Is Islam Really the Religion of Hate?

[orpheus]

Well, yes. It's tribal - like the vast majority of religions. They began when most humans organized themselves into tribes - probably as a simple extension of the family - and it was a matter of survival in a harsh natural world. As such, Islam, like most other religions, is a religion of love (or at lease survival) of the in group, and hatred for the out group.

[Sisifo]

Well, yes. It's tribal - like the vast majority of religions. They began when most humans organized themselves into tribes - probably as a simple extension of the family - and it was a matter of survival in a harsh natural world. As such, Islam, like most other religions, is a religion of love (or at lease survival) of the in group, and hatred for the out group.

No, I meant it's tribal because the current social system is still based in tribes, with its hierarchy. Tribal societies have a very specific way to organize themselves whatever their religion.

[FBM]

Cheese?

Vile poison.

I would not say that religions are iniciated by deluded; sincere or not. I think religion is just an interpretation of the world that excludes science; wether for historical reasons or information issues. And an opportunist will capitalize anything that is appealing, not just religion; any tradition gets into that definition. The manipulation potential of a tradition is higher the more adherents it has. In that sense religion is a good string for the puppetmaster, but history has plenty of examples of other traditions manipulated in that way, like language, dress, ever hairstyle.

Not to talk about other fictional ideas, like "race", "nation"...

Fair enough, and I'd say that's a pretty damned enlightened view.

Even so, if you consider that religious people make conclusions about the fundamental nature of the world in the absence of any evidence to support that conclusion, how does that escape definition of 'deluded'? No doubt it's the result of poor reasoning skills and subjugation to tradition, but it's still at extreme variance with observable reality. Isn't that delusion? I don't mean that in a derogatory way, only in a diagnostic way.

[orpheus]

Well, yes. It's tribal - like the vast majority of religions. They began when most humans organized themselves into tribes - probably as a simple extension of the family - and it was a matter of survival in a harsh natural world. As such, Islam, like most other religions, is a religion of love (or at lease survival) of the in group, and hatred for the out group.

No, I meant it's tribal because the current social system is still based in tribes, with its hierarchy. Tribal societies have a very specific way to organize themselves whatever their religion.

Yes, true. I think the origins of tribes (modern as well as ancient) are clear, though. The same principles obtain. In the modern world, though, those principles (particularly hatred for the outer group) are horrifyingly dangerous.

[Sisifo]

Even so, if you consider that religious people make conclusions about the fundamental nature of the world in the absence of any evidence to support that conclusion, how does that escape definition of 'deluded'? No doubt it's the result of poor reasoning skills and subjugation to tradition, but it's still at extreme variance with observable reality. Isn't that delusion? I don't mean that in a derogatory way, only in a diagnostic way.

Most of the people I know when confronted with a scientific explanation that takes over a religious belief, adopt the theory as true and call the belief "a metaphor". Only fundamentalists decide to adhere to the belief. Deluded? I don't like the word, but it is just a word. I don't like it because delusion is a mental illness, whilst what we have in religion is a dogma carved in people's mind.
A person who says that he saw Jesuschrist walking down the street, is delusional. Another who says that the world is 6,000 years old is brainwashed. With the first one, you have to administrate medication, with the second one, you must address the brainwashing program. The difference is very important; to a brainwashed person, it is useless to attack the beliefs (I volunteered in sect victims rehabilitation). You have to address the programmation system they endured to believe those things. That is a reason why I disagree about atheist movements like the RD's one that attacks the dogma directly.

[FBM]

Most of the people I know when confronted with a scientific explanation that takes over a religious belief, adopt the theory as true and call the belief "a metaphor". Only fundamentalists decide to adhere to the belief. Deluded? I don't like the word, but it is just a word. I don't like it because delusion is a mental illness, whilst what we have in religion is a dogma carved in people's mind.
A person who says that he saw Jesuschrist walking down the street, is delusional. Another who says that the world is 6,000 years old is brainwashed. With the first one, you have to administrate medication, with the second one, you must address the brainwashing program. The difference is very important; to a brainwashed person, it is useless to attack the beliefs (I volunteered in sect victims rehabilitation). You have to address the programmation system they endured to believe those things. That is a reason why I disagree about atheist movements like the RD's one that attacks the dogma directly.

I don't see a problem with that. The term 'delusion' isn't precise. I only mean it as 'choosing a comforting interpretation of reality over what empirical evidence supports'. It's not always a conscious choice, as in the case of brainwashing. Again, I'm not trying to be judgemental, just diagnostic. Whether delusional or brainwashed, these people are in need of some compassionate treatment. Nobody, to my knowledge, sees everything with perfect clarity, but some mental models agree more with empirical data than others. When those that aren't in tune with empirical data are harmless, I say leave them alone. However, when those models compel people to kill other innocent people, practical solutions should be sought. Non-violent solutions being the best, of course.

[MrFungus420]

The religion of hate? No.

A religion of hate? Definitely.

[FBM]

The religion of hate? No.

A religion of hate? Definitely.

Good point.

[Comte de Saint-Germain]

I've discussed a more fundamental point with an Arabist. Namely, whether an Islamic enlightenment is possible, and given that, probably in the future. As is, the Qu'ran is perceived as the literal word of God that transcends time - the life of Muhammed is a timeless example - consequently, marriage to young girls is also a timeless doctrine.
Perceiving Muhammed as an innovated in humanism (which I don't entirely think of as a genuine historical intepretation, but it's theology, so hey) whose innovation is key to Islam may be possible but conflicts with this literal analysis.
On the other hand, we should not forget the value of orthopraxy in Islam. Consequently, I think we may see many Muslims who do not read the Qu'ran, but who do 'feel' Muslims because they follow dietary rules, pray, go to Mosque, and have this more traditionalist perspective than any interest to study the Qu'ran.

There are bigger problems, however. I have never met a Muslim with nuanced ideas about the Middle-East, specifically Israel Palestine. That's a problem. Whether it is Qu'ranic theology or merely surrounding ideas, the conflict in the Middle-East is fed by religion, a large part of which is Islam, and that conflict causes misery and chaos for no realistic reason.

[kiki5711]

...They are the conflicts of democratic values against tribalistic values...

What would you say to the idea that religions are initiated by the sincerely deluded, only to be capitalized upon by opportunists who see them mainly as means to furthering their own political ambitions?

I'd say YES. I agree.

[JimC]

The religion of hate? No.

A religion of hate? Definitely.

True, but on a rankings system, it comes out #1...

[FBM]

This 'liberal' Muslim guy makes the Palestine issue a big part of his message, but he did say he supports an Israeli state. I imagine he'd prefer to have it located somewhere in the Antarctic, tho.

[mandy]

removed by me.


i dont like it here thanks.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Merged with existing thread on same topic.

[Tigger]

removed by me.


i dont like it here thanks.

Okay, bye.