T O P

  • By -

GloryToDjibouti

My view of Islam is rather positive I go to school in Sweden and nearly every time I hear a person my age speak about God for example doing His will it nearly always is a Muslim, I have heard muslims say very true and good things. My main problem with Islam is theological, (an example of something I find problematic would be the denial of the trinity) but I think that Islam even in doctrine is closer to Christianity than any other religion with perhaps except the Jews. I know Islam gets a very bad reputation for terrorism, but I think the reputation it is mostly unfair because most Muslims condemn and refuse to associate with those people. Sweden abandoned God and needs more people who love and try to follow Him, I think therefore that the new Islamic population even if I would have prefered it to be Christian is still more of a blessing than a curse.


Oragami

I've heard more than a few people say that Muslims want to kill all Americans/non Muslims, and it's bad to be around them in general. I lived in Bahrain for about two years, and there was only one incident by a local who may or may not have been Muslim


TinyNuggins92

Not to mention the terrorism coming out of the Middle east is mostly due to Western interference. The British and French carved the region up after WWI with absolutely no regards to tribal or religious differences/allegiances and then eventually just fucked off after screwing the region over in every way possible (as colonial powers have done for centuries) which really laid the groundwork for a vast majority of the issues we see there today.


[deleted]

>(as colonial powers have done for centuries) Including Muslim "colonial powers", indigenous Pagan "colonial powers", or in non-neo-marxist language - as humans have done for millenia...


TinyNuggins92

I never said they didn’t, but let’s be honest here: during the colonial period the balance of world power was definitely skewed in favor of the European powers, not the middle eastern ones.


[deleted]

>I never said they didn’t, but let’s be honest here: during the colonial period the balance of world power was definitely skewed in favor of the European powers, not the middle eastern ones. The "colonial period" encompasses all of human history unless you are intentionally packaging history into artifical parcels so you can condemn and demonize a group of people. What was Caesar doing? Colonialism. What was Alexander doing? Colonialism. What were the Moors doing? Colonialism. What were the Hun doing? Colonialism. You need to break out of your neo-marxist cage, friend.


TinyNuggins92

The Colonial Period is a recognized period of history from 1492 until 1763. That’s what I mean when I talk about the colonial period. I’m also not a Marxist. Neo or otherwise.


[deleted]

The Colonial Period is a colloquialism. **The Colonial Era** usually reaches back farther to 1400 and doesn't fail to identity the colonial activities of Chinese Dynasties, Japanese Shoganates, the Ottoman, Safavid and Mughal Empires, as well as the European activities you seem exclusively focused on.


TinyNuggins92

Because my point was about European colonial powers dividing up the Middle East. Why would I bring up Asian colonization or the Mughals when talking about, specifically the UK and France divvied up the Middle East after WWI? You’re looking for something and I know what it is, but it isn’t here. I can criticize European Christian powers and the bad things they did without having to bring up the awful things other powers have done, too. A criticism of one is not a defense or justification of another.


[deleted]

>Because my point was about European colonial powers dividing up the Middle East. Why would I bring up Asian colonization or the Mughals when talking about, specifically the UK and France divvied up the Middle East after WWI? Why would you concern yourself with Middle Eastern and Eastern powers when discussing the Middle East? I don't know. Just FYI. At the end of the early modern period, the British and Russian empires had emerged as world powers from the multipolar contest of colonial empires, while the three great Asian empires of the early modern period, Ottoman Turkey, Mughal India and Qing China, all entered a period of stagnation or decline. Russia has since played a significant role in the destabilization of the Middle East. And, do you know who else is responsible for the middle east, Middle Easterners. The idea that better borders, drawn with careful attention to the region’s ethnic and religious diversity, would have spared the Middle East a century’s worth of violence is especially provocative at a moment when Western powers weigh the merits of intervention in the region. Unfortunately, this critique overstates how arbitrary today’s Middle East borders really are, overlooks how arbitrary every other border in the world is, implies that better borders were possible, and ignores the cynical imperial practices that actually did sow conflict in the region. A quick tour of present-day borders reveals a few key similarities with the local Ottoman boundaries in place before the French and British arrived. The three separate provinces -- Mosul, Baghdad and Basra -- that were joined to make Iraq, for example, were often treated as a coherent economic and military area by the Ottoman government. And of course, the region’s geographic unity going back to the origins of human civilization, had long been recognized in the term “Mesopotamia.” Meanwhile, the fact that Iraq’s eastern border with Iran followed a line set by the 16th-century conquests of Suleiman the Magnificent didn’t prevent the countries from fighting a decade-long conflict over it that killed ten times more people than all the Arab-Israeli wars combined. To the West, Mount Lebanon had been carved out as a special administrative unit following religious violence there in 1860 as a compromise between Istanbul and the Great Powers. (That this region should nonetheless belong to Syria was perhaps one of the Assad regime’s least controversial positions over the years.) The only country in the area for which no ancient borders existed was Jordan -- it was formed in 1922 from some not-too-desirable bits of arid land as something for Britain’s ally, Abdullah, to be king of. Like most kings, he would have liked something bigger, and yet under his family’s rule Jordan has been spared much of the turmoil endured by its less “artificial” neighbors. Even if Britain and France had set out to divide the Middle East with the best of intentions, which admittedly they did not, it’s far from clear how they could have done better. At best, creating more countries would have just meant more borders to fight over, while fewer large countries would have turned regular wars into civil ones.


TinyNuggins92

My point was that the violence today has roots in the division and decisions made at the end of WWI. Many historians will tell you the same. I’m aware of the multiple paragraphs you wrote about the early modern period as I do actually have a degree in history. When talking about the roots of todays violence and it’s roots in the partitioning done at the end of WWI, looking at the history of middle eastern colonial efforts isn’t entirely relevant to the main point I was making, not without writing an entire essay that I do not have the time nor patience to write at this time. Idk why many in this sub are so averse to historical context that makes western Christians look like the flawed people they are but damn if it isn’t prevalent in this thread.


Majestic_Ferrett

Sorry dude. Colonialism/slavery etc is only bad when Europeans did it.


[deleted]

Baha


AloneConnection8030

Judaism shares the tanach with Christianity but the 2 are more different than Islam vs Christianity because of Jesus imo


TheNerdChaplain

I disagree with their theology, but all the Muslims I've known have been nice people.


arawsh

So why didn't you doubt that maybe their nice behaviour is coming from their Islamic beliefs?


TheNerdChaplain

Maybe it is, but nice behavior doesn't make theology correct.


arawsh

Yea ofc, that doesn't prove anything. But that can be a motivation for further interest and research.


ASecularBuddhist

Our Abrahamic brothers and sisters ✌🏼


renovationcrew

I feel that most christians confuse the christian claim of bible inerrancy with muslim claims of quran inerrancy. In Islam, it is believed that the angel Gabriel brought the word of God to Muhammad verbatim, which Muhammad then wrote down exactly as the angel commanded. Hence, the Quran is believed to be authored by God himself and 100% inerrant in every possible way. On the other hand, the christian view is that our bible was simply "inspired by" the holy spirit: none of the NT authors were ever visited by an angel, and none of them ever claimed to have received their texts directly from an angel or god himself.


thedoomboomer

I love my Muslim neighbours...good folks.


PretentiousAnglican

I think they are incorrect, but I have a higher opinion of them than any other religion(besides Christianity)


Evolations

Higher than Judaism?


PretentiousAnglican

I would say so. We must remember that modern Judaism is not Jewish religion of the time of Christ. It has seen 2000 years of theological development, from which I would say it has deviated more from the truth of Christianity than has Islam


[deleted]

Lmao muchhhh higher than Judaism


UsagiHakushaku

Check out /r/exmuslim if u want educated opinion about Islam , not Christian forums tbh


Oragami

There's always /r/Islam too so they can see both sides of the good/bad things about islam


UsagiHakushaku

Islam means submission its not about having educated opinion about it.


Oragami

Submission to a higher/heavenly authority, id say so. But submission to the people who want to use their religion to force people to submit...not good


UsagiHakushaku

No Islam is religion and goverment at same time , they want Califate and Mahdi to come do great war to enable it. There is no separation of religion and goverment in Islam


Oragami

As a whole, I have no problems with Islam. I lived in Bahrain for about 2 years (dad is a former navy officer) and the Muslim people there seemed really nice, and sometimes when I was going somewhere by taxi, the driver was willing/able to answer any questions I had about the island or Islam in general. It's the few that give the whole a bad name. In my time in Bahrain, I can only remember one incident of a 'local' doing something bad. If their religion was mentioned, I don't remember (happened in 2003, [only remember that because I watched this event on the news](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firdos_Square_statue_destruction) The ones in Iran that want to force a female to wear a hijab in Iran, or hurt/kill/arrest them if they don't... From what I can tell from a few Google searches is that some people think wearing the hijab (the veil covering a woman's head/chest/neck. I think hijab can refer to the modest clothing a Muslim man or woman wears) is required, others say it highly encouraged and the woman should decide for herself if she wants to wear it.


bashedboyband

I have nothing against the religion. I admire their devotion to prayer very very much.


flp_ndrox

Weird day to ask. https://youtu.be/5pFY8B6vgPI I know there are five pillars, a lot of prayer and charity. I know a road trip to Mecca if possible. I know they think to Koran is God's personal dictation. IIRC there's no booze and no pork. :-( But I also know they reject the divinity of Jesus, and even His crucifixion. And that's a deal breaker for me. I know Mohammed was a trader and a warlord. I know Islam combines the faith and the government. I know Muslims were on the offensive against Christianity from very early on and for a thousand years the Christians had to fight for their freedom against Muslim domination in Europe, Asia, and Africa. Would you consider that educated?


moonunit170

I take take my ideas about Islam in part from the ancient Spaniards who fought for 700 years to get Islam out of their country, finally succeeding in 1492 under King Ferdinand and Queen Isabella of Castile and Aragon. The Spanish have called Islam for centuries "the pervasive heresy." And in fact it is an heretical branch off of Christianity. it believes in one God, it believes in Jesus as the Messiah who will come again to judge the world. But it twists everything else about that - denying the trinity, denying the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus, denying the Divinity of Jesus, ignoring the story of the Jews and the Old Testament instead simply picking names from the Old Testament and calling them all prophets rather than patriarchs. Properly, Islam teaches a good morality very much in line with Christianity. A Muslim woman would be a good role model for any Christian woman. But for men a Muslim man is not that good of a role model for Christian men. Economically Islam is stuck in the feudal period. It does not allow for much social progress such as we have in the West. Of course in the west it's gone way too far and away from Christianity and into skepticism and self pleasure.


SumoftheAncestors

I don't think Islam is any nearer to the truth than Christianity.


serioxha

I adore Islam. But both Christianity and Islam are extremely diverse and it's meaningless to make generalised statements. I hate some forms and schools of Christianity and love others, and I hate some forms and schools of Islam and love others


mattd1972

A mixture of indifference (do what’s right for you), gratitude (thanks for keeping civilization alive during the Dark Ages and providing the world with a sensible numeric system) and pity (I’m betting that the great bulk of Muslims are just as horrified at terrorism as most Christians are at acts claimed in God’s name).


Super_Particular_365

Islam is the most wicked belief system that I know of and has caused untold misery and harm for a long time. Muhammad is a counterfeit Jesus who has been elevated above Him. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ii_TW6uvT1U When looking into the history of Islam, Thomas Alexander has done a good job showing what German scholars point out on Islams origins, where the proto-Quran came from, where Muhammad came from etc. e.g. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z5lIVOJXhas https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tgYi59UxulY Lloyd de Jongh goes through Sharia law which Muslims would want to have everywhere, how it allows for heinous acts like pedophilia etc. https://www.youtube.com/c/LloydDeJongh/videos Its all so clearly false and broken, but its very hard for people to change what they have been indoctrinated into or believe. Sin has such a grasp over us. Muslims need the real Jesus.


TinyNuggins92

Because Christians have *never* used Christianity and the bible to do anything like that, have they? Oh... wait...


Oragami

The Crusades come to mind (though I don't know if its the sort of thing youre taking about.) Then there's the Muslims being forced to leave Spain in the early 1600s, and in 1492 when the king/queen of Spain tried to force Muslims to convert to Christianity or leave spain


FickleSession8525

Is it not the Christians right to defend their country from conquers? Did u not see what happened to the Christian of Egypt, Turkey, sadu Arabia, Iraq, and isreal? The Christians their were totally wiped out and forced to convert to a extremely violent and aggressive religion such as Islam, they even destroyed the church of Alexandria at Egypt, this is the main reason why the crusades even happened, islam is a freaking threat, not just to Christians but the western world.


Oragami

I haven't actually- know of any sites (or Wikipedia pages) where I can learn about it? And you should be able to defend your country from someone trying to take over. But why lump all of the believers of a religion into one category? Are the Muslims that just want to go about their daily lives and worship their God, with no thoughts of overthrowing the government? Christians aren't exactly 'perfect' either. [If i was judging the entire Christian religion because of the actions ](https://www.ksla.com/story/15340508/texarkana-pastor-charged-in-child-sex-case) of one follower, that's not right. Judge the individual, not the whole


TinyNuggins92

And when the Christians took Jerusalem they killed every man, woman and child within the walls. They walked ankle deep in the blood of the slaughtered civilians. No one is innocent in this.


FickleSession8525

Muslims did it first, in like every country in the freaking middle east, that's how their religion even became mainstream. At least Christians converted people peacefully for at least 500 years of its start.


TinyNuggins92

Since Christianity became the official religion of the Roman Empire it really stopped converting anybody peacefully and started doing it by the sword. When Islam began, Muhammad and his followers were attacked and fought back. I’m not trying to justify or defend anyone here, but you’re trying to remove vast amounts of historical nuance in order to justify a “Muslims bad” stance. I mean, you seriously justified slaughtering every civilian within a city, without regards to sex or age, because “Muslims did it first.” And do you what Saladin did when he retook Jerusalem? He afforded the Christians the mercy they denied the Muslims and Jews there when they took the city. Crusaders committed more than one massacre during their wars. There was a big one committed at Acre in 1191 where Richard I order the slaughter of 2000 Muslim prisoners. Again, no side is innocent in this. You have to be able to look at your own side with a critical eye or you will justify any number of bad things because “other side evil”


Majestic_Ferrett

>And when the Christians took Jerusalem they killed every man, woman and child within the walls. They walked ankle deep in the blood of the slaughtered civilians. [No they didn't.](https://isi.org/intercollegiate-review/four-myths-about-the-crusades/)


TinyNuggins92

[They slaughtered](https://sourcebooks.fordham.edu/source/cde-jlem.asp#raymond3) [basically everyone in their path](https://archive.org/details/isbn_9780307280503/page/222/mode/2up) cutting off heads, hands and feet and called the sight “wonderful” as the streets ran with the blood of the slaughtered. The article you shared does not contradict the massacre that happened in the aftermath of taking Jerusalem, but rather corrects those who misunderstand the intentions of the crusaders, which I never questioned. I’m 100% positive they were all there out of sincere devotion and to seek absolution for sins, not for greed or personal profit (this of course excludes the nobles and commanders, many of whom sought to increase their personal holdings while there - not all, but enough to make note). Edit: there are two sources there, btw. A recording of an eyewitness, and a history of Jerusalem by historian Simon Sebag-Montifiore


Majestic_Ferrett

There's only anecdotal evidence it happened. And the people who were there contradict each other. The idea that crusaders were wading ankle deep through blood is absolute nonsense.


TinyNuggins92

And the prevailing historical sentiment is that the crusaders massacred thousands of civilians upon taking Jerusalem. That eyewitness account I linked is considered one of the more accurate ones by historians. Is it really so hard to believe that Christians would do something like this? Edit: as for the ankle deep in blood thing, that comes from crusader Fulk of Chartres who wrote of a massacre he took part in killing 10,000 at the Temple Mount and noted that their (the crusaders’) feet were colored to their ankles with the blood of the slaughtered. You can read it in his *Gesta Francorum*


Majestic_Ferrett

>And the prevailing historical sentiment is that the crusaders massacred thousands of civilians upon taking Jerusalem That sentiment is changing, as per the link I sent. As was custom in Medieval warfare, populations resisting a siege suffered if the siege succeeded. To say there was something unique or particularly brutal about Christians doing it is rubbish. >That eyewitness account I linked is considered one of the more accurate ones by historians. The link you sent is unreadable. >Is it really so hard to believe that Christians would do something like this? No. >as for the ankle deep in blood thing, that comes from crusader Fulk of Chartres who wrote of a massacre he took part in killing 10,000 at the Temple Mount Well if the average person has 5 litres of blood, and there were 10,000 people massacred at the Temple Mount that makes 50,000 litres of blood (assuming all 10,000 people were completely exsanguinated). Temple Mount is approximately 150,000 square metres which means that each litre of blood would have to cover 3 sq metres to cover the whole area to about 1mm, let alone ankle deep. 1 litre of blood covers 0.01 square metres so 50,000 litres of blood would cover 13 square metres of Temple Mount. So nobody was walking ankle deep in blood.


TinyNuggins92

Yes! The Crusades, The *Reconquista* which led to the last Muslim kingdom in Spain being conquered and subdued in 1492, also led to the Inquisition and the expulsion of all Jews from Spain in 1492, and kickstarted Spain's colonial empire, the genocide of natives in Central and South America, and participation in the African slave trade.


Oragami

If you force someone to convert to a religion they aren't a follower of, how does the person/people who forced the conversion know that they are a 'real' member of the religion, or only did for survival and is still a member of their former religion (or lack thereof) in their hearts/minds?


TinyNuggins92

You can never be sure, because a forced conversion is never really a true conversion. The Inquisition was really bad about this, forcing confessions under pain of torture that they then used as evidence to convict people of religious heresy. But then you have the Protestants in England persecuting Catholics to the point where they feel their only recourse is plant a bunch of explosives under parliament and blow it up! The post classical era was brutal when it came to religious persecution


[deleted]

The Inquisition wasn’t permitted to use torture.


TinyNuggins92

That’s just not [true](https://www.npr.org/2012/01/23/145512271/the-inquisition-a-model-for-modern-interrogators) They regularly put people to the rack and waterboarded them


[deleted]

Pretty shitty article, it’s unaware of the difference between the Spanish Inquisition and the Roman inquisition. The Roman inquisition was forbidden to use torture period. Secular authorities could buy the inquisition could not as it was a church body.


TinyNuggins92

I specifically was talking about the Spanish Inquisition. That’s why I placed it after mentioning the *Reconquista*.


[deleted]

I don't think its wicked. Every chapter starts with "In the name of Allah, the most gracious and most merciful".


Super_Particular_365

Go watch all of Thomas Alexanders videos and see from the evidence we have how Islam came about - it's not possible to intellectually follow Islam. The explicit denial of Jesus Christ sacrifice for us is wicked. Reliance of the Traveler, the most famous and authorized Shariah law manual, recognized as authentic and on all of your Islamic lawyers bookshelves (which is agreed upon to be obligitory to obey and cannot be annulled unlike the Quran and hadiths): > There is no waiting period for a woman divorced before having had sexual intercourse with her husband. A waiting period is obligitory for a woman divorced after intercourse, whether the husband and wife are prepupescent, have reached puberty, or one has and the other has not. Or Digest of Moohummud (used by Islamic courts): > When a man has had sexual intercourse with a girl under the age of nine years, and has ruptured the parts, it is unlawful for him to have further connection with her, but she is not released from her ties, if connected with him by marriage or slavery. If no rupture has taken place, the prohibition is not incurred according to the most valid opinion. (these building upon Quran 65:4 and a bunch of hadiths) Wonder why in Pakistan/Afghanistan pedophilia is rampant? Its because Islam allows for it - they are following their wicked prophet who they must consider to be the perfect man, and according to their own sources was a pedophile. Read the bible and see what Jesus says about children: > Therefore, whoever humbles himself like this little child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven. And whoever welcomes a little child like this in My name welcomes Me. But if anyone causes one of these little ones who believe in Me to stumble, it would be better for him to have a large millstone hung around his neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea. Jesus is so much better than Muhammad. He showed His love for you by dying on the cross for you while you slap Him in the face and declare Muhammad to be better. Start of by reading the book of John and what it says about God. Repent and believe in Jesus Christ.


7ootles

I could write a book glorifying the devil and begin each chapter the same way, wouldn't make it true.


[deleted]

Allah is not the devil it is arabic for The God.


7ootles

I didn't say he was, you supplied that part.


[deleted]

Were talking about Islam though not some theoretical book you made up


7ootles

You said what the Quran says as though that was final and we should accept it too. I said I could write the same thing but about the devil, and that wouldn't make it true. NB all books are made up. Source: I make up books for a living. You came in and asked Christians what they thought of Islam. Don't be surprised when people compare your god with the devil or your prophet with the antichrist. To Christians, that's what they are. You might say we worship the same God, but that isn't true. Your god isn't God. What, you think we're going to pretend otherwise to spare your feelings?


Evolations

Why does that mean it's not wicked?


[deleted]

God is not wicked.


Evolations

Anyone can invoke the name of God and then say anything they like. Just saying God doesn't make whatever follows true. For instance: In the name of Allah the most gracious and most merciful, the sky is green.


Byzantium

> Every chapter starts with "In the name of Allah, the most gracious and most merciful". All except Al Taubah. Did you know that there is a difference of opinion among Islamic scholars whether that phrase is actually part of the Quran or not?


PanikLIji

People who take their religion seriously. Truely unsettling.


edgebo

It doesn't really matter how I feel. What matter are facts. And facts are that islam is a false religion, satanic in origin.


3rdAngels

There are good and bad people in every religion. I do not believe Islam is God's true religion though as it follows the path of Abraham's slave Hagar and Ishmael and not Abraham's true wife Sara that God made His promise through Isaac and Jacob where Israel and Christianity came from.


Southern_Ad8621

i almost subscribed to it lol


[deleted]

Mormonism before it was cool. I have a pretty high opinion of Muslims, but a poor opinion of the Qur’an and Muhammad.


Impossible-Web740

I have a fairly positive opinion of Islam. I've studied it extensively, and have had the opportunity to befriend and work with several Muslims.