Is Islam a religion and/or a political ideology?

[danieldemol]

The Background to my question;

...
In reality Islam is not a religion.
It is a political ideology. If recognized as that Islam would have no constitutional right in America. Which would not be a bad thing given Islam's sharia perspective.
...

My take on it is that in accordance with any reasonable definition of religion, traditional fundamentalist Islam is made up of parts that fall into both the category of strictly religious aspects (things like prayer, fasting etc) and contains aspects which are political in nature (things such as whether a nation once it has been ruled by Muslims, can ever be returned to rule by non-Muslims).

I would say further that banning the conglomerate that is all of Islam in it's totality would just offside moderate sects of Islam and liberals.

Additionally, why do we need to ban the purely religious aspects of traditional Islam in order to forbid the purely political aspects which are contrary to our laws? Would this not simply legitimise the feelings of persecution that Muslims have and assist in it's spread throughout the west?

Furthermore where do we draw the line, should all religions which have political aspects also have their spiritual dimensions banned? (I'm thinking along the lines of Christianity with it's opposition to gay rights etc)

Kind regards

 

[LuisDantas]

It seems to me that Islaam is indeed not at all a religion. It is just way too tribalistic, way too feeble in transcendence (which it seems to actively despise, even), way too obsessed with monotheism as a goal as opposed to a way of expression.

The political abuse is just one of the most patent manifestations of that failure to actually be a religion.

Attempting to ban it is of course pointless. There is no ruling on the beliefs of people. Islaam itself tries hard to banish atheism, the Bahai Faith and the Druse from its communities, and despite going to dishonorable extremes it still fails.

But there may well be no need to make such an attempt.

Instead, Islaam must be allowed to fulfill its own destiny (which is that of dissolution into non-existence).

The best way to cooperate is to refuse to presume religious aspects into it when those do not exist. To expose and challenge the abuse and excess for what they demonstrably are, to show Muslims that we do not secretly want to be Muslims, and let Muslims realize how inseparable from the core doctrine those excesses and deviances are. And, above all, to give them the means to realize that they do not have to settle for such a misguided doctrine.

Islaam does in fact feel motivated by even the vaguest semblance of persecution. It has a strong craving for feelings of martyrdom, particularly among the Shia, who define their group identify by the Day of Ashura. At the same time, it is no good to keep giving them their unreasonable demands. Both approaches serve only to feed their expectations and create an entirely unjustified sense of entitlement.

The solution is therefore to deny them both persecution and appeasement, and instead give them the chance to make their beliefs fall or stand on their own merits, such as they show themselves to be.

It is not really a big challenge. All it takes is being aware of the basic characteristics of Islaam and to refuse to take it on its word without supporting evidence. And to have a secular enough state, which does not take to itself the pointless task of deciding what deserves recognition of being called "religious" and instead expects requests and demands to be justifiable on their own merits, without relying on claims of religious privilege.

That will of course be denounced as an attack on Islaam. But there is no way around it. Islaam teaches itself to perceive everything outside it as potential expansions and as enemies to be chastised, with no middle ground, no nuance. Such venon can not be accepted, and therefore must be challenged into extinction or repentance. Refusing to challenge it now will only postpone the need and make it fester even further, as always happened in the past.

 

[Salvador]

Islam is not simply theology, doctrine and laws, but it's political ideology disguised as religion. Its core tenets are supremacist and totalitarian. Base on Islam's central tenants, followers can't question what they've been taught, and Muslims must be intolerant of other belief systems. In the mind of a Muslim, there are believers and then there are those who are infidels.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

It's as much a political ideology as Judaism is. Judaism has its equvilent to Islamic sharia called halakha. Islam is very much like Judaism.

 

[Salvador]

It seems to me that Islaam is indeed not at all a religion. It is just way too tribalistic, way too feeble in transcendence (which it seems to actively despise, even), way too obsessed with monotheism as a goal as opposed to a way of expression.

The political abuse is just one of the most patent manifestations of that failure to actually be a religion.

Attempting to ban it is of course pointless. There is no ruling on the beliefs of people. Islaam itself tries hard to banish atheism, the Bahai Faith and the Druse from its communities, and despite going to dishonorable extremes it still fails.

But there may well be no need to make such an attempt.

Instead, Islaam must be allowed to fulfill its own destiny (which is that of dissolution into non-existence).

The best way to cooperate is to refuse to presume religious aspects into it when those do not exist. To expose and challenge the abuse and excess for what they demonstrably are, to show Muslims that we do not secretly want to be Muslims, and let Muslims realize how inseparable from the core doctrine those excesses and deviances are. And, above all, to give them the means to realize that they do not have to settle for such a misguided doctrine.

Islaam does in fact feel motivated by even the vaguest semblance of persecution. It has a strong craving for feelings of martyrdom, particularly among the Shia, who define their group identify by the Day of Ashura. At the same time, it is no good to keep giving them their unreasonable demands. Both approaches serve only to feed their expectations and create an entirely unjustified sense of entitlement.

The solution is therefore to deny them both persecution and appeasement, and instead give them the chance to make their beliefs fall or stand on their own merits, such as they show themselves to be.

It is not really a big challenge. All it takes is being aware of the basic characteristics of Islaam and to refuse to take it on its word without supporting evidence. And to have a secular enough state, which does not take to itself the pointless task of deciding what deserves recognition of being called "religious" and instead expects requests and demands to be justifiable on their own merits, without relying on claims of religious privilege.

That will of course be denounced as an attack on Islaam. But there is no way around it. Islaam teaches itself to perceive everything outside it as potential expansions and as enemies to be chastised, with no middle ground, no nuance. Such venon can not be accepted, and therefore must be challenged into extinction or repentance. Refusing to challenge it now will only postpone the need and make it fester even further, as always happened in the past.

Great post!, Sorry, I don't mean to be a Grammar Nazi; Just curious though, if there is any particular reason you've spelled Islam with an extra letter "a".

 

[Salvador]

It's as much a political ideology as Judaism is. Judaism has its equvilent to Islamic sharia called halakha. Islam is very much like Judaism.

However, Jews don't proselytize nearly as much as Muslims. Right?

Islam looks to politically and militarily dominate the entire world; whereas, Jews are content with simply having their little ole nation of Israel. Right?

 

[Firemorphic]

There's a political side to almost every religion. Politics afterall is a form of secular ideology.
All religions have had their major controversies because humans exist and humans do stupid things.
Islam, in principle, isn't very different from Judaism, Hinduism or Democracy in that respect.

Also, you're a complete idiot if you try to make the baseless claim that there is no spirituality in Islam, as it is an idiotic statement.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

However, Jews don't proselytize nearly as much as Muslims. Right?

Most Jews don't but some Jewish groups, like Chabad, do. Of course, there's not as many Jews as there are Muslims.

 

[Salvador]

Most Jews don't but some Jewish groups, like Chabad, do. Of course, there's not as many Jews as there are Muslims.

Chabad just proselytize among Jews, though. Right?

 

[Firemorphic]

However, Jews don't proselytize nearly as much as Muslims. Right?

There are people who are individuals (like you or me or the next guy), then their are institutions and governments - don't mix them up, they're not the same and they usually conflict.

The individual's spiritual and mystical path bears no relation to some evil government (using our religion as a scapegoat to excuse terrible crimes against human rights) which is going around oppressing other religions, there is no correlation. They do what they do because they have Satan in their hearts, they continue to cause misery and pain. They are the true apostates.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Just among Jews, though. Right?

No. Chabad wants Gentiles to become Noahides and encourages Jews to teach that to Gentiles. I don't know of any other Jewish group that does that, but they are well-known.

 

[LuisDantas]

Great post!, Sorry, I don't mean to be a Grammar Nazi; Just curious though, if there is any particular reason you've spelled Islam with an extra letter "a".

It is a conscious choice of mine, for reasons that may well make no sense for anyone else.

One of those reasons is that it reminds me that there is always a difference between reality and perception. When discussing Islaam that is a helpful fact to remember.

 

[Firemorphic]

The political abuse is just one of the most patent manifestations of that failure to actually be a religion.

Why do you think political abuse is Islam's defining and only important factor (collectively) ?

Your opinion piece makes a lot of stretches like this which really favor controversy over the religious/spiritual/mystical substance inherent in Islam's core.


I know you utterly despise Monotheism (and any form of theism), I've read your thread's, this kind of stuff is completely short sighted. I know you've never tried to participate in the religion (let alone challenge the sources you read about it from, from an academic point of view), although I'm sure nothing will change your mind at this point.

 

[Firemorphic]

followers can't question what they've been taught

Don't tell me not to question what I think, feel and believe. I will continue to question everything until the day I die.

and Muslims must be intolerant of other belief systems.

Says who? you? Salman bin al Saud?

As someone with a love for the Dharmic traditions, Zoroastrainism and ancient paganism - I take offense to your comment. Don't tell me what to think, I will like them as I do. Other belief systems are crucial for understanding yourself, your own beliefs, history and many more things.

 

[LuisDantas]

Why do you think political abuse is Islam's defining and only important factor (collectively) ?

I don't. It has several other defining parameters, some of which I mentioned in my previous post.

Your opinion piece makes a lot of stretches like this which really favor controversy over the religious/spiritual/mystical substance inherent in Islam's core.

Maybe you would hold a different opinion if you read my piece carefully and considered what it actually says.

You are certainly welcome to point out any inaccuracies that you may find on it. For instance, what is your view of the importance of Ashura for the Shia?

I know you utterly despise Monotheism (and any form of theism),

Again, you are simply mistaken, or perhaps just misrepresenting what I say. Theism has a place, and can be a marvelous tool when properly employed.

But it is not inherently safe, and it is certainly not for everyone.

As it turns out, Islaam takes theism in a particularly dysfunctional form and places it into an entirely inappropriate place, making it utterly dogmatic and raising it to the sustaining principle of its very doctrine.

The whole doctrine suffers terribly from those core mistakes, and it shows. Islaam is barely compatible with even basic understanding of both atheism and religion, because it teaches such twisted ideas about both concepts.

I've read your thread's, this kind of stuff is completely short sighted. I know you've never tried to participate in the religion (let alone challenge the sources you read about it from, from an academic point of view), although I'm sure nothing will change your mind at this point.

You are welcome to try, but I am well warned about the most common tactics. You may well teach me something new, nevertheless.

It is however true that it took a considerable effort of research and exposure to find out that my previous assumption that Islaam was largely similar to Christianity was naively mistaken. I am now much better informed, and odds are good that I will never have much of a reason to seriously reconsider my opinions about Islaam again.

Also, you have a long way to go before even building an accurate portrait of my stances, if this post is any indication.

 

[Notanumber]

Is Islam really a religion of peace?

 

[Altfish]

It seems to me that Islaam is indeed not at all a religion. It is just way too tribalistic, way too feeble in transcendence (which it seems to actively despise, even), way too obsessed with monotheism as a goal as opposed to a way of expression.

The political abuse is just one of the most patent manifestations of that failure to actually be a religion.

Attempting to ban it is of course pointless. There is no ruling on the beliefs of people. Islaam itself tries hard to banish atheism, the Bahai Faith and the Druse from its communities, and despite going to dishonorable extremes it still fails.

But there may well be no need to make such an attempt.

Instead, Islaam must be allowed to fulfill its own destiny (which is that of dissolution into non-existence).

The best way to cooperate is to refuse to presume religious aspects into it when those do not exist. To expose and challenge the abuse and excess for what they demonstrably are, to show Muslims that we do not secretly want to be Muslims, and let Muslims realize how inseparable from the core doctrine those excesses and deviances are. And, above all, to give them the means to realize that they do not have to settle for such a misguided doctrine.

Islaam does in fact feel motivated by even the vaguest semblance of persecution. It has a strong craving for feelings of martyrdom, particularly among the Shia, who define their group identify by the Day of Ashura. At the same time, it is no good to keep giving them their unreasonable demands. Both approaches serve only to feed their expectations and create an entirely unjustified sense of entitlement.

The solution is therefore to deny them both persecution and appeasement, and instead give them the chance to make their beliefs fall or stand on their own merits, such as they show themselves to be.

It is not really a big challenge. All it takes is being aware of the basic characteristics of Islaam and to refuse to take it on its word without supporting evidence. And to have a secular enough state, which does not take to itself the pointless task of deciding what deserves recognition of being called "religious" and instead expects requests and demands to be justifiable on their own merits, without relying on claims of religious privilege.

That will of course be denounced as an attack on Islaam. But there is no way around it. Islaam teaches itself to perceive everything outside it as potential expansions and as enemies to be chastised, with no middle ground, no nuance. Such venon can not be accepted, and therefore must be challenged into extinction or repentance. Refusing to challenge it now will only postpone the need and make it fester even further, as always happened in the past.

Could you not be describing Evangelical Christianity?

 

[Salvador]

Don't tell me not to question what I think, feel and believe. I will continue to question everything until the day I die.



Says who? you? Salman bin al Saud?

As someone with a love for the Dharmic traditions, Zoroastrainism and ancient paganism - I take offense to your comment. Don't tell me what to think, I will like them as I do. Other belief systems are crucial for understanding yourself, your own beliefs, history and many more things.

I meant Muslims overall in general; there, of course, are individual exceptions to the rule.

 

[Salvador]

There are people who are individuals (like you or me or the next guy), then their are institutions and governments - don't mix them up, they're not the same and they usually conflict.

The individual's spiritual and mystical path bears no relation to some evil government (using our religion as a scapegoat to excuse terrible crimes against human rights) which is going around oppressing other religions, there is no correlation. They do what they do because they have Satan in their hearts, they continue to cause misery and pain. They are the true apostates.

F.Y.I. ...There's zero evidence Satan actually exists.

 

[LuisDantas]

Could you not be describing Evangelical Christianity?

There are similarities.

There is also a couple of very significant differences. One of those is that Christianity is largely contained by its own moderates, while Islaam basically forbids itself from having overt moderates.

Another is that Islaam promises - and even demands of - itself a perfect, eternal, inerrant scripture to levels of presumption and arrogance that are indeed rare in Christianity.