• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Why so many threads/posts about Muslims or Islam?

Maya said:

When it comes to the leaders of NK, we should use every tool at our disposal to unseat these a-holes.

When it comes to oppressors in general, satire and mockery are useful tools.

When it comes to oppressors, I prefer a more direct approach, but I think we're talking about two different issues here. I'm talking about mocking someone to their face about their religion or anything else they love or hold sacred. I'm thinking of a big white man following a small, Muslim woman to her mosque carrying an AR-15 and wearing kevlar. You're talking about remote mockery that the other person will most likely never hear or see. I'm talking about causing another human being distress.

Can I assume that we are on the same page here and that you, too, see the futility and possibly harm inherent in flaming someone to their face because something about them seems strange?
 

icehorse

......unaffiliated...... anti-dogmatist
Premium Member
Hey Maya,

Below is a link to a map of where in the world Muslims live, and also a chart showing how many Muslims thee are in each country.

So for example, you mentioned Kazakhstan. Well Kazakhstan has about 4% the population of Indonesia, so simply counting countries leads to skewed math results.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_by_country

Finally once again you bring up "radical Islam". I hope have already agreed (perhaps by implication), that the numbers of "radical Islamists" is small. But the number of Islamists (those who favor Sharia), is quite large.
 

icehorse

......unaffiliated...... anti-dogmatist
Premium Member
When it comes to oppressors, I prefer a more direct approach, but I think we're talking about two different issues here. I'm talking about mocking someone to their face about their religion or anything else they love or hold sacred. I'm thinking of a big white man following a small, Muslim woman to her mosque carrying an AR-15 and wearing kevlar. You're talking about remote mockery that the other person will most likely never hear or see. I'm talking about causing another human being distress.

Can I assume that we are on the same page here and that you, too, see the futility and possibly harm inherent in flaming someone to their face because something about them seems strange?

Hmmm... The thing is that I don't view Islamists as benign. What they hold sacred is often hateful. So no, i think if a person holds hateful ideas as sacred, mockery is a fine weapon.
 

Corthos

Great Old One
I do know that many Zoroastrians converted to Islam precisely because their Holy Book contained prophecies they felt Muhammad fulfilled.

Really? I'd think they would feel a "savior" who was born via virgin birth, and one who fights in the apocalypse would make much more sense (at least, as far as the Avesta goes); especially since he was supposedly legitimized by Magi on his birth (in other words, the Christian Jesus, according to the Bible). Mohamed doesn't seem to fill many of the prerequisites of the saoshyant at all. Can I ask where you read this?

Honestly, I don't believe in the saoshyant as understood by traditional Zoroastrians (as the concept is non-Gathic, IMO), but it seems interesting that some Muslims seem to attribute Mohamed as the ultimate Zoroastrian "savior" from the Avesta. I really don't see it.
 

MARCELLO

Transitioning from male to female
Americans, in particular, have an unhealthy obsession with Islam.
That's not very correct. Europeans have huger problem with the notion of Islam and its followers.

There is only one non muslim (in majority) country on this planet who can ''pretty much '' get along with every kind of islam and that's India.
 

paarsurrey

Veteran Member
I'm pretty sure Buddhists, Hindus, Christians and Zoroastrians would be offended with the idea that eventually they will fold under the wing of Islam as intended by God, and that Islam is the actual "true" religion.

From a Muslim point of view they would ALL be the actual true religion. I don't know about Hindus (though some do accept Muhammad as an Avatar), or Buddhists, but I do know that many Zoroastrians converted to Islam precisely because their Holy Book contained prophecies they felt Muhammad fulfilled. I also know that Christians are very offended by the idea of a "different" or "later" religion being the fulfillment of Christ's prophecy of one fold and one Shepherd.
I agree with you. They, the people of other religions should rather be happy that the prophecy of the founder of their religion has been fulfilled.
Regards
 

LuisDantas

Aura of atheification
Premium Member
Why should they get annoyed?

One reason is because in saying this:
End-Time Reformer is the reformer about whom about all the founders of revealed religions have prophesied, with different names and titles. I mean Buddha, Krishna,Zoroaster,Moses, Jesus etc.
It is called End-Time, may be because all other religions and their followers have to truthfully merge under the End-Time Reformer, as their purpose as a different entity will end at that juncture. With him a new era of humanity is to usher in, it is for this that he has been named as Adam also.

you are saying that people of entirely different beliefs should somehow align with Islamic expectations.


It is prophesied in the scriptures belonging to each one of their religions.
If at all they should be annoyed first with the founder of their own religion who prophesied the coming of a reformer. Right? Please
Regards

You should not be quite so casual in second-guessing other religions and their founders, I think.
 

paarsurrey

Veteran Member
paarsurrey said:
Why should they get annoyed? It is prophesied in the scriptures belonging to each one of their religions.
If at all they should be annoyed first with the founder of their own religion who prophesied the coming of a reformer. Right? Please

No it is not, you're attempting to write over other faiths and have them kneel at the feet of your own. It comes across as incredibly arrogant.
I don' get you exactly. Please elaborate.
Regaards
 
Hmmm... The thing is that I don't view Islamists as benign. What they hold sacred is often hateful. So no, i think if a person holds hateful ideas as sacred, mockery is a fine weapon.

I disagree. Mockery is no weapon at all against that sort of fanaticism. It's like giving someone the finger in a pitch black room. And if, by chance, the persons you're mocking hear or see your mockery, it effectively ends any reasonable discourse.

I think we're talking apples and oranges. The men who are the leaders of ISIS are not just average people with strongly held convictions. They are sick individuals with a pathology, a lot of weaponry and probably testosterone poisoning. But, as you said, above, it's not the Islamists you're concerned about, but rank and file Muslims who may have convictions you don't share or understand. You're afraid, for reasons I've yet to grasp, that the number of Muslims who believe their communities should be conducted by a form of Sharia law that you and I might question or even abhor is a threat to the billions of other people in the world (including Muslims) who wish to conduct their affairs by different systems.

And that is a shade of diversity you've yet to acknowledge. There are Muslims who would like the principles of Sharia to apply to them and only to them and a much smaller number who are willing and/or able to force their beliefs on others. So, in a sense, we're back to that small number of radicals again. The Muslims living down the street from me may wish to be free to make use of Sharia family 'courts' (essentially arbitration by their community) and may even consent to having non-Muslims make use of those institutions on request, but they have no interest in making their non-Muslim neighbors make use of them.

There is also a difference between having a reasoned disagreement with the particulars of someone's beliefs and trashing their faith, their Prophet, and their relationship with God wholesale. A lot of the mockery that I've seen directed at Muslims and others does the latter. And to no good effect.It does not disabuse the believer of their belief and in fact, has been shown to drive them even further into blind faith. All it ultimately does is make the people doing the mocking feel superior and sets up a dichotomy between people who consider themselves the "brights" while those poor benighted religionists are cast as the "dims."

Humor can be used to make a point, and sometimes irony can be pretty damned enlightening, but mean-spirited name-calling and mockery does not propel people toward a common truth; it's more likely to drive them away.

What I'm suggesting is that you ask after the purpose of your mockery. What do you want it to achieve? Do you really intend to change the heart of the other person? Sway people watching from the sidelines? Rally those who share your beliefs? Bolster your own confidence and sense of identity? Once you've settled on a goal, look deeply at whether it is actually attaining that goal. If it's not, then perhaps a different behavior is called for.

Here's what I know: Taunting someone will not result in their enlightenment or a less hostile environment. Treating them with enough respect to listen and remain open to understanding them (even if you don't agree with them) can result in both. More than that, it can result in you gaining friends whose world-views may be different, but whose friendship is nonetheless precious.
 

LuisDantas

Aura of atheification
Premium Member
paarsurrey said:
Why should they get annoyed? It is prophesied in the scriptures belonging to each one of their religions.
If at all they should be annoyed first with the founder of their own religion who prophesied the coming of a reformer. Right? Please


I don' get you exactly. Please elaborate.
Regaards
It is called "appropriation", Paarsurrey.

It is annoying because it shows both a disinclination to understand other beliefs and a desire to claim to supercede them in some way. It happens quite a lot, but it is generally not very respectful.


Even Islam, which makes a point of doing it to Judaism and Christianity, has by its turn do deal with claims from lots of diverse people that they are or "might be" the Mahdi. I am not 100% certain, but I think it is a point of dispute with Bahais and Ahmadiyya Muslims, among others.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Mahdi_claimants

For a more Christianity-oriented example, see this.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Coming#Other_views_and_commentaries


Then there are those who co-opt Buddha as an Avatar of Vishnu, and so on.


It is a frequent and perhaps understandable phenomenom (it used to be that most deities were merged with those of neighbors. For instance, Alexander the Great of Macedon used to claim to be the son of not exactly Zeus, but Zeus Ammon. a merge of the Greek Zeus with the Egyptian Amun.

It is generally not a big deal... as long as people don't try to take those claims seriously. It is nearly always a good idea not to take claims of Messianity or Divinity too seriously.
 

LuisDantas

Aura of atheification
Premium Member
I disagree. Mockery is no weapon at all against that sort of fanaticism. It's like giving someone the finger in a pitch black room. And if, by chance, the persons you're mocking hear or see your mockery, it effectively ends any reasonable discourse.

Mockery can demoralize. Rational discourse rarely does. If the situation starts with fanaticism, then rational discourse is by definition not very useful.
 

YmirGF

Bodhisattva in Recovery
I disagree. Mockery is no weapon at all against that sort of fanaticism. It's like giving someone the finger in a pitch black room. And if, by chance, the persons you're mocking hear or see your mockery, it effectively ends any reasonable discourse.
Forgive the intrusion, but how, exactly, does one have a serious discussion with human animals who suffer from extreme fanaticism? It's very similar to trying to reason with a raving drunk. That said, I do agree with the sentiment that open mockery isn't the best way to handle them but I also have serious doubts that we can actually sit down and have a serious chinwag over tea and cookies too.

I think we're talking apples and oranges. The men who are the leaders of ISIS are not just average people with strongly held convictions. They are sick individuals with a pathology, a lot of weaponry and probably testosterone poisoning. But, as you said, above, it's not the Islamists you're concerned about, but rank and file Muslims who may have convictions you don't share or understand. You're afraid, for reasons I've yet to grasp, that the number of Muslims who believe their communities should be conducted by a form of Sharia law that you and I might question or even abhor is a threat to the billions of other people in the world (including Muslims) who wish to conduct their affairs by different systems.
Should we perhaps cordon off their little hell holes of oppression as Sharia, in virtually any form, is simply incompatible with "western" style democratic representation.

And that is a shade of diversity you've yet to acknowledge. There are Muslims who would like the principles of Sharia to apply to them and only to them and a much smaller number who are willing and/or able to force their beliefs on others. So, in a sense, we're back to that small number of radicals again. The Muslims living down the street from me may wish to be free to make use of Sharia family 'courts' (essentially arbitration by their community) and may even consent to having non-Muslims make use of those institutions on request, but they have no interest in making their non-Muslim neighbors make use of them
Heaven forbid that they utilize the tools within our own culture to settle their grievances. The point is, should we actually encourage them to settle their disputes under a 7th century system that barely recognized any form of equality.

There is also a difference between having a reasoned disagreement with the particulars of someone's beliefs and trashing their faith, their Prophet, and their relationship with God wholesale. A lot of the mockery that I've seen directed at Muslims and others does the latter. And to no good effect.It does not disabuse the believer of their belief and in fact, has been shown to drive them even further into blind faith. All it ultimately does is make the people doing the mocking feel superior and sets up a dichotomy between people who consider themselves the "brights" while those poor benighted religionists are cast as the "dims."
The downside to this is that many suffering from varying degrees of fanaticism are incapable of any form of meaningful discussion. And yes, it does seem to have an effect on their overall intelligence, as witnessed by several fanatical member right here on RF.

Humor can be used to make a point, and sometimes irony can be pretty damned enlightening, but mean-spirited name-calling and mockery does not propel people toward a common truth; it's more likely to drive them away.
Then again, they could simply take it on the chin and "turn the other cheek". Is there a reason why we have to molly coddle the spiritually immature ravings of fanatical believers?

What I'm suggesting is that you ask after the purpose of your mockery. What do you want it to achieve? Do you really intend to change the heart of the other person? Sway people watching from the sidelines? Rally those who share your beliefs? Bolster your own confidence and sense of identity? Once you've settled on a goal, look deeply at whether it is actually attaining that goal. If it's not, then perhaps a different behavior is called for.
Well said. My own use of mockery is, more often than not, designed to get the target to think. It's a long shot, to be truthful, but one can hope the juxtaposition will seep through the iron clad believe systems.

Here's what I know: Taunting someone will not result in their enlightenment or a less hostile environment. Treating them with enough respect to listen and remain open to understanding them (even if you don't agree with them) can result in both. More than that, it can result in you gaining friends whose world-views may be different, but whose friendship is nonetheless precious.
Good advice, but human animals are impatient creatures due to their limited shelf life. We only have so much time to mend fences. Sometimes it is more expedient to simply impose what we can. Like dealing with an unruly two year old...
 

icehorse

......unaffiliated...... anti-dogmatist
Premium Member
In every belief system, the believers can be plotted on a continuum. From fanatical to fence-sitters to "in name only".

No matter we do, we're unlikely to nudge fanatics. But satire can be an effective way to educate, and can shift the non-fanatics.
 
Really? I'd think they would feel a "savior" who was born via virgin birth, and one who fights in the apocalypse would make much more sense (at least, as far as the Avesta goes); especially since he was supposedly legitimized by Magi on his birth (in other words, the Christian Jesus, according to the Bible). Mohamed doesn't seem to fill many of the prerequisites of the saoshyant at all. Can I ask where you read this?

Corthos, I've read so many books on religious history over the years, it's hard to remember where I gleaned particular ideas. Most of my study of late has been in the early history of Christianity in the Roman Empire. In this case, there were multiple sources—one I recall was a history of Islam, another was a volume that treated Zoroastrian prophecy as part of an overview of religious prophetic writings. It dealt with the relationship between Islam and Zoroastrianism more tangentially. That was Buddha Mattreye Amit-Abha Has Appeared. I recently found a 2002 article from the University of Hawaii Press on "The Encounter of Zoroastrianism with Islam" that deals with both the early and later encounters between the two faiths. It's 170 pages long, but this section stood out in reference to the early encounter:

Yet, there might also be factors of an ideological nature that might have tended to favor the success of Islam. I would suggest that in at least four ways the teachings of Muhammad would have looked more attractive than those of Zoroaster. First, the former was addressed to all peoples regardless of such factors as race, ethnicity, and language. Zoroastrianism, on the other hand, was a "provincially confined truth." Similar to Judaism, all Iranians were supposed to follow the teachings of Zoroaster, but no foreigners were allowed into the faith community (although on occasion, for example at the time of Kartlr at the end of the third century, certain groups of non Zoroastrians were converted by force). Even in modern times, when the prominent Iranian scholar Poure Davoud desired to become a convert, Zoroastrian communities in both Iran and India rejected his request despite his contributions to the study of Zoroastrianism. Furthermore, after Zoroastrianism had become the state religion of Iran it demonstrated its intolerance of the followers of other religious beliefs by persecuting Jews, Buddhists, Brahmins, Nestoreans, Christians, Manichaeans, and Mazdean heretics.

Second, Islam preached brotherhood and, at least in its early period, disapproved of social discrimination, whereas Zoroastrianism, particularly during the Sassanid period, differentiated its community into four groups (very much like the four varnas or castes in Hinduism). — Marietta Stepaniants

I haven't finished reading the article yet, but it is fascinating reading.

Honestly, I don't believe in the saoshyant as understood by traditional Zoroastrians (as the concept is non-Gathic, IMO), but it seems interesting that some Muslims seem to attribute Mohamed as the ultimate Zoroastrian "savior" from the Avesta. I really don't see it.

I don't know that they believed Muhammad to be the Shah Bahram (he figures in at least one prophecy that I know of, but is referred to simply as 'the Arabian Prophet'—I believe it's in the Dinkird) but they may have seen him as an Emissary of Ahura Mazda nonetheless. In the 19th century, there was also a large conversion of Zoroastrians (and Jews as well) to the Bahá'í Faith. I personally know several Bahá'ís who converted from Zoroastrianism or whose parents did. I don't doubt that a great many Zoroastrians became Christians, but obviously not all did. So, it makes sense that when Muhammad (and later, Bahá'u'lláh) appeared, there would be converts to Islam and the Bahá'í Faith respectively.

What a believer expects of prophecy, of course, will depend on what they've been taught and whether they hold a literal or metaphorical view of prophetic verses. As a Christian, I'd been taught to expect Christ's physical return literally in the sky amid clouds of glory and legions of angels. That materialistic idea was rampant in religious art and wasn't something I questioned or thought about until I was in my late teens. I began to realize the images of earthly glory (golden crowns et al) seemed to fly in the face of a great many of Christ's teachings about the nature of his 'return' and the coming of the kingdom of God. It wasn't until I was challenged to explain why a prophecy in the old testament book of Daniel about the coming of the Messiah and Christ's almost identical description of the later day appearance of the Son of Man should be fulfilled spiritually in one instance and physically in the second. Especially given Christ's words to the effect that "the spirit is life; the flesh profits nothing" and similar sayings.
 
In every belief system, the believers can be plotted on a continuum. From fanatical to fence-sitters to "in name only".

No matter we do, we're unlikely to nudge fanatics. But satire can be an effective way to educate, and can shift the non-fanatics.

What's missing from the list are those who believe deeply and who strive to live by the prescriptive teachings of their faith. Those who see their religion as a call to be better human beings and to use their time here to gather knowledge and use it to in the service of humanity.

I agree with you that believers (and non-believers) exist on a continuum. Would you agree with me that you would therefore not treat them all in the same way? Would you, for example, walk up to a Muslim woman wearing a hijab, yank on it and ask if she's having a bad hair day? Would you tell her you think her hijab is stupid, or oppressive? Would you wave "F Islam" sign in her face and laugh at her if she cried or seemed frightened of you?

Do you honestly think doing one of those things will convince her that your beliefs are superior to hers? Is it rational to believe that being mean to someone will cause them to want to think and act as you do?
 

paarsurrey

Veteran Member
It is generally not a big deal... as long as people don't try to take those claims seriously. It is nearly always a good idea not to take claims of Messianity or Divinity too seriously.
Well, it would not have been a big deal if it has been in the hands of the people. A prophet/messenger is appointed by G-d so the prophet/messenger who has been appointed as such has to accept the appointment most willingly, as what matters to such a person is the pleasure of G-d, and that only matters most for him.

Regards
 

LuisDantas

Aura of atheification
Premium Member
Well, it would not have been a big deal if it has been in the hands of the people.

As it turns out, it is, far as anyone can honestly say.

If God wants people to acknowledge a prophet or messenger, It better make people spontaneously, intuitively aware of that privilege.

For better or worse, that just did not happen.
 

Aquitaine

Well-Known Member
paarsurrey said:
Why should they get annoyed? It is prophesied in the scriptures belonging to each one of their religions.
If at all they should be annoyed first with the founder of their own religion who prophesied the coming of a reformer. Right? Please


I don' get you exactly. Please elaborate.
Regaards
How would you feel if, for example, Mormons tried to argue that Joseph Smith is the true final messenger, and that in the final epoch Islam and all other faiths will kneel under the one true final religion - Mormonism.

Why should you get annoyed? It is prophesized in the scriptures belonging to each other religion, including Islam.
 

Aquitaine

Well-Known Member
From a Muslim point of view they would ALL be the actual true religion. I don't know about Hindus (though some do accept Muhammad as an Avatar), or Buddhists, but I do know that many Zoroastrians converted to Islam precisely because their Holy Book contained prophecies they felt Muhammad fulfilled. I also know that Christians are very offended by the idea of a "different" or "later" religion being the fulfillment of Christ's prophecy of one fold and one Shepherd. I know I was. But I chose to take offense. When I had become a Bahá'í and Christians told me I was going to hell or that Bahá'u'lláh was the anti-Christ or a false prophet, I could have taken offense at that, but chose not to. I understood where they were coming from for one thing.

Our discussions are getting a little wordy, so I'm going to try and keep it short.
See? You were offended in this case by both Bahais and Christians, this is what I mean when I say that religions are normally exclusive with one-another over which ideology is correct, and even without intentional mockery you still got offended merely by their beliefs. You're gonna get offended no matter what, we may as well learn to handle it rather than attempt to censor.

I beg to differ. Religious people offend and challenge and claim exclusivity.

It's both: "There is no god but Allah".

My, are those our only choices? Bow or bray? I'm afraid I just don't see life in ones and zeroes. We can reject the ideology of Kim Jung Un without making fun of him. And we can refrain from mockery with out bowing to anyone.

Do you think you should legally have the right to mock Kim Jong Un without fear of violent repercussion?
I'm afraid when it comes to issues like this, it is kind of binary: you're either allowed to mock/criticise or not.
 

Aquitaine

Well-Known Member
Well, it would not have been a big deal if it has been in the hands of the people. A prophet/messenger is appointed by G-d so the prophet/messenger who has been appointed as such has to accept the appointment most willingly, as what matters to such a person is the pleasure of G-d, and that only matters most for him.

Regards

Will you believe anyone who says they're a messenger? There seems to be a habit of people accepting bizarre claims with zero evidence.
 
Top