Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

3 simple reasons why Islam isn't compatible with the West Watch

    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Drunk Punx)
    I am.

    Are you aware of what "history" is?

    Because the way I see it, either history is relevant or it's not.
    - If it is, then it should be taken into account, thus making the statement I quoted logically impaired (I can only assume that the person posting was meaning to persuade OP of the notion that Muslims are generally quite peaceful despite history saying contrary. Or, they meant that Muslims are peaceful now, which leads us to the below statement).
    - If it's not, then the statement I quoted, specifically the bit regarding history, is irrelevant at best and misleadingly wrong at worst.
    Indeed I do.

    My point was, bringing forth evidence regarding "modern muslims" and their views of Islam dominating the world, is far more compelling than giving the example of muslims of the past, when this isn't in question or being discussed.

    I am not arguing for or against here, simply highlighting a potential flaw in your reasoning.

    When discussing " modern muslims", in my humble opinion, using modern data is more appropriate than using history, which doesn't represent "modern muslims" unless you make assumptions.

    With regards to the other user, I suspect that they were using their own views and the views of their friends, and therefore is valid as far as the notion of "modern muslims" is concerned, just not valid for all "modern muslims".
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ArX.Ba_H)
    Also, muslims are allowed to use violent methods no actually:
    “Whoever kills a person …it is as though he has killed all mankind. And whoever saves a life, it is as though he had saved all mankind.” (Qur’an, 5:32)
    Quote the full verse and the one that follows

    (we all know the dishonesty of you post I just wonder if you are brave enough to answer)
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BaconandSauce)
    Quote the full verse and the one that follows

    (we all know the dishonesty of you post I just wonder if you are brave enough to answer)
    To be fair, the vast majority of Muslims don't even know. It became a popular thing for Muslims to quote (ironically while whining about context of less friendly quotes) since that bell end Zakir Naik said it in a popular YouTube lecture and it spread on social media*
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    There are quite a few Muslim-majority countries (including a couple of unrecognised states) in Europe (or arguably in Europe depending on how you classify Europe) - Bosnia, Kosovo, Albania, Turkey, Northern Cyprus, and Azerbaijan. All of them have completely secular law codes. In fact the only European state which has partial official application of Sharia law is Greece, where in Western Thrace one is allowed to choose between secular and Sharia Law for civil matters, due to the large Turkish minority there.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    If we are tolerant, welcoming and accommodating, it absolutely can be.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    By that logic no religious people can integrate into a multi faith society because every religion ultimately wants only theirs throughout the world as evident in the missionary travels of Africa during the 1800s and early 1900s
    Offline

    21
    (Original post by biglad2k16)
    1) According to the Quran, Muslims cannot be friends with "unbelievers" so they cannot possibly integrate into British society as a group.

    2) Sharia law directly opposes Western values. The death of apostates, the ban info homosexuality, the jizya tax for non-Muslims all contradict our values of tolerance, equality and freedom.

    3) Muslms ultimately want the whole world to be Muslim and to live according to the rules of the Quran. They are allowed under the Quran to use violent methods to charge this.
    There is 1 reason actually, they are tossers.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by biglad2k16)
    1) According to the Quran, Muslims cannot be friends with "unbelievers" so they cannot possibly integrate into British society as a group.2) Sharia law directly opposes Western values. The death of apostates, the ban info homosexuality, the jizya tax for non-Muslims all contradict our values of tolerance, equality and freedom.3) Muslms ultimately want the whole world to be Muslim and to live according to the rules of the Quran. They are allowed under the Quran to use violent methods to charge this.
    yes yes we should deport all muslims and shut down/demolish every mosque before they turn their muslamic ray guns upon us infidels :P
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Think People)
    Who says muslims even want sharia in the west
    Well, the regular polls that show significant support for sharia amongst British Muslims would be a start.

    Btw saying the word "sharia law" is redundant , simply because the word "sharia" means law in arabic.
    No it doesn't. It means "way" or "path".
    The first rule of pedantry is to make sure you are right before correcting others!

    If you've read some basic history you'll know that muslims are not planning to over take the world. Honestly speaking those who do plan to take over the world are ones that control around 40% of world reserves.
    And if you've read some basic Quran, you'll know that it calls on Muslims to "fight disbelievers until there is no more idolatry and all religion is for Allah".

    The OP wasn't "How observant are most Muslims?", it was about the compaibility of Islam with liberal, secular, enlightened democracy. And the clear and undeniable answer is "not very".
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Gladiatorsword)
    Just blandly quoting a verse simply isn't good enough. Please do contextualise

    *incoming rants including the words apologist and extremist*
    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Have you never wondered why the infallible and omnipotent creator of the universe was so incapable of properly expressing himself? Why his eternal and perfect word always needs "contextualising" by humans before it is acceptable?
    And why, without this "contextualisation", it always makes sense in the simple context of 7th century Arabian society?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by KimKallstrom)
    To be fair, the vast majority of Muslims don't even know. It became a popular thing for Muslims to quote (ironically while whining about context of less friendly quotes) since that bell end Zakir Naik said it in a popular YouTube lecture and it spread on social media*
    I wondered where the lie started

    Naik one of the biggest idiots alive today
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Think People)
    Oh yes another one who just randomly picks verses from the quran with out actually reading the "tafseer" if you know what that means. :yy:

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    According to Ibn Kathir's tafsir, 5:51 means...
    "Allah forbids His believing servants from having Jews and Christians as friends, because they are the enemies of Islam and its people, may Allah curse them."

    On 5:57, he says... "This Ayah discourages and forbids taking the enemies of Islam and its people, such as the People of the Book and the polytheists, as friends."

    Seems pretty clear to me.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by rimstone)
    Also the Quran has been converted from Arabic to English rather badly in all cases; 7th century Arabic isn’t easy to translate, not to mention the fact like history, The Quran is interpreted differently.
    This is a well-worn myth. There are dozens of English translations of the Quran, the vast majority being done by native Arabic speaking Muslims who are fluent in English. They all agree to a great extent.
    The "mistranslation" argument is only ever used when an unacceptable passage is highlighted. I have never heard an apologist point to a verse that seems to promote peace or equality and say "It probably doesn't mean that, because of the bad translation - and we need to look at the verse in context".
    Clear double standards.

    I just wanna throw the fact that one of the largest Islamic countries, Bangladesh, has some of the most liberal laws on the use of cannabis and opium, though alcohol is illegal. The burka is also pretty much banned there, then you’ve got India and indonisa ect ect; you cant just group 25% of the world into a warped perception. Theres a wide range of followers of Islam, and unlike you, I don’t like to hold prejudice against people, before I get to know them. I like to place the action of a person on that person rather than the fact they miss interrupted a book or just were plain think or inhumane to do something.

    Do I think Islam is compatible with the west, living in London and going to a secondary school about 25% Islam and then going to a six form that was 1% Islam , almost all my interactions with people who follow Islam have been good and thankfully in London most people don’t hold you view.
    If I had a pound for every time an apologist answered a question on ideology with the example of the behaviour of individuals, I'd be very wealthy.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by lowza)
    This is so silly, no one follows their religious book word for word. I'm pretty sure most muslims would love it if the people around them became muslim (just as christians, hindus and sikhs would feel too) but the vast majority won't use violence to get there. You could write this for any religion, including christianity which I'd consider to be the main christian religion. According to the bible, it is acceptable for anyone who works on a Saturday to be put to death. I'm not sure that entirely fits in with the West either...

    How about we judge people on who they are and not their religion? That sounds much nicer
    You may not have noticed, but the OP refers only to "Islam", not "Muslims". Let me clear the it up for you.

    Is Islam compatible with liberal, secular, elightened democracy? - No
    Can Muslims be compatible with liberal, secular, elightened democracy? - Yes
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by QE2)
    Is Islam compatible with liberal, secular, elightened democracy? - No
    Can Muslims be compatible with liberal, secular, elightened democracy? - Yes
    You mean Muslims who don't follow Islam?
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ArX.Ba_H)
    There is nothing in the Quran, stated that you shouldn't be friends with non-muslims.
    Apart from those three verses that were quoted, of course. I earlier supplied a tafsir that confirms their meaning.

    This idea that you getting of that muslims want the whole world to be muslim, is mainly not even your idea but it's what is stereotypically put out there by other powerful human beings, who have status higher than us and control the world.
    Again, this concept is clearly implied in the Quran and sunnah. Fighting those who oppose you until there is no more opposition and everyone conforms to your worldview doesn't leave much room for peaceful coexistence.

    Also, muslims are allowed to use violent methods no actually:
    “Whoever kills a person …it is as though he has killed all mankind. And whoever saves a life, it is as though he had saved all mankind.” (Qur’an, 5:32)
    Ah yes, good old 5:32.
    Using this particular quote shows that either you have not actually read the Quran, or you are being deliberately dishonest. If we look at the full quote, including the bit you have replaced with an ellipsis, it says
    We ordained for the Children of Israel that if any one slew a person - unless it be for murder or for spreading mischief in the land - it would be as if he slew the whole people.

    First, the passage is addressed to the Children of Israel, a term used throughout the Quran to refer to the Jews.
    More importantly, the verse states that killing is permitted as a punishment for "spreading mischief" ("fasad" in Arabic). Fasad is a vague term that includes many actions, from treason and sedition to simply "disobeying Allah's law" (Ibn Kathir).

    Finally, the next verse (5:33) goes on to expand on the use of violence
    The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger, and strive with might and main for mischief through the land is: execution, or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides, or exile from the land
    (Ibn Kathir explains 'wage war' to include "opposition, contradiction and disbelief".)

    So, rather than prohibiting violence, the verse you quoted (with the next verse) explicitly allows brutal violence against a variety of people, including those simply opposing an ideology.

    These stereotypical ideas somehow get brain washed into innocent and naive people like you, which isn't a horrible thing at all but it is just sometimes see the outside of the box:
    You certainly seem to have accepted what you have been told without question! (If you are not being deliberately dishonest)
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by admonit)
    You mean Muslims who don't follow Islam?
    Pretty much.
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by QE2)
    Pretty much.
    "A Muslim, sometimes spelled Moslem,[1] relates to a person who follows or practises the religion of Islam"
    In this case they are not Muslims.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by admonit)
    "A Muslim, sometimes spelled Moslem,[1] relates to a person who follows or practises the religion of Islam"
    In this case they are not Muslims.
    And this is the point. What exactly is a "Muslim", and who gets to define it? What is clear is that "Islam" and "Muslim" are no longer synonymous.

    It would seem that there are many Muslims who follow a kind of "Islam lite". Most of us see no problem with that and would still call them "Muslims". However, there are some hard-line fundamentalists who would claim that they are not. There are even some who take that attitude to violent extremes.
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by QE2)
    And this is the point. What exactly is a "Muslim", and who gets to define it? What is clear is that "Islam" and "Muslim" are no longer synonymous.

    It would seem that there are many Muslims who follow a kind of "Islam lite". Most of us see no problem with that and would still call them "Muslims". However, there are some hard-line fundamentalists who would claim that they are not. There are even some who take that attitude to violent extremes.
    I agree that there is a "lite version" in every organized religion. But, do you remember one of the main pro-Muslim arguments? There are 1.5 billions. This inevitably create basis for "tiny", maybe several dozens of millions, with extreme interpretation of Islam. And this is enough to have what we have today.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Would you like to hibernate through the winter months?
    Useful resources
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.