Is Islam worth trying to reform? [Spirituality & Religion]

@Peaceful I would agree, but especially Islam. Islam has by far the largest problem, and needs to be addressed as a special case.

@BlueVeins what about the millions of Muslim's in internment camps in China?
And what about the Rohingya from Myanmar?

@Peaceful I probably should have said that Communism is on a similar scale to Islam in terms of problems, especially with North Korea and stuff. I'd argue that people living under Communist states other than the DPRK largely have more freedom in the contemporary world, but ignoring the DPRK is kind of dishonest anyway. As for the Myanmar crisis, it's a horrific thing, but the scale isn't really on par with modern Islamic attrocities.

@BlueVeins I'm curious to know your opinion on this matter, if you don't mind sharing.

@Carver I believe that Islam needs to be reformed and that it can be reformed, but it's going to take a LOT of careful work. Systemic violence in Islam is a [i]huge[/i] problem, only outdone by the religion of Kim Jong Un, if it's appropriate to call it that. I agree that the most effective voices of change will come from the outside, but in order to create those catalysts, secularists and others will want to "capture" support from a small minority of Muslims to begin with.

@BlueVeins I'm non religious but you are being very reductive. Your criticism would hit home against radical Muslims (or radical Christians) because these people are intolrent of other's view. @NickiHijab has emphasised her respect for others at every stage.

@BlueVeins Intolerance of billions is prejudice but if playing saviour makes you feel better then go ahead.

@NickiHijab I agree that intolerance to billions of people is prejudicial, but that's neither here nor there.

@GoodPasta You still haven’t answered the question about family values.

It is very convenient when a book says that the burden of proof is on the reader to prove it false, especially when no evidence for its claims otherwise exists. And again, a lot of books do this. Yours has no special privilege here.

If it can’t be proven scientifically, that is in fact a problem for its claims to undersality. You’re saying an authority should be derived from a text which refuses universal validation.

I have heard parts of it being recited because it sounds neat, but it sounds neat in the same way that any language I can’t speak sounds neat when it’s being recited poetically. That doesn’t prove the existence of God either.

Also, do not presume my good humour in this argument. I do not care if I offend you by making your views seem ridiculous with my comparative examples. Mark me, you and I did not start on good terms. You began by comparing gay people to bestialists, which I find gravely offensive. My civility in this argument is a privilege based on no reciprocation.

Finally, the debate of consciousness is a philosophical one, not a scientific one. That people are “conscious” is observable. I subscribe to William James’ view, which is that consciousness is not an entity at all and merely describes physical processes in an unhelpful, pseudoscientific manner. All that exists is material and there is nothing else whatever.

@SourPennies [quote]You still haven’t answered the question about family values.

It is very convenient when a book says that the burden of proof is on the reader to prove it false, especially when no evidence for its claims otherwise exists. And again, a lot of books do this. Yours has no special privilege here.

If it can’t be proven scientifically, that is in fact a problem for its claims to undersality. You’re saying an authority should be derived from a text which refuses universal validation.

I have heard parts of it being recited because it sounds neat, but it sounds neat in the same way that any language I can’t speak sounds neat when it’s being recited poetically. That doesn’t prove the existence of God either.

Also, do not presume my good humour in this argument. I do not care if I offend you by making your views seem ridiculous with my comparative examples. Mark me, you and I did not start on good terms. You began by comparing gay people to bestialists, which I find gravely offensive. My civility in this argument is a privilege based on no reciprocation.

Finally, the debate of consciousness is a philosophical one, not a scientific one. That people are “conscious” is observable. I subscribe to William James’ view, which is that consciousness is not an entity at all and merely describes physical processes in an unhelpful, pseudoscientific manner. All that exists is material and there is nothing else whatever.[/quote]

You have taken a lot of my points out of context. I clearly stated that from a utiliatrian persepctive arguing about which perserves family values better does not form the basis for its validation because the criteria you are using to base those utilitarian points are subject to assumptions when you take on empirical proofs to validate the claim that one is better than the other.

Secondly, its not convenient. Rather the point is regardless of whether i'm a believer or not in the Quran, you cannot commit a fallacy of generalizing to the Quran like other texts and claim it is false unless you back it up. And it boldly claims you will never be able to do so, so if you have an understnading of falsifiability tests you would know how important such a test is.

Secondly you're conflating the issue again between people vs acts. A heterosexual man can commit a homosexual act. Beastiality describes the act of sexual practice that is not acceptable in Islam. And anal sex and sodomy, same sex sexual practices etc are not permitted in islam.

Falsification is stronger than proof. Just look up logical tests. The falsifcation test in 2/23 is stronger than your demand for proof of it being unviersally validated. Because you're failing to undrestand that it claims that it cannot be universally validated in its challenge and it boldly challenges others universally to invalidate it. Man i've said that word too many times.

Well I"ve been trying to tell you that scientific viewpoint is limited. No it gets scientific and philosophical at the same time. Hard-problem of consciousness etc. I mean the point being that you are being biased in valuing one method of knowledge, and at the other time you have failed to understood the implications of having an oral text delivered to an illiterate man that forms the fundamental societal values eloquently in arabic in prose and poetry, is preserved reliably accross billions of copies, and that itself is a claim it makes that it will be preserved, and the best explanation you have is that it was written by a human? who was killed and bribed to stop preaching it, and honestly, that completely ignores a crtical analysis of why he would even go through that challenge and actually not be the messenger of God as he claims to be and that would be completely dismissing all the data.

@GoodPasta [quote]because tax rules for those who believe and do not believe but still want protection differ. muslims pay zakat nonmuslims pay jizya... so basically thats hypocrisy to gain the benefits of muslim rulership but not fulfilling the obligations.[/quote]

Jee, I wonder who set those laws. Hmmmm 🤔

Maybe, JUST MAYBE, the appropriate response to defective tax laws that underburden a segment of the population [i]isn't[/i] to slaughter that segment of the population, but to change the tax laws! It's that simple; you'd even make more money by doing that.

@hippyjoe1955 No one can come to the savior except through me is what you are saying. But again if I wanted to be Christian I would find an actual Christian. Not a pretender.

@canusernamebemyusername So you can't read English. This is going to be much harder than I thought. lol. Please son if that is all you have move along.

@hippyjoe1955 lol You like fighting. Like how you didn't deny be a pretender though. That is progress.

@YukikoAmagi So you approve of the execution of homosexuals?

@SW-User Right to ad hominems. Real classy.

@plinkplonk Yes.

My biggest problems with the hard-core new atheists are:

1) It becomes like a religion itself and ends up with the same intolerance that they accuse others of.

2) It ends up as a rationale for neo con foreign policy. The Euston manifesto group justified bombing Iraq based on secular liberal values. Chris Hitchens was connected with them. Sam Harris said Ben Carson had the best foreign policies of any US candidate in the last election.

P. S. Just as the west of colonial times used the idea of 'civilising' the less fortunate, New atheism has become the new white man's burden and unfortunately a lot of liberals take it seriously.

Maybe the OP doesn't take it quite that far tbf, though I've seen this happen with others.

@Burnley123

My problem has always been individuals who feel the need to police other countries based on their beliefs and values. Mind your own business.

In respect to Christianity, I thought this was amusing (I apologize, in advance, for posting a meme. I am usually a meme free zone LOL)

[image deleted]

@plinkplonk Comparing the political divides and scandals in places like the USA, Canada, the EU, Brazil, and Japan to the oppression in Saudi Arabia and Iran is like comparing a grain of sand to the vastness of the Sahara. And yeah, I agree that we should adress those countries' respective problems, but why does everyone seem to be under the delusion that we can't do both?

Also, human rights is everyone's business. 'Nuff said.

@Burnley123 I had honestly never known about the Euston policy, and I thank you for bringing it to my attention. I was never sure about Hitchens, and that's a pretty huge mark on his honor. I should point out, though, that this is more the exception than the rule, as irreligious folks were [i]more likely[/i] to oppose the invasion than the general population, in the USA, that is. But having read about the Euston Manifesto, there's no denying that it's a very distinct and uniquely pro-liberal-democracy form of imperialism that has to be addressed as such.

@bijouxbroussard That's awfully dismissive of you. Are you implying that westerners can't do effective research?

@BlueVeins No, but are [b]you[/b] saying there no possibility of cultural bias ?

@bijouxbroussard There's always a possibility of cultural bias, even within a culture. But competent scientists focus on reducing bias, and PewResearch is widely trusted as such. Besides, the exact numbers aren't critical to the establishment of a problem so much as... a general understanding of where a value is. For example, it would still be cause for concern if only 60% of Pakistani Muslims supported stoning apostates to death, as opposed to the 89% stated by PewResearch.

@accidentalsaint I have more than my fair share of problems with Catholics(?), but they don't molest boys in the name of religion. They molest boys in secret, pretend to be holy men, and hope their apparent holiness makes their crimes feel implausible.

@soar2newhighs I think Islam clearly says there is no compulsion in religion. And one can do whatever they want, the point being that there's consequences. If you don't believe in the consequences, than what problem is that?

@Dewms What about the ones who take it as motivation?

@SW-User Something like what MLK did for the USA, except more geared towards acceptence of the LGBT community and other belief systems.