am a complete individual who is protect through consumer rights.

[4 Leaf Clover]

We should actually promote atheism. There are people with religious beliefs even on revleft , which needs to be sorted out :cool:

[freepalestine]

When I was taught about Islam in school I was always told the initial spread led by Mohammed was relatively bloodless. Of course given the era "relatively bloodless" was still quite bloody.

...the middle east,greater syria,palestine etc was ruled by the christian byzantine empire,and wars between the muslims of arabia and the byzantines created the spread of islam (in that area),rather than just down to 'islam was spread by violence'.
in relation to palestine/christian levant ,the judeans etc in 700ad (although not muslim)
,supported the muslims to end the occupation by the byzantines.
still i guess tax breaks spread islam more than wars.