All religions are bad, but Islam is worse than others

[al-rawandi]

'Islam is worse than others.'

That doesn't really say much when you think about it. Only that there are some religions (ie. at least two) that are not as bad as islam (according to whatever criteria one uses to measure the 'badness' of a religion.)

Frankly, I would go further and say that at the present time islam is the most fucked-up, suppressive, belligerent religion out there. Unlike some, I don't think that this is an inherent feature of that particular set of nonsensical beliefs - however, it IS a consequence of any religion having so much temporal power. The xians were every bit as bad when they held sway over large chunks of the world. Any religion, given enough totalitarian control, will quickly turn cancerous.

Religion = bunch of cunts. Islam = biggest cunt in the bunch today.

You must think I am following you, huh? Anyhow, I think you are wrong here and I will explain why I think so. Islam differs in a number of ways from both Judaism and Christianity (it differs in many ways from Buddhism and Hinduism, but I think you were referring to monotheistic faiths). Christ, for all his flaws, can easily be interpreted as a pacifistic character, and in fact he often is. His moral teachings were not something a humanist would object to in every instance. Would Jesus have been a son of a bitch if he had the kind of power and control Muhammad did? Maybe, but that is a useless metaphysical historical exercise. The New Testament is dedicated to the description of the life of a man who is largely a pacifist.

As for Judaism, the Torah is a largely descriptive document (save for Leviticus). It describes how a people came to be. The Torah, in my archaeological and historical opinion is a fabrication. In all likelyhood there was no Exodus from Egypt (I go farther than Freud does in "Moses and Monotheism" in this analysis, Freud merely saying Moses died before he reached the Midian), in fact the Hebrews were actually a sect of Canaanites. This sect needed a powerful set of stories to craft an identity that would attract and hold followers in a tribal society, this is what they came up with. It is a description of how the Hebrews destroyed this tribe or that tribe.

Now Islam issues timeless calls for violence against ALL non-believers, period. There is no pacifistic interpretation of "when the holy months are over, slay them wherever you find them". Unlike the texts of other religions, the Qur'an has a series of exegeses. Within these there are near uniform sections, preceding every chapter, and many verses, called Asbab al-Nazul (Causes of Revelation). It describes why the verse was revealed and often why it has become a timeless edict from Allah. The Hadith of Muhammad are another set of violent texts with open calls for violence, oppression and slaughter. There is no escaping the fundamental nature of Islam, NONE.

Peculiar Muslims have tried to forward some warm and fuzzy version of Islam, but they are immediately trounced by the scholars in any debate. The reason? The full textual weight of Islam rests with the fundamentalists. Osama Bin Laden is far more right about Islam than the friendly folks they put on TV to apologize for him. The notional reality of these sets of beliefs is violent and deadly. It is the reason that no Muslim polity ever lives in peace with itself or another polity of people.

Treating Islam as "just about the same" as other religions is one way we can excuse ourselves from saying the rather uncomfortable fact that our society is superior, without question. Judeo-Christian values gave us secularism, modern democracy, and just about every economic theory there is. This is no accident, and it is no accident that nothing has emerged from the Muslim world save for violent conquest and oppression.

[Arse]

Plenty has emerged from the muslim world when people throw off the mental shackles of Islam itself, eg, the very same person who you are named after, al-rawandi. This, I suspect, is one of the reasons that Islam is so hysterical and punitive to any critical analysis that it sanctions the death penalty for apostasy. It demands Submission from its followers - mental submission under which muslims are warned not to question unless they lose their faith, backed up with the threat of violence for any transgression.

[Mysturji]

Ooops, sorry!

Don't worry, the anti-defamation resolution is non-binding (for now.)

So Fuck Islam in its DIrty Ass.

And the camel it rode in on.

[al-rawandi]

Plenty has emerged from the muslim world when people throw off the mental shackles of Islam itself, eg, the very same person who you are named after, al-rawandi. This, I suspect, is one of the reasons that Islam is so hysterical and punitive to any critical analysis that it sanctions the death penalty for apostasy. It demands Submission from its followers - mental submission under which muslims are warned not to question unless they lose their faith, backed up with the threat of violence for any transgression.

Ghost, yes indeed, you have corrected me and I stand corrected. Thank you. Now if I may, by of brief literary flurry, demonstrate how difficult it is.

Ibn al-Rawandi wrote a book called Kitab al-Zumurrud (The Blinding Emerald). Ibn al-Rawandi was a Mu'atizila, which meant for all intents and purposes the vast majority of theologians considered him an apostate. But he went a step further. In his book he used a form of Arabic Kalam (Dialectic) called "Qalla wa Yaqul lahu" (If he says, he should be told), it is used by philosophers to set up an argument for prompt demolition. The person he set up for demolition was Abu 'Issa al-Warraq, who would argue (which was actually al-Rawandi making the argument) against prophecy on the basis of the primacy of the intellect, meaning prophecy was either in line with rational thought, in which case it was superfluous, or contradicted rational thought, in which case it was fabricated. The trick was, as Ibn al-Rawandi argued for Islam, he threw the argument. The straw man, Abu Issa al-Warraq won the argument, this never happened in this form of Kalam.

The point being, in order for al-Rawandi to deconstruct prophecy he had to intentionally lose an argument to a well known apostate who al-Rawandi himself was impersonating. This is how serious apostasy is, and the lengths to which one must go to escape the mental prison.

Digression over.

[Horwood Beer-Master]

[DaveDodo007]

Fuck me, Pappa was right.

[Mysturji]

snip...
The point being, in order for al-Rawandi to deconstruct prophecy he had to intentionally lose an argument to a well known apostate who al-Rawandi himself was impersonating. This is how serious apostasy is, and the lengths to which one must go to escape the mental prison.

No he didn't. He just thought he did (or thought others would reject his argument if he didn't).
IMHO the truth (backed up by reason, and perhaps a dash of ridicule) would have been a more effective argument.
But then, that might well have got him killed, so I can't really hold it against him.


... And I've been waiting for an opportunity to post this ever since I thought it up a couple of months ago, so...

The Five Pillars of Islam
1. Be offended.
2. Subjugate women.
3. Persecute homosexuals.
4. Kill the infidels.
5. Destroy Israel.

[Pappa]

Fuck me, Pappa was right.

Alas yes.

[Hermit]

'Islam is worse than others.'

That doesn't really say much when you think about it. Only that there are some religions (ie. at least two) that are not as bad as islam (according to whatever criteria one uses to measure the 'badness' of a religion.)

Frankly, I would go further and say that at the present time islam is the most fucked-up, suppressive, belligerent religion out there. Unlike some, I don't think that this is an inherent feature of that particular set of nonsensical beliefs - however, it IS a consequence of any religion having so much temporal power. The xians were every bit as bad when they held sway over large chunks of the world. Any religion, given enough totalitarian control, will quickly turn cancerous.

Religion = bunch of cunts. Islam = biggest cunt in the bunch today.

Were you drunk at the time you wrote that? If not, would you please explain the difference between saying "All religions are bad, but Islam is worse than others" and "Religion = bunch of cunts. Islam = biggest cunt"?

[PsychoSerenity]

'Islam is worse than others.'

That doesn't really say much when you think about it. Only that there are some religions (ie. at least two) that are not as bad as islam (according to whatever criteria one uses to measure the 'badness' of a religion.)

Frankly, I would go further and say that at the present time islam is the most fucked-up, suppressive, belligerent religion out there. Unlike some, I don't think that this is an inherent feature of that particular set of nonsensical beliefs - however, it IS a consequence of any religion having so much temporal power. The xians were every bit as bad when they held sway over large chunks of the world. Any religion, given enough totalitarian control, will quickly turn cancerous.

Religion = bunch of cunts. Islam = biggest cunt in the bunch today.

Were you drunk at the time you wrote that? If not, would you please explain the difference between saying "All religions are bad, but Islam is worse than others" and "Religion = bunch of cunts. Islam = biggest cunt"?

His logic makes sense, I think. It's just slightly pedantic. If it had said "Islam is the worst" or "Islam is worse than all others" or even "the others", then it would be saying the same thing - but just "worse than others", as XC clearly says, means worse than at least two others but not necessarily any more than that.

Also I note by the HBM post, that this thread is old old old.

[Audley Strange]

Yeah it seemed to me that XC was saying they are only the biggest bunch of cunts currently. I'm not sure that's true, though certainly they are a bunch of cunts.

[Mysturji]

Pretty much.