Why is being a Muslim a bad thing?

[finley]

I do not like Islam in its classical form. Like all successful religions, it draws a harsh distinction between believers and non-believers. If you've really read the Qur'an then you're quite familiar with the multitude of verses decrying the wickedness and evil of unbelievers.. .

Am I correct that you equally dislike Christianity for the same reason?

Anyone who blasphemes the LORD's name must be stoned to death (Leviticus 24:10-16 NLT)

Suppose a man or woman among you. . . has violated the covenant by serving other gods. . . that man or woman must be taken to the gates of the town and stoned to death. (Deuteronomy 17:2-5 NLT)

. . . everyone who would not seek the Lord, the God of Israel, was to be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman. (2 Chronicles 15:12-13 NAB)

Anyone arrogant enough to reject the verdict of the judge or of the priest who represents the LORD your God must be put to death. (Deuteronomy 17:12 NLT)

That's an interesting point. My impression is that Islam is virtually identical to classical Judaism - in fact it's a throwback, a retrogression, since by the 6th century Christianity was starting to have a big impact. The verses you are quoting are from the Old Testament (ie., the basis of Judaism, written centuries before the birth of Christ). Try and find anything remotely equivalent in the New Testament - the basis of Christianity.

Reading the OT is likely to put anyone off religion for life ... as is reading the Koran. Both books are full of violence, killing, and bigotry - medieval ideas which should have been dumped in the cesspit of history two millennia ago. Jesus spent a lot of effort arguing that the law (as written in the OT) no longer applied.

You will also note that, in the OT, a lot of the "God instructs us to kill [insert random nation here]" exhortations come from particular unhinged individuals - there's no way of verifying if God actually said any such thing. If you're a Christian, Jesus was God, so it's a lot easier to take what He says at face value, which was almost entirely of the love-and-peace variety; ie., the complete opposite of what goes down in the OT.

The original Mosaic Law was radical at the time for two reasons:

1) It was simply a short list (short enough for anyone to comprehend) of things you should not do, and those things were so obviously sensible that we still use them as the basis of law today. Other legal codes at the time were constructed to serve whatever power-hungry leader was in charge, and therefore perverse, complicated, and with a large focus on tribute to the elite.
2) It didn't mention punishments. It simply assumed that you wouldn't do bad things because the idea of offending God was too awful to contemplate. That concept was unheard-of - before or since.

What happened then, of course, is that a whole load of "priests" came out of the woodwork and made their own special contributions - creating and adding to the Law as it's now written in the OT. The result was basically identical to all other laws of that time and place.

People dislike Islam because it's an anachronism. We don't go around killing infidels anymore. OK, it took us until, um, about the 17th Century to figure out that's not what Christianity is about, but at least we got there in the end. That perverted version of Christianity - which was more a political structure than a religion - was eventually crushed, and good riddance. Something similar needs to happen to Islam, but the problem is, it may not be possible. There is no underlying message of love and peace in Islam. So what would remain?

[TheGingerMan]

If you're a Christian, Jesus was God, so it's a lot easier to take what He says at face value, which was almost entirely of the love-and-peace variety; ie., the complete opposite of what goes down in the OT.

What utter rot. We have no idea what Jesus said, only that hearsay which has trickled down, Though, I for one, am fairly certain that Jesus was not God.
Lost in translation of kirke.

[finley]

If you're a Christian, Jesus was God, so it's a lot easier to take what He says at face value, which was almost entirely of the love-and-peace variety; ie., the complete opposite of what goes down in the OT.

What utter rot. We have no idea what Jesus said, only that hearsay which has trickled down, Though, I for one, am fairly certain that Jesus was not God.
Lost in translation of kirke.

Obviously. But my point was that we don't even have hearsay about what God said - all we've got is whatever the "prophets" said he said. Also, what hearsay there is is fairly consistent, and Jesus spent very little time telling people to go and kill other people who didn't agree with him. That at least is hard to lose in translation, and it stands in clear opposition to the Old Testament. I just thought that was worth mentioning because both Islam and Judaism seem to come from the same heritage, whereas Christianity is impossible to reconcile with either. If you personally are certain that Jesus wasn't God, then that particular point is irrelevant (to you) anyway. Arguments about religion, pretty much by definition, require certain assumptions, because nothing can be proven.

Getting back to the point, I find a God who indulges in petty human squabbles - like the God of the OT - a lot less credible than one who talks about huge philosophical questions. I find the God of Islam an even more pitiful specimen - a creator who needs his creatures to go stomp on the unbelievers for him! Whatever happened to some good old-fashioned smiting?

Anyway, what's with the "fairly certain" business? If you're confident enough to quote the above as bollocks, then at least have some certainty about why it's bollocks.

[urodacus]

If you're a Christian, Jesus was God, so it's a lot easier to take what He says at face value, which was almost entirely of the love-and-peace variety; ie., the complete opposite of what goes down in the OT.

What utter rot. We have no idea what Jesus said, only that hearsay which has trickled down, Though, I for one, am fairly certain that Jesus was not God.
Lost in translation of kirke.

we don't even have much evidence that jesus actually existed.

Much of the stuff he is supposed to have said or done is likely to have been said by others, or made up by yet others.

As for Mohammed, on the other hand, there's lots more evidence for him having been a real person.

therefore mohammedanism is better then jesus belief, surely!

[finley]

we don't even have much evidence that jesus actually existed.
Much of the stuff he is supposed to have said or done is likely to have been said by others, or made up by yet others.
As for Mohammed, on the other hand, there's lots more evidence for him having been a real person.
therefore mohammedanism is better then jesus belief, surely!

Since they were major historical figures, we have a great deal of evidence that both of them existed. The Romans kept pretty detailed histories and there seems to be no doubt at all that Jesus was born and crucified as described in the NT. The rest - specific events and sayings - is a matter of personal belief. Muhammad was quite obviously a real person and the major events of his life have probably been recorded accurately. OTOH it's unlikely that their life histories (either of them) haven't been distorted somewhat in the retelling. Muslims insist that the Quran is word-for-word accurate and unchanged over the centuries, whereas I think most Christians are prepared to admit to human fallibility when it comes to long periods of time and multiple (dead) languages.

Besides, I think you miss the point. People don't choose a religion based on how well the founder's history was documented; it's the core philosophical ideas that matter. The more mystical their origins, the better, it seems to me

btw, Islam could exist without Muhammad (in fact, it did), but Jesus is rather crucial to Christianity.

[E04teacherlin]

we don't even have much evidence that jesus actually existed.
Much of the stuff he is supposed to have said or done is likely to have been said by others, or made up by yet others.
As for Mohammed, on the other hand, there's lots more evidence for him having been a real person.
therefore mohammedanism is better then jesus belief, surely!

Since they were major historical figures, we have a great deal of evidence that both of them existed. The Romans kept pretty detailed histories and there seems to be no doubt at all that Jesus was born and crucified as described in the NT. The rest - specific events and sayings - is a matter of personal belief. Muhammad was quite obviously a real person and the major events of his life have probably been recorded accurately. OTOH it's unlikely that their life histories (either of them) haven't been distorted somewhat in the retelling. Muslims insist that the Quran is word-for-word accurate and unchanged over the centuries, whereas I think most Christians are prepared to admit to human fallibility when it comes to long periods of time and multiple (dead) languages.

Besides, I think you miss the point. People don't choose a religion based on how well the founder's history was documented; it's the core philosophical ideas that matter. The more mystical their origins, the better, it seems to me

btw, Islam could exist without Muhammad (in fact, it did), but Jesus is rather crucial to Christianity.

U're losing a fighting battle, but at least I agree with you.

[BigJohn]

Sorry, I can't be arsed to read four pages of posts, but I do have a response to the question asked in the thread title.

Being Muslim isn't a bad thing; however, aspects of Islam - which developed in the fierce tribal turf wars of the 7th century - are perhaps unfortunately too well suited to a confrontational attitude towards people who don't believe in Islam. And the Crusades sure didn't help. So, you have a vast reservoir of people - some of which are nutjobs - that think that war against the enemies of Islam (define them how you will) is perhaps the most honorable path a true believe can take.

Which is why there are so many Islamic terrorist jack asses. That's hard to argue away.

[Confuzius]

we don't even have much evidence that jesus actually existed.
Much of the stuff he is supposed to have said or done is likely to have been said by others, or made up by yet others.
As for Mohammed, on the other hand, there's lots more evidence for him having been a real person.
therefore mohammedanism is better then jesus belief, surely!

Since they were major historical figures, we have a great deal of evidence that both of them existed. The Romans kept pretty detailed histories and there seems to be no doubt at all that Jesus was born and crucified as described in the NT.

Actually there is pretty much no evidence outside of the NT for Jesus being crucified. The ONLY (asfik) Roman (non-xian) reference to Jesus being crucified was one of heresay (ie not an historical account or eyewitness..had to look it up but its at the top of this page http://www.bandoli.no/historicalrecords.htm

So we really got no clue if Jesus existed, or if he was a conglomeration of a dozen dudes, or if there was any crucifixion. In the Talmud it actually says he was hanged, not crucified. So pretty weak evidence here. A LOT of doubt there.

Muhammad on the other hand, was well documented. So from a historical perspective, Islam has a much stronger basis than xianity.

[superking]

I have not read anyone's posts in this thread, I am answering the original question, "Why is being a Muslim a bad thing?"

Well, in essence it is not a bad thing. It is a desire to make sense out of your life. It is a natural facet of your humanity that you want to hope for more from your existence than a brief shot at being conscious, because you become quickly aware that this plane/plain (?) of communication is very limited. Being Muslim is the same as being any other religion. It is an expression of your awareness that says, 'wow, I hope this continues.' THEN things start to get weird.

In that sense, being a Muslim isn't a bad thing. It's just about wanting to continue what you have.

Sadly, it quickly fucks up from that moment for most people.

[sulavaca]

I really am curious, as to why people consider using the term Muslim as a smear. It doesn't make any sense to me, not to mention that most people who make those claims cannot even name three types of Muslim sects that exist.

Has anyone even read the Koran? Like all of it?

I think that most people who smear other humans they have never met are generally just projecting someone else's agenda or opinion. This isn't always the case, but it is wise to distinguish one from the other.
There is nothing wrong with being a Muslim per se. Being a Muslim does not define you as a human. Committing acts for or against the free will of others much more defines who a human is in my opinion. It is impossible to use a generalism to define a single religious person. We often generalize when projecting our overall reaction to a group, but again that reaction must be understood.
I see the media, movies and certain western religious groups, especially those of history having done an efficient job of striking feer into all kinds of people, and it is only feer itself which is to be afraid of. Only feer and misunderstanding can create disharmony between humans. That being said, I am sure that any issues with muslims, or anyone else for that matter can only be resolved by embracing them as humans, not as religious demonstrators, and allow them to understand that there is nothing to feer from us.