Islam.

[Derendscools]

I want to talk about Islam, it's actually why I joined, to get some sort of opinion from leftists. What do you think of Islam?

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

You guys hate Tommy?

With this post and this thread, I'm getting a bad feeling about you, Derendscools.

[Derendscools]

Okay. I have a good feeling about you.:)

Whats your opinion?

[Admiral Swagmeister G-Funk]

i feel the same about islam as i do with all organized religion - that it can be utilized in various contexts for political violence and as a political system in itself. this is a lot more complicated than islam itself, which is an ideology that is susceptible to interpretation and its utilization in various contexts occurs as a result of interpretation, rather than any kind of objective "fact" about the religion itself. for example, the international relations which surround the conflict between certain interpretations of islam and western liberalism are a lot more complicated and multi-layered - let's say materially speaking - than a mere conflict of values and ideologies. the socio-economic and political conditions that precede islamic fundamentalism, which i assume is the kind of islam we are talking about, have to be understood before any assumptions about islam or muslims are made.

i'm suspecting that you're an edl type so i'll shorten it and say that there are those of you on the right that are just as irrational as many on the left who will blindly defend islam in itself, just as people on the right blindly condemn it, even violently. the fact is that ideologies have to be understood in relation to the material conditions in which they flourish - this requires a dynamic, objective and adaptive mode of analysis which can't be accounted for via any rigid anti or pro islam discourse. i would hope that most members of this forum would agree.

[DOOM]

As a muslim, I have to say that I have a problem with the organization.
It's more like a corporation than a place to go for religious people.

[Derendscools]

Thanks for the replys, I will respond later today. Admiral I had to re-read your post like 10 times because I honestly am not familar with all of the terms you used. But what are the socio-economic conditions that precede islamic fundamentalism. The mere notion of understanding Islam and not denouncing it as pure evil, sounds like you're defending Islam to me.:(

[Admiral Swagmeister G-Funk]

Thanks for the replys, I will respond later today. Admiral I had to re-read your post like 10 times because I honestly am not familar with all of the terms you used. But what are the socio-economic conditions that precede islamic fundamentalism. The mere notion of understanding Islam and not denouncing it as pure evil, sounds like you're defending Islam to me.:(
if you can't understand what i said then you have no business calling anything "evil".

if you've gathered the knowledge you need to call islam evil then surely you can read up on world history, ideology, basic sociology and, without even needing to be a marxist, you might avoid simplifying complex social phenomena as merely evil.

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

I want to talk about Islam, it's actually why I joined, to get some sort of opinion from leftists. What do you think of Islam?

It's pretty cool if you ask me. I'm also Muslim (Sufi). What exactly do want to discuss here?

[Comrade Jacob]

Like most religions I have no problem with them if they are purely personal and do not stop people from struggling against capitalism. (e.i If it is used as an painkiller) There are plenty of communist Muslims.

[IBleedRed]

Islam is reactionary. It's no more so, however, than any other major organized religion, although its influence in the Middle East is far more extensive than Christianity's influence throughout most of Europe.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Like all religions it's contradictory on a social level. In capitalist societies appeals to people seeking values, community, and a refuge from the naked demand of market-based life. Like the new pope is attempting. But it primarily prescribes moralistic and personal ways to do this. Tied into the moralism are usually some much more mixed and often reactionary prescriptions about how the masses need to order their lives to live correctly under the system. At best this excuses and side-steps the real problems of society (charity, not liberation, empathy alone not practical solidarity, etc) but often it's a way for ruling interests to promote moral beliefs or practices that help maintain their rule.

[Derendscools]

without even needing to be a marxist, you might avoid simplifying complex social phenomena as merely evil.

No. Some things are evil.


It's pretty cool if you ask me. I'm also Muslim (Sufi). What exactly do want to discuss here?

Since you are a Muslim, do you not see the teachings of Islam and the Prophet as evil? Am I alone in this view?(And I dont want to offend you, this is just what I have learned from my research on Islam.)


This reads as if it were a leftist troll's response to the one reasonable post on some rightist message board.

Rightist are 99% of the time not reasonable, but the denunciation of Islam is.

Comrade Jacob, I dont see how Communism and Islam can mix, they are Extremely contradictory.:(
IBlledRed, I would argue that it is more reactionary than any other major organised religion.
Jimmie Higgins, I wouldn't say it side steps the problems, but increases it.

Thank you for reading.

[Admiral Swagmeister G-Funk]

No. Some things are evil.


sounds like something a religious person would say. like a muslim, for example.

[Thirsty Crow]

The mere notion of understanding Islam and not denouncing it as pure evil, sounds like you're defending Islam to me.:(
Only goes on to show the idiocy of the modern clash-of-civilization drivel found on the right. Especially since, y'know, combating something necessitates understanding it first.

[Jimmie Higgins]

No. Some things are evil.Things described as Axises?


Rightist are 99% of the time not reasonable, but the denunciation of Islam is.They are not denouncing some bit of theology, they are creating xenophobic and bigoted rationales for wars that from the point of view of the population have no good rationale (unless they are swayed by a bigoted view of "inherently irrational others". Obama does the same but in a paternalistic way often.


Comrade Jacob, I dont see how Communism and Islam can mix, they are Extremely contradictory.:(People are contradictory. communism is a set of relations; communist ideas in a broad sense could be religious or not, Marxist ideas are materialist and so view religion and religious ideas as social phenomena (and strives not to adopt idealism, religious or secular).

I've met an number of people who believe in Islam and who also have socialist ideas. They do not see these things as contradictory and interpret the theology and practice in ways that emphasize community, common ownership, tolerance etc. As a Marxist I have some specific political criticisms of these ideas in a political context (the moralism I mentioned before, for example - I'm not really concerned with "greed" in the abstract like religious oriented socialists, I'm concerned with exploitation and oppression). But if there was a revolution, people don't have to be Marxists, historical materialists, etc to have class consciousness and fight in their class interests and so I'm pretty sure aethiest Marxists and Anarchists will be standing side by side with radical workers who also happen to have religious ideas.

You talk about Islam as if it's one thing but it's not. No religion is, no religion is interpreted the same way over time or even by people in different class situations. Religion can be used in reactionary ways or can be interpreted in progressive ways... for example both pro and anti-slavery forces in the US were religious-based. Religious ideas and theology are just writings, moral codes, etc. What matters more is the politics and general things going on in society. Slave-owners see Baptist teachings one way while Slaves see it another. The Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood are not a barrier to revolution because of religious ideas but because of their politics and who runs them and what their class interests are. For political reasons they will persecute and scapegoat the Copts, but in the mass protests, Muslims and Copts had solidarity and protected each-other from the police.

[helot]

Calling Islam evil in the current context in the west is nothing more than jumping on the bandwagon of hostility towards Muslims. This isn't to say we shouldn't have criticisms but that these criticisms need to either be a general hostility to anthing that isn't materialism or commenting on specific things while also pointing out the variability in how Muslims see X or Y. I think it's imperative to try to combat the racism and xenophobia inherent in standad western criticisms of Islam that always try to paint a picture of Islam and thus Muslims as being homogenous.

[Tim Cornelis]

Since you are a Muslim, do you not see the teachings of Islam and the Prophet as evil? Am I alone in this view?(And I dont want to offend you, this is just what I have learned from my research on Islam.)

Yeah sure, a Muslim is going to answer that question affirmatively.

[ComradeChe]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Derendscools
Since you are a Muslim, do you not see the teachings of Islam and the Prophet as evil? Am I alone in this view?(And I dont want to offend you, this is just what I have learned from my research on Islam.)




Yeah sure, a Muslim is going to answer that question affirmatively.

As a Muslim who studied Islam for 12 years in school and later took some courses in Abrahamic in college, I have pretty mixed feelings about Islam, I never thought Islam itself was evil, but what I always thought was fundamentally wrong (maybe evil) is that Islam left a huge place for interpretation to the verses of Quran or the Sunnah (the deeds and words of the prophet). I think this kind of liberty to interpret the verses and teachings led to many of the evils done in the name of Islam. on the other hand, I always found it hard to believe that this book has survived over 1400 years without alteration. Other than that, I don't see Islam better or worse than any other organized religion in our world.

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

is that Islam left a huge place for interpretation to the verses of Quran or the Sunnah (the deeds and words of the prophet). I think this kind of liberty to interpret the verses and teachings led to many of the evils done in the name of Islam. on the other hand, I always found it hard to believe that this book has survived over 1400 years without alteration. Other than that, I don't see Islam better or worse than any other organized religion in our world.

This is of course the very intention and this is common in all major religions, and it is exactly this that is their strength and diversity. The clergy were historically a part of the ruling class and, the need thus arise that they respond to changes in the world. If the text is too clear, this will be difficult. It needs literary vagueness & poetry to become adaptable. Then one can reinterpret and change practical policies as needed. This is common not only in Islam but in all sorts of religions, including some non-Abrahamic ones.

So by selecting quotations and fragments you can essentially build up a sort of theological support for whatever you want to push, and it all works well. Sometimes this might even be support for things that are relatively progressive - i.e. Catholic liberation theology, and similar things.

This passion for vagueness can also be seen in other expressions. Ponder the American Christian Right's favourite translation of the Bible is the King James version, which is notoriously poor and warped from the actual foundation manuscripts, translated from a translation and so on. But the vagueness that arises from the garbled translation is actually something that they find directly desirable.

[Zostrianos]

Islam as a whole is not the problem, but rather Wahhabism, Salafism and similar movements, which are pure evil, and gaining more and more influence. The Saudi form of Wahhabism is not only one of the most brutal forms of theocracy in history, it's also fiercely capitalistic (just like its Christian equivalent: American Protestant Fundamentalism). Poor migrants who come to the Gulf states are overworked, treated like slaves, and have their passports and most of their rights taken away.
Not to mention Wahhabism's notorious hatred for culture (qv the Taliban demolition of the Bamyan Buddhas, destruction of Sufi shrines in Pakistan and north Africa, and the ongoing deliberate destruction of Saudi archeological sites), again very similar to that same hatred for culture that Protestant Christian missionaries are known for.


As a Muslim who studied Islam for 12 years in school and later took some courses in Abrahamic in college, I have pretty mixed feelings about Islam, I never thought Islam itself was evil, but what I always thought was fundamentally wrong (maybe evil) is that Islam left a huge place for interpretation to the verses of Quran or the Sunnah (the deeds and words of the prophet). I think this kind of liberty to interpret the verses and teachings led to many of the evils done in the name of Islam. on the other hand, I always found it hard to believe that this book has survived over 1400 years without alteration. Other than that, I don't see Islam better or worse than any other organized religion in our world.

The religions that usually slide into fundamentalism do so by their very nature. Organized Christianity and Islam are intolerant and triumphalist by nature, and their history proves that (no religions in history have left as much misery, devastation, and death behind them as those two). Now there are moderate Muslims and Christians, but the extremists have a huge deal of influence, especially when they manage to convince the others that they have the true interpretation of the religion (again, like Wahhabis or Evangelicals). And they'll continue to have influence, because they're spreading.

Now you can say whatever you want about other religions, but looking at history the crimes committed by Pagans, Hindus, Buddhists, and others by comparison are almost insignificant, because those religions are tolerant by nature. Sure, even they have a few degenerates (Hindu nationalists, militant Buddhists in Burma), but they're doomed to failure, because they're trying to turn their religions into something they're not, and the moderates always win. Which is not the case with Christianity and Islam.

Judaism is an interesting example, as it is an exclusive religion, but has no mandate to proselytize. Hence why Jews have an almost unblemished record of tolerance for and coexistence with other faiths.

[Admiral Swagmeister G-Funk]

^what about modern zionism, in relation to your last sentence?

[Jimmie Higgins]

Hence why Jews have an almost unblemished record of tolerance for and coexistence with other faiths. ^what about modern zionism, in relation to your last sentence?Yeah if the statement is generally true, I'd guess that historical repression and marginalization is probably a bigger factor in people of this faith not oppressing as much.

Also on a side-note: Merchant of Venice reflects a (IMO xenophobic) view of Jews that's pretty similar to modern xenophobia around Islam in the UK (Shylock is shown as being too insular against "modern" "free" society in Venice, he's controlling of his daughter and places more importance on tradition and honor than on her feelings or love for the Merchant) or some immigrant groups in the US. So I'd say how people perceive people of various religions is also very linked to what's going on in society both for the oppressed and the oppressor. So if the middle east was all Jewish and the US was trying to invade, I'm pretty sure we'd be hearing a lot of anti-semtic stuff about how jews have their own schools and are too insular and are too sexist since men and women can't go to religious things together in the way some people practice, etc. We'd learn all the most bizzare sounding and reactionary sounding parts of the old testament from right-wing pundits and we'd hear about how G-d and God are two totally different deities.

[Devrim]

...and we'd hear about how G-d and God are two totally different deities.

Do people in the US really claim that the god of the Koran is different from the god of the Bible?

Devrim

[Igor]

Do people in the US really claim that the god of the Koran is different from the god of the Bible?

DevrimNot all, but a lot of people yeah. Its not exactly a mainstream view but something more out-there evangelical christians, conservatives and pro-israeli folks advocate, to separate muslims from the "judeochristian" tradition. i've never heard this view expressed in a context that wasnt openly antagonistic towards muslims so yeah

[greenforest]

Do people in the US really claim that the god of the Koran is different from the god of the Bible?

Devrim

Why would they accept the deity from a book they consider fictitious?

[Zukunftsmusik]

Why would they accept the deity from a book they consider fictitious?

Allah and God are very commonly understood as the same deity, at least in Europe (and I would think in the Middle East too). I've never seen people claim otherwise until I saw this thread either.

[greenforest]

Islam is reactionary. It's no more so, however, than any other major organized religion, although its influence in the Middle East is far more extensive than Christianity's influence throughout most of Europe.

How can religions be equally reactionary when they have their own distinct ideologies, teachings and beliefs?

Even if religion is inherently reactionary, why would you assume religion A and B are automatically equally reactionary?

Is Heaven's Gate no more reactionary than Reform Judaism? Really?

[Jimmie Higgins]

Do people in the US really claim that the god of the Koran is different from the god of the Bible?

DevrimYeah some high profile right-wingers and evangelicals will argue this - as well as deny that Islamic teachings also include Jesus as a prophet. I saw one pundit deny that a terrorist act by white Christians was legitimately terrorism because: "terrorism is well known to be the tactic used only by Muslims".

Yeah it's absurd. It's just xenophobia and demonetization to maintain support for imperialism. I don't even know much about theology, but I know at least those basic things. Anyway, it seems like in the UK the Islamophobia is much more based in anti-immigrant xenophobia whereas in the US it's much more like anti-semitism and anti-catholic sentiments pre-WWII. That's just my impression though.

[greenforest]

Allah and God are very commonly understood as the same deity, at least in Europe (and I would think in the Middle East too). I've never seen people claim otherwise until I saw this thread either.

So that answers the question why Christians would be expected to believe the god of a religion they believe is fictitious is the same god they worship...how?

Let me give a very simple example: If I start my own religion tomorrow, claiming the god from whom I receive orders is the same as the god of the Koran, would I expect Muslims to be obliged to agree with me?

[Zukunftsmusik]

Let me give a very simple example: If I start my own religion tomorrow, claiming the god from whom I receive orders is the same as the god of the Koran, would I expect Muslims to be obliged to agree with me?

No, but maybe if you adhered to a religion that originated in the same region and tradition (you know, abrahamic (abramic?) religions - they're called that for a reason), yeah, you could expect someone from a different religion to agree you believe in the same god.

[greenforest]

No, but maybe if you adhered to a religion that originated in the same region and tradition (you know, abrahamic (abramic?) religions - they're called that for a reason), yeah, you could expect someone from a different religion to agree you believe in the same god.

Those seem like arbitrary reasons for Christians to be expected to believe the god of a religion they view as fictitious is the same as their god.

And if I started my religion in the 'region' and incorporate some of Islam's tradition, that would prove to Muslims my god is the same as their god?

Why are people expected to dumb down their thinking to accept circular reasoning because 'my holy book says so'?

[Zukunftsmusik]

Those seem like arbitrary reasons for Christians to be expected to believe the god of a religion they view as fictitious is the same as their god.

And if I started my religion in the 'region' and incorporate some of Islam's tradition, that would prove to Muslims my god is the same as their god?

Why are people expected to dumb down their thinking to accept circular reasoning because 'my holy book says so'?

I don't even understand what you're arguing. That Allah and God is the same deity has been agreed upon by theologians and believers in both religions for I don't know how long. As is stated in this thread, it's only in the U.S. some nutjobs believe otherwise. Seeing that they use this to put forth xenophobia and racism (as is also stated in this thread - twice), I don't know why you're arguing for U.S. christians' right to deny this - if that's even what you're saying.

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

Do people in the US really claim that the god of the Koran is different from the god of the Bible?

Devrim

There's actually whole theories about how Allah is really a moon god. This is obviously absurd considering Christians in countries were Arabic is predominately spoken also refer to God as Allah; a fact missed by those whom peddle this drivel.

To address GreenForest, you are free to believe that Jesus was the final prophet, Muhammad (pbuh) as a false prophet and so on however this doesn't mean we don't worship the same God considering to argue in the negative would be like claiming Jews don't worship the same God as you.

I will be going more in-depth with this later however I just want to point out it was the pagan Aztecs whom had 'flower wars' to capture and enslave innocent ppl before cutting open their chest and ripping out their still beating heart. It was the pagan Greeks whom would put condemned souls into a bronze bull and literally cook them alive, their death screams reminiscent of bull noises. Or the pagan Romans who forced Christians to fight lions and bears. Before we start the usual shitting on Muslims and Christians fest, lets be real here. More to come later.

[greenforest]

To address GreenForest, you are free to believe that Jesus was the final prophet, Muhammad (pbuh) as a false prophet and so on however this doesn't mean we don't worship the same God considering to argue in the negative would be like claiming Jews don't worship the same God as you.

Beyond circular reasoning, you don't address why Christians would believe the god of the Koran is the same god they worship if they view the Koran as false.

[greenforest]

I don't even understand what you're arguing. That Allah and God is the same deity has been agreed upon by theologians and believers in both religions for I don't know how long. As is stated in this thread, it's only in the U.S. some nutjobs believe otherwise. Seeing that they use this to put forth xenophobia and racism (as is also stated in this thread - twice), I don't know why you're arguing for U.S. christians' right to deny this - if that's even what you're saying.

Of course Muslim theologians believe the god of the Koran and Bible are the same. Duh.

Where do you imagine anyone argued otherwise, ever?

Then why include this useless point other than to pad your comment with a true statement blended in pointed arguments?

...

This isn't a popularity contest. I don't care how many Christian theologians of yester-century supposedly believed the gods of the Koran and Bible were the same.

(For the record, until recent times, I doubt there were many Christian theologians who believed the god of Islam and Christianity were the same; in which case you manage to cut the branch on which you're standing, incidentally - but hey, why worry about coherent arguments at this point?)

If only one Christian did not believe in the Koran, but believed in the Bible, how would you imagine you can prove an unprovable assertion?

With facts? Well, no, you can't, as this is a matter of logic based off belief.

If I don't believe in the Koran, but believe in the Bible, it is entirely ridiculous for me to believe the god of the Koran is the same as the god of the Bible.

What is difficult to understand about that?

This is like claiming the Marcionite belief that god of the New Testament and god of the Old Testament were separate is wrong.

I won't insult your intelligence by claiming all Marcionites were xenophobic racists and should therefore be opposed, including their perfectly logical beliefs.

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

Beyond circular reasoning, you don't address why Christians would believe the god of the Koran is the same god they worship if they view the Koran as false.

Yes, I did. Re-read what I said. Just because you believe that Muhammad (pbuh) is a false prophet and reject the teachings of Islam does not negate the fact that he and every Muslim since has talked of the same God as worshiped by Moses, David, Solomon, Abraham (Ishmael/Issac) and, yes, Jesus. This has nothing to do with circular reasoning, so, I'd advise to drop it or ill probably begin to make fun of you for it because that's silly and wrong. Most Christians who, I don't know, have half a brain cell firing, will argue that while Muslims do worship the same God as Abraham and Jesus, according to their Bible, Jesus was the final prophet, full stop and it's from this basis they reject Islam along with issues such as trinity vs Monotheism; which is to say, Muslims are seen as just being wrong and misguided (according to Christian theology) not because we worship two different Gods but because we reject Christian teachings as tainted and the trinity as polytheism. The argument doesn't even make sense, tbh. How the fuck does anything I or others have said have to do with 'circular reasoning' or did you just spend 2 seconds on wiki and thought it'd be good to throw in for 'smartiness' sake?

[Jimmie Higgins]

Beyond circular reasoning, you don't address why Christians would believe the god of the Koran is the same god they worship if they view the Koran as false.

Because it's an offshoot of the same thing. Contemporary Protestants don't believe in the pope, but they don't claim that Catholics worship some strange god named Dios. Catholics also don't consider evangelical Jesus or god different things. People just say it's a wrong interpretation. Either may consider Mormonism a cult, but again, today, just think it's a made up book about the same god and Jesus.

[Rafiq]

I don't even understand what you're arguing. That Allah and God is the same deity has been agreed upon by theologians and believers in both religions for I don't know how long. As is stated in this thread, it's only in the U.S. some nutjobs believe otherwise. Seeing that they use this to put forth xenophobia and racism (as is also stated in this thread - twice), I don't know why you're arguing for U.S. christians' right to deny this - if that's even what you're saying.

The gods of Christianity, Islam and Judaism are all different. While Muslims claim their god is the same, they do so also claiming that Jesus was a Muslim as well. And the same can be said of Christians in relation to Judaism. The underlying ideological nature of these religions are all completely different and come from different contexts. Only bourgeois empiricists or garbage theologians will argue otherwise. Christianity, with it's adoption of Platonic as well as Judaic thinking, and Islam, which inherited all of these as well as infusing them with Arabian (and Dharmaic) superstition and logic. Islam is a religion of merchants and traders, the emphasis on oneness reflects the necessity of unifying the tribes of Arabia (and, eventually, other places) to create a better environment for trade. The Arabic word for conquest actually leans more towards "opening", I.e. opening more space for trade. It's no wonder why the religion was so appealing to the Mongols. Islam is inherently warlike and messianic, only in essence, however. In practice Islam has been intertwined with local superstitions and throughout the industrial age was associated with docility and passivity (much like how we perceive Buddhism). It's modern resurgence as militant, fanatical religion is actually a result of a failed Communist movement (like fascism was) as well as a combination of several other complex factors, the rise of neoliberalism, the ideological degeneration following and so on.

[Rafiq]

Because it's an offshoot of the same thing. Contemporary Protestants don't believe in the pope, but they don't claim that Catholics worship some strange god named Dios. Catholics also don't consider evangelical Jesus or god different things. People just say it's a wrong interpretation. Either may consider Mormonism a cult, but again, today, just think it's a made up book about the same god and Jesus.

Islam isn't an offshoot of Christianity. Not by any means at all, actually. If anything, it is a re-arrest of some components of Christian mythology with a new twist.

[greenforest]

Because it's an offshoot of the same thing. Contemporary Protestants don't believe in the pope, but they don't claim that Catholics worship some strange god named Dios. Catholics also don't consider evangelical Jesus or god different things. People just say it's a wrong interpretation. Either may consider Mormonism a cult, but again, today, just think it's a made up book about the same god and Jesus.

I don't care if it's an offshoot of the 'same thing'; your analogy is absurd.

Protestantism isn't a separate religion from Catholicism, with its own conception of a deity and core beliefs, sacred texts to which Catholics do not subscribe, and rejection of previous scripture*.

Mormons, for instance, consider themselves Christian, yet many other Christians do not consider them as such.

It would therefore not surprise me if many Christians do not believe the god of the 'Watchtower' is the same as the god in the Bible.

Mormons, however, incorporate both books as their sacred literature.

* I am aware of differences between the Protestant and Catholic Bibles.

[greenforest]

Yes, I did. Re-read what I said. Just because you believe that Muhammad (pbuh) is a false prophet and reject the teachings of Islam does not negate the fact that he and every Muslim since has talked of the same God as worshiped by Moses, David, Solomon, Abraham (Ishmael/Issac) and, yes, Jesus. This has nothing to do with circular reasoning, so, I'd advise to drop it or ill probably begin to make fun of you for it because that's silly and wrong.

Your argument that the god of the Koran is the same as Christianity and Judaism is based off the fact the individuals you name as prophets in Islam are actually not all viewed as prophets by Christians and Jews.

Got it.


Most Christians who, I don't know, have half a brain cell firing, will argue that while Muslims do worship the same God as Abraham and Jesus, according to their Bible, Jesus was the final prophet, full stop and it's from this basis they reject Islam along with issues such as trinity vs Monotheism;Sorry. I'm trying to understand the incoherence of your argument.

Christians reject Islam and the Koran as false, but should still believe in the god of the false book of the Koran.

Yes, that makes sense.

Next, you'll tell me Allah and Set (the Semitic god in Conan the Cimmerian) are one and the same because Robert E. Howard believed so.



which is to say, Muslims are seen as just being wrong and misguided (according to Christian theology) not because we worship two different Gods but because we reject Christian teachings as tainted and the trinity as polytheism. The argument doesn't even make sense, tbh. How the fuck does anything I or others have said have to do with 'circular reasoning' or did you just spend 2 seconds on wiki and thought it'd be good to throw in for 'smartiness' sake?'The god of the Koran and Bible are the same because the Koran says so'

Other than the compelling line above, am I missing an actual argument showing the two gods are the same?

[Sinister Intents]

The gods of Christianity, Islam and Judaism are all different. While Muslims claim their god is the same.

My Catholic spiritualist mother says that of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam are all the same god, and I've heard several other people say they're the same gods, even a Jewish man I met said that They're the same god of all three religions.

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

Protestantism isn't a separate religion from Catholicism, with its own conception of a deity and core beliefs, sacred texts to which Catholics do not subscribe, and rejection of previous scripture.

So, I use to be Orthodox which is basically Catholic and I know my Bible which I still own, contains the duetero-canonical texts which Protestants see as heretical. The fuck you talking about? Pretty sure Christian orthodoxy is 1,000 times different than lets say Lutheranism or Pentecostalism. What about apostolic succession? What about Mother Mary? What about the saints? What about a lot of theological issues, concepts and so on? If you really wanna go this route, compared to real, historical Christianity and Christian tradition, Protestantism is a whole different animal.

[greenforest]

So, I use to be Orthodox which is basically Catholic and I know my Bible which I still own, contains the duetero-canonical texts which Protestants see as heretical. The fuck you talking about? Pretty sure Christian orthodoxy is 1,000 times different than lets say Lutheranism or Pentecostalism. What about apostolic succession? What about Mother Mary? What about the saints? What about a lot of theological issues, concepts and so on? If you really wanna go this route, compared to real, historical Christianity and Christian tradition, Protestantism is a whole different animal.

So you're saying Catholics believe the Protestant Bible is false and Protestants likewise believe the same about the Catholic Bible?

No?

Guess you don't have an actual point.

Btw, Protestants can't retroactively declare heresy on an orthodoxy. That doesn't make sense. The exclusions by Jews and Protestants of a few books from the Hebrew Bible does not mean they are not viewed as divinely inspired by both groups; Hanukkuh originates from Maccabees, I believe.

[Rafiq]

My Catholic spiritualist mother says that of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam are all the same god, and I've heard several other people say they're the same gods, even a Jewish man I met said that They're the same god of all three religions.

It'll be a strange day when I take seriously a conceptualization of religions and their underlying ideological nature, and therefore their gods, from a spiritualist.

[Sinister Intents]

It'll be a strange day when I take seriously a conceptualization of religions and their underlying ideological nature, and therefore their gods, from a spiritualist.

My mom literally studies all religions in her spare time. I agree with her that the god of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam are the same god. Whether god be called hashem, god, Allah, its still the same god. My ex's Jewish extremist father says that they're the same god despite him wanting to kill Muslims because he's a racist asshole.

[Manic Impressive]

Yo greenforest, you know the Vatican accepts that Allah and god are the same mystical sky daddy? Catholics certainly see the muslim god as being the same god, unless they are going against their mystical earth daddy. Which is not kosher for catholics. So that's the majority of the christians in the world believing that Allah and god are the same thing.

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

Your argument that the god of the Koran is the same as Christianity and Judaism is based off the fact the individuals you name as prophets in Islam are actually not all viewed as prophets by Christians and Jews.

No, my argument is premised upon basic logic, objective facts and reality. It has nothing to do with the prophethood or lack thereof of any individual previously mentioned. Aside from the fact that, all three religions trace their origins back to the patriarch Abraham hence them being grouped as the Abrahamic religions.

Here, do some homework, takes notes, come back to me, and I'll grade your papers.

apparently when debating religion it's necessary on RL to cover basic fucking theology (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abrahamic_religions)


Got it.

No, you really don't.


Sorry. I'm trying to understand the incoherence of your argument.

Prove how my argument is incoherent.


Christians reject Islam and the Koran as false, but should still believe in the god of the false book of the Koran.

No, no, a thousand times no. What the actual fuck. Are you seriously this stupid? Or are you fucking with me? A Christian can believe that Muslims do worship the same God as they do while maintaining that the teachings of Islam are wrong and that Muhammad (pbuh) wasn't a prophet or was a false prophet. How fucking hard of a concept is this to grasp? Can you even fucking read?


Yes, that makes sense.

Exactly, it does make sense, for anyone with the IQ above that of a common flea.


Next, you'll tell me Allah and Set (the Semitic god in Conan the Cimmerian) are one and the same because Robert E. Howard believed so.

Next you'll be telling me this has everything to do with the amount and quality of the tea in China. Clearly, all of these are related. You're right.


'The god of the Koran and Bible are the same because the Koran says so'

'but teh koran and teh koran and teh koran and teh koran and is wrong and tots and korany koranic koronary koranism koran koran herpppppppppp'

Have I summed up your posts correctly? I think I have.


Other than the compelling line above, am I missing an actual argument showing the two gods are the same?

You've been successful in not comprehending one God damn point I've made, if that's what you're asking, yes.


It'll be a strange day when I take seriously a conceptualization of religions and their underlying ideological nature, and therefore their gods, from a spiritualist.

Says the person who accepts dialectic mysticism as sacrosanct.


So you're saying Catholics believe the Protestant Bible is false and Protestants likewise believe the same about the Catholic Bible?

No, I'm saying that while yes, Christian orthodoxy and Protestantism do share the believe in Jesus as Lord and blah blah but there are extreme and distinct differences between the two theologically otherwise there would be one united church, now wouldn't there? Not mentioning the fact that it was Protestants whom removed the deutero-canonical texts from the canonical Bible despite the verse saying "thou shalt not remove nor take away."


Btw, Protestants can't retroactively declare heresy on an orthodoxy.

What a meaningless and incoherent sentence. Pretty sure every priest I've spoken to considers Luther a heretic and pretty sure every Protestant I've spoken to thinks Catholics and the Orthodox are idol worshiping blasphemers. So there's that.


That doesn't make sense. The exclusions by Jews and Protestants of a few books from the Hebrew Bible does not mean they are not viewed as divinely inspired by both groups; Hanukkuh originates from Maccabees, I believe.

My main point was there as several, distinct differences between Christian orthodoxy and Catholicism and that of Protestant groups. Really, the dueterocanonicals was a side note due to the mention of differing books but hey, let's just center on the easy shit because you refuse to actually address anything I say.


The gods of Christianity, Islam and Judaism are all different.

How?


While Muslims claim their god is the same, they do so also claiming that Jesus was a Muslim as well.

What I am saying isn't dependent upon Islamic theology or the belief in the prophet-hood of biblical figures. Is that all?


And the same can be said of Christians in relation to Judaism.

Same thing yo.


The underlying ideological nature of these religions are all completely different and come from different contexts.

OK, and?


Only bourgeois empiricists or garbage theologians will argue otherwise.

Usual basic distancing, ok, I see, go on.


Christianity, with it's adoption of Platonic as well as Judaic thinking, and Islam, which inherited all of these as well as infusing them with Arabian (and Dharmaic) superstition and logic.

Point?


Islam is a religion of merchants and traders

Aside from the fact that it fucked with both during the formation of Islam, hence the persecution of the early Islamic community by the Meccan ruling class, merchants, traders, etc.


the emphasis on oneness reflects the necessity of unifying the tribes of Arabia (and, eventually, other places) to create a better environment for trade.

Or humanity or those whom believe in the God of Abraham, but hey, it's your story, tell it how you want.


Islam is inherently warlike and messianic, only in essence, however.

tots (http://quran.com/109)


In practice Islam has been intertwined with local superstitions and throughout the industrial age was associated with docility and passivity (much like how we perceive Buddhism). It's modern resurgence as militant, fanatical religion is actually a result of a failed Communist movement (like fascism was) as well as a combination of several other complex factors, the rise of neoliberalism, the ideological degeneration following and so on.

Nothing really to say here except, ok? lol

[Zostrianos]

Or the pagan Romans who forced Christians to fight lions and bears. Before we start the usual shitting on Muslims and Christians fest, lets be real here. More to come later.

You do know the persecutions were greatly exaggerated by Christian writers. Nowadays it's estimated that fewer than 1000 Christians were killed during that time (q.v. Rodney Stark, 'The rise of Christianity' 164). Furthermore many times more died at the hands of other Christians over doctrinal disagreements: "Our sources for the two and a quarter centuries following Nicaea allow a very rough count of the victims of credal differences: not less than twenty five thousand deaths. A great many, but still only a small minority, were clergy; the rest, participants in crowds...All those who died met their end irregularly as targets of fury, not of legal action. Of bishops who died for their faith while in the custody of the secular powers, the examples can be counted on the fingers of one hand." (Ramsay Macmullen "Voting about God in early church councils", p 56)

Also very relevant: “The century opened by the Peace of the Church, more Christians died for their faith at the hands of fellow Christians than had died before in all the persecutions.” (Macmullen: Christianity & Paganism in the Fourth to Eighth Centuries, p 14)

In addition, a lot of those "martyrs" deliberately provoked the authorities, assaulting Pagans and Jews, publicly insulting the emperor, etc. because they wanted be martyred, especially in later centuries:

Among dozens of specific cases of Christians listed by our sources as “martyred” under Julian, it seems that the majority were actually killed by pagan mobs or by the secular authorities in retaliation for their provocative attacks against paganism—smashing idols, destroying temples, disrupting rituals. This fact is not only admitted but even celebrated by Christian sources, who without exception refer to the slain Christians as martyrs. In some cases, as at Merum, the Christian assailants seem to have planned their attack in the full expectation and hope of being killed for it, and thus attaining the crown of martyrdom. (Michael Gaddis, There is no crime for those who have Christ: Religious Violence in the Christian Roman Empire 94)

Fanatical Christians defined "persecution" differently than most reasonable people do today: 'Persecution, which loomed so large in Christian historical imagination, need not always have been literal. Even under the Christian empire, some claimed to suffer it simply because they were forced to tolerate the continued existence of pagans and heretics. This “repressive tolerance,” as Herbert Marcuse might have characterized it, seemed to some as little more than a subtler form of persecution—for certainly it was not right, they thought, that truth be forced to live on equal terms with falsehood. Christianity, in some ways, retained the habits of thought of a persecuted minority even into the era of its dominance' (ibid, 6)

Say what you want about Roman Pagans, when they conquered new lands they didn't set out to eradicate local cultures, destroy places of worship, and forcibly convert locals to Roman Paganism. But organized Christianity (and Islam) did, in almost every instance.



^what about modern zionism, in relation to your last sentence?

Zionists are a relative minority, and I don't see them invading countries or sending out missionaries all over the place to convert others to Judaism

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

You do know the persecutions were greatly exaggerated by Christian writers. Nowadays it's estimated that fewer than 1000 Christians were killed during that time (q.v. Rodney Stark, 'The rise of Christianity' 164).

Tbh, I don't really care to research or debate this subject because it's more or less besides the point. Even if we are to assume that it was only 1,000 souls, that's still the persecution of a marginalized group. Not to mentioning, feeding anyone to a lion or bear is extremely fucked up considering, it's not going to be an easy or pleasant way to go. Not mentioning the other fact that this also could have potentially harmed the lion or bear, which is also, pretty fucked up. If this happened to day, under the same circumstances, would you still treat said number of victims as seemingly a minuscule and meaningless statistic?

Also, what about good ole Nero, eh? Tacitus reports that after the fire which destroyed most of Rome, to avoid blame, Nero went after a group despised and marginalized, socially, economically, etc. by Roman society, the Christians and they were thereafter tortured in a great number of fashions.

My main point is, all predominate religions have been co-opted by the ruling establishment of their day and have been used as ways to justify the oppression and persecution of marginal and often "foreign," groups of people for whatever reason. It's stupid and silly to constantly shit on Christians and Muslims and totally ignore, Buddhists, Pagans, Hindus, etc.


Say what you want about Roman Pagans, when they conquered new lands they didn't set out to eradicate local cultures, destroy places of worship, and forcibly convert locals to Roman Paganism. But organized Christianity (and Islam) did, in almost every instance.

Really? So, what's this word 'Romanization' mean and have to do with?

[Zostrianos]

My main point is, all predominate religions have been co-opted by the ruling establishment of their day and have been used as ways to justify the oppression and persecution of marginal and often "foreign," groups of people for whatever reason. It's stupid and silly to constantly shit on Christians and Muslims and totally ignore, Buddhists, Pagans, Hindus, etc.


It's not silly when Christians and Muslims were the main perpetrators, and intolerance and proselytism is etched into their dogma. If I was forced to live under a theocracy I bet anything living under a Buddhist or Pagan one would be preferable to a Christian or Wahhabi Islamic one.


Really? So, what's this word 'Romanization' mean and have to do with?

Romanization was a lot about syncretism. Romans didn't destroy local cults and impose their own, they merged Roman culture with that of conquered peoples. Very different from what Christians did

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

It's not silly when Christians and Muslims were the main perpetrators, and intolerance and proselytism is etched into their dogma. If I was forced to live under a theocracy I bet anything living under a Buddhist or Pagan one would be preferable to a Christian or Wahhabi Islamic one.

Proselytism isn't inherently wrong, this could simply mean talking to people about Islam and sharing it's teachings, in a completely neutral, genuinely academic or personal level. It doesn't inherently mean, "either you convert or lose your head, which is it?" I'm not defending the violence or bullshit as seen under Christian and Muslim empires however again, let's be real here, it's all fucked up and has more to do with a whole variety of issues more than it does necessarily with religion or various theologies. To say otherwise would be taking an idealist conception of history. So, while the Dalai Lama sits pretty in a gold chair, you'd be totally content with being a serf and eating yak shit? Is that seriously what you're telling me? Every see Apocalypto? You'd be more content to be hunted down by the Mayans, have your village burned to the ground and if you were a woman, probably raped and even if you survived all this you were either a slave or sacrificial offering to the gods; rather than live in say, Al-Andalus, which was pretty tolerant?


Romanization was a lot about syncretism. Romans didn't destroy local cults and impose their own, they merged Roman culture with that of conquered peoples. Very different from what Christians did

For some reason I feel if this didn't involve Pagans and involved a similar modern day scenario, wouldn't be to keen on defending it. Again, it's all fucked up.

[greenforest]

No, my argument is premised upon basic logic, objective facts and reality. It has nothing to do with the prophethood or lack thereof of any individual previously mentioned. Aside from the fact that, all three religions trace their origins back to the patriarch Abraham hence them being grouped as the Abrahamic religions.

Good thing you didn't name drop prophets as part of your argument.

...oh, wait, you did.



Next you'll be telling me this has everything to do with the amount and quality of the tea in China. Clearly, all of these are related. You're right.

No; it's called a thought experiment.

I'm surprised you couldn't figure it out.

Really. I am...


Prove how my argument is incoherent.

If a Christian believes the Koran is fictitious, why would they believe the god of a fictitious book is the same as their god?


No, no, a thousand times no. What the actual fuck. Are you seriously this stupid? Or are you fucking with me? A Christian can believe that Muslims do worship the same God as they do while maintaining that the teachings of Islam are wrong and that Muhammad (pbuh) wasn't a prophet or was a false prophet. How fucking hard of a concept is this to grasp? Can you even fucking read?

How would that happen? The only logical way to believe the teachings of the Koran are wrong is to believe the Koran is false and a work of man. Christians, after all, wouldn't believe the Koran contains kernels of truth that have been corrupted over time. Or, if they did, then that would explain their belief.

Other than that, care to explain how a Christian could believe in the Koran while, errr, reject its teachings and 'author' as false?

[Skyhilist]

No. Some things are evil.

I think that you should read some Nietzsche, specifically Beyond Good and Evil.

[E-Shock Executioner]

Religion are like dogs

Take care of a dog and it will become playful and happy, and will be your friendly companion for the rest of your days.

Christanity, Judaism, etc

Don't deal with the dog at all, it will become rapid, killing everything in its idottioical path of death and destruction for a hellish society.

The above one about rapid dogs is a good way to sum up islam.

[Jimmie Higgins]

My Catholic spiritualist mother says that of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam are all the same god, and I've heard several other people say they're the same gods, even a Jewish man I met said that They're the same god of all three religions.as a kid I had to go to church and the priest was into interfaith stuff and talked about comparative religion in church and that's what he said. He described Islam's texts as basically being seen as a correction by god of false interpretations of him.




Because it's an offshoot of the same thing.
Islam isn't an offshoot of Christianity. Not by any means at all, actually. If anything, it is a re-arrest of some components of Christian mythology with a new twist.i wasn't clear I guess: it (Islam) is an offshoot of the same thing (same abrahamic foundation) ... (As Christianity). Something can't be an offshoot of itself, but I can see with the analogy to Christian religions I made how you would think I was arguing that Islam is an offshoot of Christianity, not an offshoot of the same base.


If a Christian believes the Koran is fictitious, why would they believe the god of a fictitious book is the same as their god?lol if a Christian believed the book was ficticious, I could point them to a book store. I they believed the text was false, however, then they say, no God did not will this to be written, I don't believe this was written by God. The whole basis of rejecting Islam would in fact be based on the understanding that the same god and holy figures are being described and one text is the correct account OF THE SAME GOD. Fucking circular logic... How do you know that Allah is a wholly different deity than described in the Old Testament... Well coz God never said that.

Is the batman in batman begins a different guy who wears a bat suit and fights crime and goes by the name of batman than the batman of the time burton movie? The joker had different origin stories in each telling, so I guess it's just two different characters, not different interpretations and different stories based out of the same made up stuff.

[Sinister Intents]

Religion are like dogs

Take care of a dog and it will become playful and happy, and will be your friendly companion for the rest of your days.

Christanity, Judaism, etc

Don't deal with the dog at all, it will become rapid, killing everything in its idottioical path of death and destruction for a hellish society.

The above one about rapid dogs is a good way to sum up islam.

Ummm okay... I wouldn't call Islam a rabid dog. I think you're a bit confused on religion, or you might be a troll? Your post is wierd to me

[Sabot Cat]

Religion are like dogs

Take care of a dog and it will become playful and happy, and will be your friendly companion for the rest of your days.

Christanity, Judaism, etc

Don't deal with the dog at all, it will become rapid, killing everything in its idottioical path of death and destruction for a hellish society.

The above one about rapid dogs is a good way to sum up islam.

Dogs don't work that way...? :confused:

And neither do religions...

[Sinister Intents]

Dogs don't work that way...? :confused:

And neither do religions...

Oh yes... yes... my dog works that way, cuz you know when I'm not home he goes rabid and creates a cult?

[Derendscools]

As theism dies, religous people might seek out unity. Whether one God is the same as any other God seems irrelevant if you're an Atheist.


hence the persecution of the early Islamic community by the Meccan ruling class, merchants, traders, etc.


I would argue this is untrue, there's no proof.


tots

The peaceful verses in the Qur'an are done away by the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) when he takes his followers to Medinah, creates new verses,which then justify's war on those who do not convert. Islam is inherently warlike.

Poimandres,you wrote that Wahhabism, Salafism and similar movements, were evil.
The way I see it is that this is how Islam was meant to be used, since the founder himself applied it in a manner I would call evil.

It seems to me that Islam can only be miss-interpreted in a positive, peaceful manner, while the original text promotes extremism.

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

Religion are like dogs

Take care of a dog and it will become playful and happy, and will be your friendly companion for the rest of your days.

Christanity, Judaism, etc

Don't deal with the dog at all, it will become rapid, killing everything in its idottioical path of death and destruction for a hellish society.

The above one about rapid dogs is a good way to sum up islam.

Lets just compare a whole religion to an animal it considers unclean because you know, that's totally appropriate and not offensive or anything.

Islam is pearls before pigs.

[Rafiq]

My mom literally studies all religions in her spare time. I agree with her that the god of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam are the same god. Whether god be called hashem, god, Allah, its still the same god. My ex's Jewish extremist father says that they're the same god despite him wanting to kill Muslims because he's a racist asshole.

I think it's pathetically sad, so exceedingly disheartening to find all of these supposed Leftists, some of which dare call themselves Marxists, to argue such nonsense. Such a conclusion can only be met if one pre-supposes the existence of a god in the first place. While their scriptures and their theologians may prattle of whatever dribble they see fit, the psychological conception of their according gods are completely different. I don't see how this is difficult to understand. Because their according gods were conceptualized from different social and historical contexts, they cannot be the same.




Prove how my argument is incoherent.

It's no surprise that a religious person would declare something, and demand us to disprove it.


No, no, a thousand times no. What the actual fuck. Are you seriously this stupid? Or are you fucking with me? A Christian can believe that Muslims do worship the same God as they do while maintaining that the teachings of Islam are wrong and that Muhammad (pbuh) wasn't a prophet or was a false prophet. How fucking hard of a concept is this to grasp? Can you even fucking read?


Says the person who accepts dialectic mysticism as sacrosanct.


A Christian would probably find that difficult to believe due to the fact that, according to them, Muslims do not know the Christian god, and have not been exposed to it. Of course it's a bunch of nonsense anyway, then again, I am talking to religious intellectual, a pathetic, worthless and reactionary denomination of intellectualism.

If you seriously are attempting to compare something as ridiculous, metaphysical and incoherent as spiritualism to dialectics, I suggest you re evaluate your notion of all of those things immediately. What a waste of time you are. It's as if your posts discredit themselves.




How?

What I am saying isn't dependent upon Islamic theology or the belief in the prophet-hood of biblical figures. Is that all?


Because they come from different social, and historical contexts, their gods were conceptualized as an ideological product of the summation of their super-structural potential. If we understand the psychological dimensions which compel people to believe in deities, which according to you are most likely superficial (like most of what you have to say, really), then logically, it would make sense that different deities (which are, obviously man made) have different relationships to people, on a psychological, personal level. A good example is the simple fact that the Christian god is conceptualized as a father-figure. Yet the Christian god, in essence, ideologically does not exist. Christian logic tells us that the God of Abraham (the judaic god) had died on the cross, and that all that remains is the holy spirit, or the holy community of believers. This is obviously a synthesis of Classical philosophy and Judaism. Islam, on the other hand, refuses to recognize the divinity of Jesus, and his death on the cross. They specifically espouse that at the last moment, their deity rescued and replaced Jesus with an imposter. The logic behind this reflects Islam's reactionary nature, that God did not die, and remains, influencing Earthly events. The Muslim god, all together, is not a father figure, but, as Zizek put it, an other from which there is a desert of nothingness between the believer and the god. These are just some of the many differences between these three gods.

Furthermore, as I mentioned above, only a person who actually believes such a god exists would say that it is worshiped by all three religions. If you pre suppose that such a god exists (And I find it ridiculous that in an intellectual environment, people actually do.) then surely it is the same god worshipped by peoples of other sects, especially if you're a Muslim.

Don't pretend that all the nonsense you're going on about isn't directly tied to your theological views. If Muslims believe in teh same god as Christians, then logically, they adopted the Christian god of the bible. But as I said before, they adopted the Christian god of the bible just as much as they adopted Jesus as their own. I've seemed to have forgotten that you actually believe such bullshit. And I talk down to you with every right, you're an intellectual with sufficient access to education, who lives in a developed country, who also appears to have adopted Islam, rather than inherited it. If you think I'm not going to attack you for the clown you are, think again.

To all those in this thread who defend the reactionary Vox Populi, and all of her religious dribble, you're a disgrace to Marxism and the theoretical legacy of historical materialism. Shame on you for letting your Leftist first world guilt get in the way of the theoretical prowess of Marxism.



Usual basic distancing, ok, I see, go on.


The fact that all of these points fly past you means you're unworthy of engaging in a worthwhile discussion about the subject at hand, like many other users in this thread. Congratulations.

Bourgeois empiricists usually are only able to interpret things on a literal level. For example, they will claim that all three gods are the same because the theological texts directly say so. They are incapable of recognizing the ideological foundations which are behind such texts, the structure which reflects a larger psychological, and therefore social dimension. This is the brilliance of Anglo-Saxon empiricism, the complete and utter trash that it is. It has no place outside of mathematics and the immediate sciences.


Aside from the fact that it fucked with both during the formation of Islam, hence the persecution of the early Islamic community by the Meccan ruling class, merchants, traders, etc.


From what basis do you say so? The persecution of Islam was on behalf of governing bodies who regulated trade, and held a monopoly over Mecca as a sight of pilgrimage (if you didn't know, it was a Pagan construct and served as such). Don't try to make Islam as some kind of religion of the lower classes, as Christianity was, it's pathetic. Islam was a religion of the merchant classes, but was able to, like Fascism, appeal to the poor and create an environment in which class struggle is minimized. Obviously, with slave revolts, and uprisings that existed throughout the history of Islam (which were, admittedly, "Muslim" in nature, but with a different ideological nature, like the Anabaptists in relation to Lutherans) this proved in the long term insufficient.


Or humanity or those whom believe in the God of Abraham, but hey, it's your story, tell it how you want.


No, this isn't subjective, this isn't a matter of opinion, but actual historical facts. You've ignored most of the points I've brought up, to no surprise, and it's nothing short of dishonest of you. There's the ideological rhetoric of Islam, and it's actual ideological use in reproducing social relations. You can say Liberalism exists to sanction freedom and liberty, and not the political power of the bourgeoisie, and it would be just as worthless of a statement. "But", you will cry out, "we know that isn't true because we don't have real liberty or freedom". Well, Islam itself didn't do much for creating a better environment for humanity, it created an environment of slavery and oppression. Don't even fucking get me started with the Islamic slave trade or Islam's apologia for slavery. There's nothing revolutionary about Islam, it is a reactionary religion even within the context of the ancient world. Even the progressive intellectuals of the 'Islamic' golden age were influenced by classical philosophy and didn't really take Islamic theology that seriously.


tots (http://quran.com/109)


Do you think this proves anything? A single verse, as compared to what? Such vagueness can be interpreted as anything, but there are explicit verses from which there is little room for interpretation.

I've never been so disgusted by users on this site in weeks, what degeneracy has befallen Revleft as to defend spiritualism in such a way, in the name of what? Anti-Islamophobia? This is intellectual space, and Islam, like any other religion has no place in it. Since the enlightenment the philosophical, and theoretical strata of the bourgeoisie has renounced such garbage, a revival of it as such can only be reflationary in nature. Doubtless, religions themselves are, even in bourgeois societies, functions of the state apparatus.

Which brings me to another point, why I revile "personal" spiritualism, so-called eclectic hybrids of several different spiritual or theological beliefs. It is impossible, every spiritual and metaphysical 'outlook' requires a firm basis in an organized religion, whether they wish to admit it or not. There are dimensions which exist in religion that are unseen by both the religious and bourgeois rationalists alike. Get that through your fucking head before you come to such grand declarations about Islam, followed by perverse, dishonest and fallacious analogies with regard to different sects of Christianity and why their shared theological beliefs give heed to your argument. It's preposterous, as If Islam is a sect of Christianity, and wasn't influenced by things like Arabian paganism and oriental spiritualism (like buddhism)!

[Rafiq]

And by the way, quoting everything a user has to say, sentence by sentence, phrase by phrase, only demonstrates your inability to coherently respond to an argument. I've done this in the past, when arguing with users like Ismail, and it was, to say the least ridiculous and largely devoid of anything of any substance. It's dishonest and quite frankly, only demonstrates your own theoretical impotence.

[Thirsty Crow]

I think it's pathetically sad, so exceedingly disheartening to find all of these supposed Leftists, some of which dare call themselves Marxists, to argue such nonsense. Such a conclusion can only be met if one pre-supposes the existence of a god in the first place.
Not so.

Consider the following statement: Vulcan and Haephestos are the same god.

What does this mean? That there is a common thread in conceptualization, a common criterion, by which we relegate concrete differences to ones of secondary significance. I would indeed say that Vulcan and Haeph are the same, or to be more careful with words, of the same type of deities.

Does my active belief in Vulcan follow from this? Of course not. It is quite possible from a comparative standpoint in religion studies (as opposed to theology) to coherently produce such assessments which can, furthermore, be demonstrated.

[Rafiq]

Lets just compare a whole religion to an animal it considers unclean because you know, that's totally appropriate and not offensive or anything.


Here's what I mean! The religious now, think that they have a claim to identity politics! We all know about the conservative rhetoric about how there's a "war on religion" and how white Christians are being "persecuted". Well Vox, fuck your religion! Whole attacks on Muslims as a people is one thing, but an attack on religion is not only a right, it is an unapologetic aim of the Communists!

Has everyone forgotten? We're Communists, it has always been our goal to set fire each and every religion, it has always been our goal to annihilate it from the face of the Earth. We've always been against such superstition, such cack, we've always opposed it in all it's forms. Sure it's not politically wise in certain places, but on an intellectual, or philosophical level, you can take your sensitivities and fuck off, drown in your tears for all I care. It's our goal to take back the hearts of the Muslim people from Islamists and "muslim intellectuals" just as it's our goal to take back the hearts of the southern working class from religious scum.

Religion is a component of the rule of the existing hegemonic class. We'll bring forth a new religion, one that will rip the veil of the clerics and finally shed an unrestrained light on the real domain of man, between two opposing classes. Even the blind will not be able to claim ignorance to the shining rays of Communism.

[Rafiq]

Not so.

Consider the following statement: Vulcan and Haephestos are the same god.

What does this mean? That there is a common thread in conceptualization, a common criterion, by which we relegate concrete differences to ones of secondary significance. I would indeed say that Vulcan and Haeph are the same, or to be more careful with words, of the same type of deities.

Does my active belief in Vulcan follow from this? Of course not. It is quite possible from a comparative standpoint in religion studies (as opposed to theology) to coherently produce such assessments which can, furthermore, be demonstrated.

They are not the same type of deities, that is is precisely your problem. Again, you'd have to analyze the relationship between Vulcan and Roman paganism, as well as Haephestos. Not only that, but the ideological and psychological implications of their existence (in paganism). With that regard, I am ignorant, I do not know, therefore I could not make such an assessment. And that is very different from saying Muslims worship the same God as Christians do. Indeed the Muslims claim to worship the God of Abraham (if that's what this entire argument about, then wow, that's sad), that's obvious, that's a given. But from the context form which Islam was created, the personality, the nature of this god is different.

Another problem with your argument is that Vulcan and Haeph are two pagan deities, and not the complete summation of Greek and Roman theological beliefs. Muslims claim that there is only one god, and therefore, any monotheist can claim they worship the "same god" but whether it is the same god is something all together. Which leads us to another question, from what basis do you conclude that the Muslim god is the same one? From the direct, literal texts in the koran which claim it is the god of Abraham (as well as the similarities that Islamic mythology shares with biblical myths?). Or, the actual nature of such a god. The rejection of Christ's divinity alone differentiates the Islamic and Judaic conception of a god. Christianity, which was heavily romanized, etc.

Now, on such a basic, literal level, yes, they are the same Gods, but I take great problem with the alleged worship of the same god. It is hard to explain, perhaps you're following? The very nature of a Muslim's psychological relationship to his own deity, and therefore the very nature of his/her worship, is different. Now on an abstract level, if we assume these gods exist outside of this, maybe as literary characters (as in the case of Greek and Roman gods) then yes, they are the same.

[Thirsty Crow]

They are not the same type of deities, that is is precisely your problem. The point is precisely that types, the inquiry into this conceptual matter, doesn't need to address the specifics of social practice which you mention for it to bear fruit as a study of types - which then can function as a useful tool in mapping these concrete differences you mention. Likewise, Marx's study of the commodity doesn't in these pages of Das Kapital ever take account of the concrete difference between commodities and their production in different social formations (for that one has to press on and arrive at the part about modern capital).




And that is very different from saying Muslims worship the same God as Christians do.If one of the points you wish to make is that it might be misleading to literally claim that it is the same god - then yes, I'd agree, but I think that is covered by the use of the concept of type.

Actually my point is that the claim that such statements necessitate belief in said deities is not correct.



Which leads us to another question, from what basis do you conclude that the Muslim god is the same one? From the direct, literal texts in the koran which claim it is the god of Abraham (as well as the similarities that Islamic mythology shares with biblical myths?). Or, the actual nature of such a god. The rejection of Christ's divinity alone differentiates the Islamic and Judaic conception of a god. Christianity, which was heavily romanized, etc.Yeah, I'll backtrack now and say that it is very much possible, even likely, that I'd be wrong in my argument that it's the same type of deities. I could fall back upon monotheism - where the difference between polytheism and monotheism being grounded in a) the relationship of deities to creation (as the gods in ancient polytheisms aren't creators of all existence) and b) the actual number of deities. Though, I think this would not be that useful in understanding actual religious practice.

But to reiterate this simple point (I'm insisting on this since you're being very careless in ascribing necessity), you could be merely either wrong, or perhaps your ideas weren't even nearly distinct enough (the above mentioned usefulness in understanding) as me here, but that cannot be taken as a necessary confirmation of belief.

[Rafiq]

I see what you're trying to say. It does suppose that such a god exists outside of this specific ideological relationship (as I think you're trying to point out, in the study of such a god in the first place), but, as I did not take into account, this doesn't necessarily denote a belief in it as such.

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

Lmfaoooooo, oh man, so your big retort is nothing but conjecture? That's it? And you have the audacity to call me all these nasty names and intellectual degenerate? Puhlease, give a fucking break, all this hot air means not shit and I can not wait to dig into this (sentence by sentence), like wow. I find it hilarious you call me a reactionary, do you even know what this word means? You have t even been able to demonstrate how im reactionary in any thread but hey, lemme ask you this Mr. Revolutionary "terror," wtf have you done irl? Hmm? Ever been involved in a strike? Ever organize a successful one? You ever been on the picket line? Any direct action experience? Any experience whatsoever outside of ranting online? I rather doubt it my little armchair warrior so your really just spouting out words you got from a waht? a book like the intellectually frail worm that you are. might want to check the tone when speaking to someone who has. Oooooo, sting a little? Bet, lol. Try not to have a seizure when you read this mate. Ttfn<333

Is this really just about you being an ex and doing the usual "lemme be a frickin irrational anti-theist zealot"? Congrats, you nailed the role.

PS, if you think I forgot about the veil thread either you sadly mistaken. I will be making an example out of you and I will be nailing you to the wall my annoying little fly, I've let you slip by to much, you seem to be getting to cocky for your britches and guess what? I don't give a flying fuck about getting infracted either, stay tuned.

Mods/admins/BA stay out of my way and do not stop or alter this convo. He's made his bed and by God (ha) he will lay in it.

[Thirsty Crow]

http://www.quickmeme.com/img/ab/ababace6a86a7a03380277ab5639d97d49fa0bbbf7a18d40e6 54cb9f13cfdcb7.jpg

[Remus Bleys]

Its really stupid to criticize something on grounds of the person explaining it "not doing anything irl" which you don't even know is true or not

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

Its really stupid to criticize something on grounds of the person explaining it "not doing anything irl" which you don't even know is true or not

It's really stupid to use words that you have no authority to use. Oh, wait, he identifies as Marxist, I forgot, that's all the cred he needs. I play around, I kid, but if you're seriously going to insult me in novel form, twice now for no reason other than you disagree with me then you get what you get. Thorough as fuck dude, like no, this is ridiculous and I will not put up with it. I'm nice to everyone, even if I'm being snarky or snotty, I never actually try to insult them in totality.

[khad]

Is this thread for real?

[Derendscools]

Thread is eternal.
Yes thread is real.

[Revenant]

I worship the cult of invidia, we look upon Islam with a deeply suspicious eye, teaching submission to "infallible" authorities and mass self-flagellation are not things we feel conducive to the glorification of our holy mistress.
;)

[Rafiq]

I don't care to address things which are of no substance. The reason I did respond to Vox, was because of the apparent concurrence by several users here. Her presence contributed to the overall... Falseness of the discussion. I don't dedicate my heart to this sight, to be quite honest I could care less about what users decide they think of me, as you've all probably guessed. I post here when it suits my boredom, and that's all. I don't care to engage in an internet battle, as I used to a couple years ago. It's ridiculous. All I would have to say at this point to Vox, is grow up. I don't know you, and I don't care to, the only thing I've insulted is the nonsense you've decided to post publicly. If you really invest such an mount of your ego on an internet forum, I can only pity you.

[Sinister Intents]

I think it's pathetically sad, so exceedingly disheartening to find all of these supposed Leftists, some of which dare call themselves Marxists, to argue such nonsense. Such a conclusion can only be met if one pre-supposes the existence of a god in the first place. While their scriptures and their theologians may prattle of whatever dribble they see fit, the psychological conception of their according gods are completely different. I don't see how this is difficult to understand. Because their according gods were conceptualized from different social and historical contexts, they cannot be the same.

I think you're an asshole, I think you're being an asshole to Vox. I don't care if leftists have religious beliefs, I hate religion in all of its forms. I lean towards Wiccan paganism, but I'm not truly a Wiccan, I'm more of an antitheist. I hate religion, I hate gods and god and the belief in them. Do you honestly think I believe in a god? I don't. My mother spends a lot of time researching as I said, and she believes in a god and she makes some pretty good points about religion from her own research. The Abrahamic fucking religions share the same god asshole. They're not different, they come from the same fucking source.

[Rafiq]

Vox, we discussed this earlier, truth can be espoused by anyone, so long as it really is truth. There is a general tendency among rabid Islamists to associate truth with some kind of heirarchal social standing, whether it be by merit of "doing things" or otherwise. Whether this is cultural, or something actually vested in Islam, I must claim ignorance. And, not to argue with you directly, but just to put it out there, no I don't waste time going to strikes or picketing things, I rarely go to protests and when I do I leave in disgust most of the time. They're full of academic scum and I don't care to degrade myself to be so deluded as to really believe I'm making a difference. Philosophy is class struggle in theory, and when there is no class struggle, that is the realm from which we engage in. Marx recognized this, and that's why when he was involved with the Young Hegelians, as well as his later years as a student, he wasn't very active. Because there is nothing to be active in. In Marx's time, to a certain point the magnitude of theory's potential was exhausted. Today, this is far from the truth. I despise charity, and I despise those who engage in 'struggle' just so they can go home with a clean conscious, thinking they did their part for the revolution. They did not. What they can do, is learn. What gives me merit is not simply that I am a Marxist, but within the domain of this website, indeed it is. My personal life isn't any of your concern, becuase here I don't have a personal life, I am entity which espouses theory, which you are free to attempt to argue with. We've been over this before, you are incapable of understanding this, so I give up trying to explain. Even if you lead the Naxals on the fronts in India, you have no right to the kingdom of truth without (surprise!) the espousal of it as such. I don't think you're worthless, Vox, because you're a Muslim or because you don't do enough for the revolution (when have I said anything like this?). I think you're worthless because I am only capable of judging the magnitude of your worth through what you post. In real life, you could be a great person, but I don't care about your existence in real life, just as I don't care for the existence of the several thousands I pass by weekly. What makes you unique in comparison to the other hundreds of millions of Americans in North America? You post on this website. And that's all you're worth in my eyes, then. And your posts are worthless, and therefore, in my eyes, you are. I'm not trying to attack you. Really, take this for what it is. Be glad I'm even wasting any effort on you at all, if anything this goes to show that I'm actually trying. There shouldn't be any room for casualness here, not at least to the magnitude displayed by Vox. It really contributes to the overall lack of quality of the threads she decides to post in.

[Rafiq]

The Abrahamic fucking religions share the same god asshole. They're not different, they come from the same fucking source.

Wow, that actually got through to me. Perhaps I will re-evaluate my entire notion of religion, and retract all of the arguments I've made saying otherwise because of this one sentence. Thanks, Sinister, that was a worthwhile post. I don't know what this site would do without users like you.

[Sinister Intents]

Wow, that actually got through to me. Perhaps I will re-evaluate my entire notion of religion, and retract all of the arguments I've made saying otherwise because of this one sentence. Thanks, Sinister, that was a worthwhile post. I don't know what this site would do without users like you.

Don't be so sardonic.

[Quail]

I think you're an asshole, I think you're being an asshole to Vox. I don't care if leftists have religious beliefs, I hate religion in all of its forms. I lean towards Wiccan paganism, but I'm not truly a Wiccan, I'm more of an antitheist. I hate religion, I hate gods and god and the belief in them. Do you honestly think I believe in a god? I don't. My mother spends a lot of time researching as I said, and she believes in a god and she makes some pretty good points about religion from her own research. The Abrahamic fucking religions share the same god asshole. They're not different, they come from the same fucking source.

This is a verbal warning for flaming. Attack the arguments, not the person. What you think of Rafiq isn't really relevant to the discussion.

[Dennis the 'Bloody Peasant']

..I had a bad feeling about this thread before I clicked on the link..
Seems that a right-winger wants somone on a leftist forum to back them up on their 'Islam = evil' argument without any complicated and annoying context, consideration, nuance or appreciation for the fact that religouos people are not 100% indicative of their dominant institutions nor are the institutions always the best reflections of the religious teachings.

Having said that, I am broadly anti-religion, at best indifferent, so my personal view is believe what you want but don't use it to harm anyone who doesn't share your perspective or to infringe on my day-to-day (this includes ANY purely religious sentiment being reflected in law).

[Sea]

Okay. I have a good feeling about you.:)

Whats your opinion?

Last edited by Takayuki; 27th January 2014 at 07:41.
Uh oh. Something's going on here that I don't know about.
This is a verbal warning for flaming. Attack the arguments, not the person. What you think of Rafiq isn't really relevant to the discussion.Honestly, the concept of the god-asshole is rather intriguing especially since they all share the same one.

[Derendscools]

Hears what I've learned, we have stick together, and continue loving each other.


Admiral Swagmeister G-Funk said

the socio-economic and political conditions that precede islamic fundamentalism, which i assume is the kind of islam we are talking about, have to be understood before any assumptions about islam or muslims are made

You're right, they should be understood.


HashTagLefty said

Having said that, I am broadly anti-religion, at best indifferent, so my personal view is believe what you want but don't use it to harm anyone who doesn't share your perspective or to infringe on my day-to-day (this includes ANY purely religious sentiment being reflected in law).


This opinion is very true, and I agree with it.

I dont think Islam is evil, and upon reflection, using the term seemed childish.
Helot was right when he said we must combat racism and xenophobia. Criticism is good, but friendship is better.

[Jimmie Higgins]

I think it's pathetically sad, so exceedingly disheartening to find all of these supposed Leftists, some of which dare call themselves Marxists, to argue such nonsense. Such a conclusion can only be met if one pre-supposes the existence of a god in the first place. While their scriptures and their theologians may prattle of whatever dribble they see fit, the psychological conception of their according gods are completely different. I don't see how this is difficult to understand. Because their according gods were conceptualized from different social and historical contexts, they cannot be the same.please stop your concern trolling. Oh the Marxists! You are hiding your arguments behond some half assed materialism here.

Aside from religious people here, we are discussing if adherents believe this god to be based in that same theological traddition and from what I understand, basically only pro-war xenophobes in the u.s. Consistently claim Allah and the god of the Old Testament are totally different figures. As Zeus is to Jupiter or Odin.

The materialist argument you try to make is illogical and irrelevant to that debate since if we are talking about the conception and social circumstances of these concepts, then even Allah is a different god than Allah depending on the time period, region, and even class of the believer.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Has everyone forgotten? We're Communists, it has always been our goal to set fire each and every religion, it has always been our goal to annihilate it from the face of the Earth.speak for yourself and your own idealist crusade here, but the goal of communists IMO is the self emancipation of the working class.


We've always been against such superstition, such cack, we've always opposed it in all it's forms. Sure it's not politically wise in certain places, but on an intellectual, or philosophical level, you can take your sensitivities and fuck off, drown in your tears for all I care. It's our goal to take back the hearts of the Muslim people from Islamists and "muslim intellectuals" just as it's our goal to take back the hearts of the southern working class from religious scum.

Religion is a component of the rule of the existing hegemonic class. We'll bring forth a new religion, one that will rip the veil of the clerics and finally shed an unrestrained light on the real domain of man, between two opposing classes. Even the blind will not be able to claim ignorance to the shining rays of Communism.oy, bringing the light of truth to the sheepish flock is the game of preachers, not Marxists.

I find it strange that someone who hates religion so much would duplicate most of what turns me off religion in the first place.

[Derendscools]

The argument of whether one God is the same as one God is completely irrelevant to anything here(And I don't know why people care). Everything Rafiq has said is pretty accurate, but as time passes religion will naturally die out(It wont need to be annihilated). The shining rays of Communism sounds pretty cool too.

[Sythan]

Personally, I dislike the idea of organized religion in general. Islam has a colored history, both good and bad. If your question is about the present state of Islam, as in the type that practices extreme conservatism and Sharia law, I despise it for obvious reasons.

But Progressive/Liberal Islam I have no problem with. Even though I believe they might sometimes engage in revisionism for the purpose of their own theological reconciliation.

[Jimmie Higgins]

The argument of whether one God is the same as one God is completely irrelevant to anything here(And I don't know why people care).

Rafiq is essentially making an argument that these are different religions, and thus different conceptions of a God. But that is not what xenophobes in the u.s.
Mean when they claim that Allah is not supposed to be the same god as in Judaism and therefore Christianity as well. They mean to whip up jingoism and xenophobia about an completely alien god for an alien people. That is why for me, in the u.s., making this point is actually important. It's a modern update to antisemetic claims about Jews using blood or sacrifice in rituals (funny for someone who had to go to catholic mass as a child and watched people line up to eat some Jesus flesh) or killing Jesus or whatnot.