1-"Religion of peace" is a word made up by right-wing Islamophobes so they can hate on Islam more. Islam never claims to be a "religion of peace", though peace is valued highly in Islam.
2-What Iran is doing is at best tangentially related to Islam. They're a dictatorship, plain and simple.
But it seems that when religion is intermixed with politics, it inevitably leads to dictatorships or regressive government.
At one point, where is the separation? I get that dictatorships also happen without religion, but it seems that religious parties in power inevitably bring a regressive agenda with them.
Religion in general is based on a utopian (and usually archaic) view of the world and humanity so it is inherently at odds with reality, so it constantly needs to be pushed on people to keep them following it. If you have a government that depends on following the rules and your government is religious based then you now have to force people to keep following seemingly arbitrary and ridiculous rules "just because".
I'd say that this is an example of correlation vs causation (nowadays the conditions that are likely to produce religious governments are also exceedingly likely to produce dictatorships), but either way that's not what I'm talking about.
The point is: There's nothing in Islam justifying the shit they're doing in Iran. At times like these people tend to forget that Middle Eastern cultures themselves are quiet sexist, and are many times actually held back by Islam, speaking as a Middle Eastern guy. That aside, this is a dictatorship that's using Islam to give itself legitimacy; Islam itself doesn't support this kind of behavior in the slightest, and most Muslims don't either.
I understand that Islam doesn't support anything like that in the scriptures, just like many other religions.
But religion has been used for milleniums as a cover for atrocious actions. At this point, they are not separable. So when is it enough?
Religion is inherently conservative. And we see everyday what conservatism does to the planet and the society.
But religion has been used for milleniums as a cover for atrocious actions. At this point, they are not separable. So when is it enough?
But don't non-religious dictatorships also commit atrocious actions? In the end a cover is just that: a cover.
I am not talking about dictatorships only. Religion has been used to cover so many atrocities that it's impossible to dissociate the actions from the religion itself.
So was atheism. And ethnicity. And literally anything a bunch of people are willing to believe in.
But don’t non-religious dictatorships also commit atrocious actions?
Just because people die from heart attacks doesn't mean cancer does not kill.
The USSR was atheist and was easily as terrible as Iran is now.
I'd say more personally given they actually committed genocide, but yeah.
I am not saying that being a secular person stops that person from being shitty, but religion has been used to cover so many atrocities that the actions taken in the name of the religion cannot be disassociated from the religion itself.
There is nothing inherent in Islam (or any religion) either way. You can present it as moderate or extremist depending on what parts of it you emphasize more, not unlike reform vs ultra orthodox judaism.
No? As a Muslim that's not a thing in Islam, since we didn't (and have no intention of having) a reformation. All parts of Islam are equally emphasized.
I know. I didn't say Islam had a reformation.
I'm saying that because of that, the comparison with Judaism doesn't make sense.
Many Muslim leaders have called Islam a religion of peace. For example, the former Grand Imam of Al-Azhar, Ahmed el-Tayeb, has said that "Islam is a religion of peace and tolerance" and that "it is against all forms of violence and terrorism." The current Grand Imam, Ahmed al-Tayyib, has also said that "Islam is a religion of peace and love" and that "it is against all forms of violence and extremism."
Other Muslim leaders who have called Islam a religion of peace include the former King Abdullah II of Jordan, the former President of Indonesia Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono, and the former Prime Minister of Malaysia Mahathir Mohamad.
Calling Islam a religion of peace and calling it the "religion of peace" as a name are different things. Peace is valued highly in Islam, but it's not defined by it.
I keep it as Ricky Gervais once put it: for a true religion of peace, the most extreme followers would be extremely peaceful.
I wish I could meet some True Followers of Islam, I bet they all live in Scotland with the True Scotsmen.
They live... uh... everyone everywhere. Quick reminder that the people protesting in Iran were also Muslims; they weren't imported for the occasion.
Edit: Fuck I brainfarted at the most important part.
True Scotsmen Muslims
Ban religion. In my eyes, those who are religious are terrorists
Are you a troll or are you actually that dumb?
Do you support gay/trans rights?
No, and if the criticism was directed at that I'd understand, but that's clearly not what's going on in the comments here. So can we keep criticism to things that are factually true, and not the actions of a minority dictatorship that's opposed by their own population?
The reason I was able to guess that was because I looked at data on Islamic beliefs around the world. Most also support sharia law, which supports the use of lashes for various crimes(correct me if I'm wrong).
So do you believe lashes are an acceptable form of punishment? If so, then is your argument simply around it's usage in this context and that there's no Islamic law that states to lash people protesting the religion?
As a Muslim, I'll say two things:
1-"Religion of peace" is a word made up by right-wing Islamophobes so they can hate on Islam more. Islam never claims to be a "religion of peace", though peace is valued highly in Islam.
2-What Iran is doing is at best tangentially related to Islam. They're a dictatorship, plain and simple.
But it seems that when religion is intermixed with politics, it inevitably leads to dictatorships or regressive government.
At one point, where is the separation? I get that dictatorships also happen without religion, but it seems that religious parties in power inevitably bring a regressive agenda with them.
Religion in general is based on a utopian (and usually archaic) view of the world and humanity so it is inherently at odds with reality, so it constantly needs to be pushed on people to keep them following it. If you have a government that depends on following the rules and your government is religious based then you now have to force people to keep following seemingly arbitrary and ridiculous rules "just because".
I'd say that this is an example of correlation vs causation (nowadays the conditions that are likely to produce religious governments are also exceedingly likely to produce dictatorships), but either way that's not what I'm talking about.
The point is: There's nothing in Islam justifying the shit they're doing in Iran. At times like these people tend to forget that Middle Eastern cultures themselves are quiet sexist, and are many times actually held back by Islam, speaking as a Middle Eastern guy. That aside, this is a dictatorship that's using Islam to give itself legitimacy; Islam itself doesn't support this kind of behavior in the slightest, and most Muslims don't either.
I understand that Islam doesn't support anything like that in the scriptures, just like many other religions.
But religion has been used for milleniums as a cover for atrocious actions. At this point, they are not separable. So when is it enough?
Religion is inherently conservative. And we see everyday what conservatism does to the planet and the society.
But don't non-religious dictatorships also commit atrocious actions? In the end a cover is just that: a cover.
I am not talking about dictatorships only. Religion has been used to cover so many atrocities that it's impossible to dissociate the actions from the religion itself.
So was atheism. And ethnicity. And literally anything a bunch of people are willing to believe in.
Just because people die from heart attacks doesn't mean cancer does not kill.
The USSR was atheist and was easily as terrible as Iran is now.
I'd say more personally given they actually committed genocide, but yeah.
I am not saying that being a secular person stops that person from being shitty, but religion has been used to cover so many atrocities that the actions taken in the name of the religion cannot be disassociated from the religion itself.
There is nothing inherent in Islam (or any religion) either way. You can present it as moderate or extremist depending on what parts of it you emphasize more, not unlike reform vs ultra orthodox judaism.
No? As a Muslim that's not a thing in Islam, since we didn't (and have no intention of having) a reformation. All parts of Islam are equally emphasized.
I know. I didn't say Islam had a reformation.
I'm saying that because of that, the comparison with Judaism doesn't make sense.
Many Muslim leaders have called Islam a religion of peace. For example, the former Grand Imam of Al-Azhar, Ahmed el-Tayeb, has said that "Islam is a religion of peace and tolerance" and that "it is against all forms of violence and terrorism." The current Grand Imam, Ahmed al-Tayyib, has also said that "Islam is a religion of peace and love" and that "it is against all forms of violence and extremism."
Other Muslim leaders who have called Islam a religion of peace include the former King Abdullah II of Jordan, the former President of Indonesia Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono, and the former Prime Minister of Malaysia Mahathir Mohamad.
Calling Islam a religion of peace and calling it the "religion of peace" as a name are different things. Peace is valued highly in Islam, but it's not defined by it.
I keep it as Ricky Gervais once put it: for a true religion of peace, the most extreme followers would be extremely peaceful.
I wish I could meet some True Followers of Islam, I bet they all live in Scotland with the True Scotsmen.
They live... uh...
everyoneeverywhere. Quick reminder that the people protesting in Iran were also Muslims; they weren't imported for the occasion.Edit: Fuck I brainfarted at the most important part.
True Scotsmen Muslims
Ban religion. In my eyes, those who are religious are terrorists
Are you a troll or are you actually that dumb?
Do you support gay/trans rights?
No, and if the criticism was directed at that I'd understand, but that's clearly not what's going on in the comments here. So can we keep criticism to things that are factually true, and not the actions of a minority dictatorship that's opposed by their own population?
The reason I was able to guess that was because I looked at data on Islamic beliefs around the world. Most also support sharia law, which supports the use of lashes for various crimes(correct me if I'm wrong).
So do you believe lashes are an acceptable form of punishment? If so, then is your argument simply around it's usage in this context and that there's no Islamic law that states to lash people protesting the religion?