Well, I probably have more than one reason, but the first that comes to mind is a philosophical problem. The trinity as understood by Christianity satisfies both need for a Necessary Being, but also one who has personal attributes. Thus, there was dialogue (trialogue, actually) within God before the world was ever made. Unitarian gods such as found in Islam do not satisfy this. Instead, it requires God to create sentient beings in order to express his personal nature (with them). This, in the end, makes him dependent on Creation to be what he is. Thus he is not sovereign over creation but inadvertently dependent on it. This is not a satisfying view of God.
2007-05-03 06:56:33
·
answer #1
·
answered by Aspurtaime Dog Sneeze 6
·
3⤊
2⤋
I am not Muslim because of Muhammad and the history of Islam.
Yes, I've read a good portion of the Quran, and yes, I did find it flawed in a number of places, even contradictory.
Yes, I have judged Islam on the basis of Muslims. My judgment is derived from the life of Muhammad, the application of Islamic law by the Muslim nations (it is a political religion), the nature of its spread, and by modern politics and violence.
I wanted to look and defend Muslims against caricature after 9/11. When I looked, I found a religion started by a prophet, whose revelations progressively changed (like those in modern sectarian groups) and always arrived at a convenient moment to bail him out. He spread his faith with violence and deceit ("war is deceit"), even threatening the neighboring empires (to Constantinople he wrote, "You will be safe if you submit," and the threat turned out not to be idle). His *character* bothered me to no end, reminding me of modern cult leaders.
After him, the Islamic empires spread the religion in like fashion and nearly destroyed all of western civilization. They placed the civilizations they conquered into a subhuman status. One source I read even said that the word "khaffir" we translate "infidel" means "cattle." I read about how it treats women, the child tax, and so on. The empires continued in good fashion.
After this, when I look at modern politics I see the same thing. There is genocide in Sudan. Muhammad wiped out an undesirable Jewish city after it surrendered. There are terrorist bombings, usually preceded by a call for us to convert or submit. Muhammad did the exact same thing. Islam is involved in almost every world conflict, but no other religion is so spread among all the conflicts.
It also seems to be hostile to rational thought in ways no other religion is. Christianity was a mixed bag, and we preserved the learning of the ancient world and brought it across. In fact, the Orthodox Church never needed a renaissance and played a key role in sparking it. Granted, we have things like Galileo's ordeal, but this incident doesn't outweigh the fact the Christians facilitated and nurtured the growth of science in monasteries and in universities (then a Christian institution).
Islam, by contrast, took over an advanced civilization, and after a few hundred years, lost all its learning and has been in a never-ending spiral downward. Upon study, I learned most of the advances for the golden age of Islam were actually advances borrowed from other nations (Arabic numerals from India) or done by their subjugated nations (Zero already existed in Ptolemy's equations in the first century). To be sure, it had real contributions, algebra and the kalaam argument, but these are isolated when compared to other societies. Islam seems to oppose rational thought in most areas, and most of its remaining contributions were centered in war. This bothered me.
This led me to conclude that not only was violence and war a part of Islam, but that it had a continuous history of violence and anti-intellectualism. In fact, it seems to be designed as a medieval feudal society aimed at producing empire. So many facets of it are organized in a military and imperial nature that it shocked me. I have come to conclude that without reformation, Islam itself will perpetuate the violence unless it is stopped by the world governments (and I dread that day) and isolated until it dies under the influence of the more advanced civilizations.
Those are my reasons for rejecting Islam. Muhammad doesn't look anything like a real prophet or even spiritual man. He looks like a delusional maniac bent on conquering his neighbors. Its history has been one of intolerance (despite the PC myth) and unremitted violence.
Having said that, I would say that, yes, it is similar to the reasons people rejected Christianity. There were the Inquisitions and the Crusades as the hot-button issues. Then there's the Holocaust and the KKK.
There are key differences that I've seen are important to even non-Christians I talk to. We cannot justify war by appealing to Christ, the Man Who willingly abandoned everything, offered nothing in defense of Himself, and died a death based on fraud. His very life condemns war. This cannot be said about Muhammad, who fought many battles, almost all offensive battles, and never humiliated himself like that. The two stand in contrast, even as they both make absolute claims. Christ abandons what is rightfully His and embraces death. This is the core of the Christian martyr. Muhammad seized power and made others die. In his place comes a litany of martyrs whose "martyrdom" is the act of dying "selflessly" while taking others' lives.
When I look at the Crusades, they are aberrations that arose over a thousand years after the founding of the religion. The Inquisitions came even later, and what's more, they arose in the Western half of Christianity, which was largely controlled by barbarians at the time and represented, at that time, the smaller, more backwards portion of the faith. The bishops in the East didn't participate (the Roman/Byzantine Emperor did to a limited degree, but for him, it wasn't holy war; that was just odd {see the Pope's quote from Manuel II and comments on the Byzantine understanding}).
The similarities are there, and I haven't the space to deal with the Crusades and the Inquisition in detail (other than pointing out my faith isn't guilty and was victimized by both Crusaders and Muslims). In those cases, however, they are a foreign particle in Christianity, against the spirit of its Founder. This cannot be said about Islam. It is, really, the last of the warrior religions.
Thus, yes, people reject Christianity for similar reasons, but almost everyone I've talked to sees a distinction, even the atheists. When I hear people disagree, it is normally those who do not like history, philosophy, or any related discipline and gain their perceptions of history from popular media. In those cases, their perception of these events is colored by the culture that has rejected its past as completely evil. They, however, also lack the knowledge to properly discern this.
Thus, there is a real difference, and many people see it. Atheists will remark, "Christians don't strap bombs on themselves and kill others" or "Christ didn't order the murder of the infidel" while calling Christians hypocrites for having killed other sin the name of religion (and rightly so). If they can see a difference, then there is a real difference.
This has been long, but it answers why I firmly reject Islam. Even more, I oppose it in all areas of life. With its history, I regard it a threat to me, my neighbors, my culture, and my nation. I will not adopt the PC route of politicians or media in order to portray everyone the same. Islam stands out among modern religions as the most violent and aggressive of all. It must be reformed or quarantined. Nothing else will do or is even a possible solution.
2007-05-03 14:32:24
·
answer #8
·
answered by Innokent 4
·
1⤊
1⤋