Islam is a legitimate religion

Midnight FM

Gold Member
Joined
May 4, 2025
Messages
797
Reaction score
349
Points
143
People are free to dislike Islam (though many who dislike it seem pretty uneducated and uninformed on it). However, from what I know of it, it is a legitimate, major world religion. And there are sects of Muslims, such as the Sufis who do not, to my knowledge, believe in violence or oppression.

Something like Satanism I wouldn't consider a legitimate religion. But Islam is.
 
People are free to dislike Islam (though many who dislike it seem pretty uneducated and uninformed on it). However, from what I know of it, it is a legitimate, major world religion. And there are sects of Muslims, such as the Sufis who do not, to my knowledge, believe in violence or oppression.

Something like Satanism I wouldn't consider a legitimate religion. But Islam is.
I wholly disagree with Islam. I wholly disagree with Satanism.

But both fall in the definition of "Religion"
 
The fundamental problem with Islam is the collusion of Church and State that is built into the religion.
My understanding, though, is that there has been a collusion of church and state in much of Christianity's history. Or prior to Christianity, such as in the case of the Biblical state of Israel.

Though, I think the idea that church and state are entirely separate is something of a myth to begin with. For example, it is illegal in the US to murder someone or steal their property, and both of these things are prohibited by the 10 Commandments. Therefore, a murderer could claim that prohibiting murder is "forcing religion on him", but I digress. And if it is "forcing religion" on him, then that's a good thing.
 
No, it is not.

True religions begin as a product of the beliefs of a people. Islam, on the other hand, was crafted intentionally by a murderous, rapist warlord as a means to invest in himself a sense of divinity in order to bind his fellow killers to him.
 
No, it is not.

True religions begin as a product of the beliefs of a people. Islam, on the other hand, was crafted intentionally by a murderous, rapist warlord
There is plenty of warfare documented in the Biblical Old Testament.

And there was no formal age of consent in Muhammed's time, and things which would be considered child marriage by modern sensibilities were a common practice.

In the Biblical Old Testament, for example, it talks about soldiers taking virgin girls as spoils of war:

Numbers 31:17-18
Now therefore, kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman who has known a man by sleeping with him. But all the young girls who have not known a man by sleeping with him, keep alive for yourselves.


as a means to invest in himself a sense of divinity in order to bind his fellow killers to him.
You haven't substantiated that. Some argue similar things about Joseph Smith, for example.
 
People are free to dislike Islam (though many who dislike it seem pretty uneducated and uninformed on it). However, from what I know of it, it is a legitimate, major world religion. And there are sects of Muslims, such as the Sufis who do not, to my knowledge, believe in violence or oppression.

Something like Satanism I wouldn't consider a legitimate religion. But Islam is.
The cotus doesn't say you have to worship a "legitimate" religion. It just says you have the freedom of religion. It makes no specification of what that religion is or that it has to be what one group deems to be legitimate.
 
There is plenty of warfare documented in the Biblical Old Testament.

And there was no formal age of consent in Muhammed's time, and things which would be considered child marriage by modern sensibilities were a common practice.

In the Biblical Old Testament, for example, it talks about soldiers taking virgin girls as spoils of war:

Numbers 31:17-18
Now therefore, kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman who has known a man by sleeping with him. But all the young girls who have not known a man by sleeping with him, keep alive for yourselves.



You haven't substantiated that. Some argue similar things about Joseph Smith, for example.
Meh.

It was all created out of whole cloth as the illiterate warlord had the scribes of the people cobble it together for him quite intentionally.
 
IsIam is based on a pack of Iies. Mecca is described as the virtuaI birthpIace of civiIization, and there is IiteraIIy no mention of Mecca in any third party document, and no archaeoIogicaI evidence of its existence prior to the ninth century. The Saudi government TODAY wiII not aIIow any non-Musims to have access to Mecca dig sites. Mo-hammed himseIf is not documented until 200 years after his supposed death. There is not a single third party mention of either Mecca or Mo-hammed untiI centuries after MusIims are taught that they existed.

This is fundamentalIy different from having an unprovable origin; it is an origin that is probably false.
 
People are free to dislike Islam (though many who dislike it seem pretty uneducated and uninformed on it). However, from what I know of it, it is a legitimate, major world religion. And there are sects of Muslims, such as the Sufis who do not, to my knowledge, believe in violence or oppression.

Something like Satanism I wouldn't consider a legitimate religion. But Islam is.
Midnight, you are a damn fool. The ISLAM religion and its teaching belongs in the gutter, especially its support for Sharia law. I suggest you read this and then tell us how proud you are to defend such barbarity. SHARIA LAW — LIST OF KEY RULES — What Is Sharia Law?
 
Midnight, you are a damn fool. The ISLAM religion and its teaching belongs in the gutter, especially its support for Sharia law. I suggest you read this and then tell us how proud you are to defend such barbarity. SHARIA LAW — LIST OF KEY RULES — What Is Sharia Law?
Nope, many Muslims don't interpret Sharia Law as something to be applied literally in modern times.


Approaches to Sharia in the 21st century vary widely, and the role and mutability of Sharia[19] in a changing world has become an increasingly debated topic in Islam.[5] Beyond sectarian differences, fundamentalists advocate the complete and uncompromising implementation of "exact/pure sharia" without modifications,[2][20] while modernists argue that it can/should be brought into line with human rights and other contemporary issues such as democracy, minority rights, freedom of thought, women's rights and banking by new jurisprudences.

Just as, to my knowledge, most Christians and Jews don't believe that Old Testament law is something to be applied literally into modern times. The Old Testament contains laws such as requiring that people be put to death for working on the Sabbath


“For six days, work is to be done, but the seventh day shall be your holy day, a day of sabbath rest to the LORD. Whoever does any work on it is to be put to death.” Exodus 35:2
 
Nope, many Muslims don't interpret Sharia Law as something to be applied literally in modern times.


Approaches to Sharia in the 21st century vary widely, and the role and mutability of Sharia[19] in a changing world has become an increasingly debated topic in Islam.[5] Beyond sectarian differences, fundamentalists advocate the complete and uncompromising implementation of "exact/pure sharia" without modifications,[2][20] while modernists argue that it can/should be brought into line with human rights and other contemporary issues such as democracy, minority rights, freedom of thought, women's rights and banking by new jurisprudences.

Just as, to my knowledge, most Christians and Jews don't believe that Old Testament law is something to be applied literally into modern times. The Old Testament contains laws such as requiring that people be put to death for working on the Sabbath


“For six days, work is to be done, but the seventh day shall be your holy day, a day of sabbath rest to the LORD. Whoever does any work on it is to be put to death.” Exodus 35:2
The very large majority of Muslims believe sharia to be the word of God.


You sound like a teenage apologist who hasn't a ******* clue what you are talking about.
 
IsIam is based on a pack of Iies. Mecca is described as the virtuaI birthpIace of civiIization, and there is IiteraIIy no mention of Mecca in any third party document, and no archaeoIogicaI evidence of its existence prior to the ninth century. The Saudi government TODAY wiII not aIIow any non-Musims to have access to Mecca dig sites. Mo-hammed himseIf is not documented until 200 years after his supposed death. There is not a single third party mention of either Mecca or Mo-hammed untiI centuries after MusIims are taught that they existed.

This is fundamentalIy different from having an unprovable origin; it is an origin that is probably false.
It's beside the point. Whether or not you think the origin story is true or false doesn't factor into my criteria of whether or not a religion is legitimate.
 
My understanding, though, is that there has been a collusion of church and state in much of Christianity's history. Or prior to Christianity, such as in the case of the Biblical state of Israel.

Though, I think the idea that church and state are entirely separate is something of a myth to begin with. For example, it is illegal in the US to murder someone or steal their property, and both of these things are prohibited by the 10 Commandments. Therefore, a murderer could claim that prohibiting murder is "forcing religion on him", but I digress. And if it is "forcing religion" on him, then that's a good thing.
A weak attempt at false equivalence. Show me ANYTHING like Sharia Law that is INHERENT in the Christian religion. Sharia Law is straight out of the Muslim "Bible".
 
The very large majority of Muslims believe sharia to be the word of God.


You sound like a teenage apologist who hasn't a ******* clue what you are talking about.
I fail to see what your point is.

I believe that Christians and Jews believe the Old Testament to be the word of God and, if the laws of the Old Testament were applied literally into modern times, it would be the de facto equivalent of Sharia law, requiring the death penalty for crimes such as adultery, idolatry, and so on.

And we can see cults and sects in America, such as Fundamentalist Latter Day Saints, who engage in barbaric practices such as forced marriage and child marriage:

 
15th post
People are free to dislike Islam (though many who dislike it seem pretty uneducated and uninformed on it). However, from what I know of it, it is a legitimate, major world religion. And there are sects of Muslims, such as the Sufis who do not, to my knowledge, believe in violence or oppression.

Something like Satanism I wouldn't consider a legitimate religion. But Islam is.
Islam is, indeed, a religion.

The last of the large-scale Warrior Religions... the successor to the Mithraism of the Roman Legionnaires of Antiquity.

It is a plagiarized, bastardized, stolen-and-adapted hybrid of Judaism and Christianity and Arab superstition and prejudice.


It makes excuses for the bloodthirsty and pedophilic history of it Founder, Peanut Butter and jelly be Upon Him...

It allows polygamy, subordinates and oppresses women, it allows lying and slavery, and the taxation and persecution of Unbelievers.

It allows killing in defense of fellow Believers and falsely promises Paradise to those who die for The Faith or in Religious Wars.

It falsely proclaims its Founder to be a Prophet and falsely proclaims that its Scriptures were written or dictated by God Himself.

It falsely posits that its Scriptures are the unalterable Word of God and may not be reinterpreted or adapted in any manner.

Thus rendering this so-called Religion as stuck in the 7th Century and constitutionally incapable of Reform in any meaningful way.

It is largely a belief-system heavily laden with External Observances and Ritual and sorely lacking in Spirituality and Love.

Even in its earliest times it was spread almost exclusively by the sword rather than by appealing to the hearts and spirit of Men.

Given as a truism that latter-day Christian expansion was also facilitated by The Sword...

Given as a truism that Christendom at-large may even have slaughtered more people than Islam over the centuries...

There is a distinction or two between Christianity and Islam that are worth noting...

----

When Christians go to war, they do so in direct DISOBEDIANCE to the teachings of their Founder, whose New Commandments were "Love Thy Neighbor" and "Turn the Other Cheek"...those warriors have to rationalize their disobedience outside Scripture, and their excesses usually cause the pendulum to swing back towards the teachings of their Founder to slow and finally end the excess.

When Muslims go to war, they do so in direct OBEDIANCE to the teachings of their Founder, who, himself, personally, had oceans of blood on his hands to get his new Belief System off-the-ground... those warriors don't have to rationalize their warfare at all and there is no Central Core-Message of Love and Forgiveness to all men that would temper and still their bloody behaviors.

----

When Christianity at-large became too worldly the teachings of their Founder was used quite readily and successfully to trigger a massive Reformation which set aside or minimalized many of the trappings and ceremonial and sidecar beliefs and practices so that Christianity became a more useful spiritual guide to modern Western society.

When Islam at-large becomes too worldly (it can be argued that it actually began that way) we see that Islam's central tenet (that their Scripture is the unchangeable and non-interpretable Word of God) actually stifles and suppresses any serious attempt at widespread Reform. Reform within Islam is always largely stillborn. At its core, Islam is virtually INCAPABLE of meaningful Reform.

------------------------

Islam is, indeed, a religion... one that is largely incompatible with Western Culture and Philosophy and Religion and Governance and Democracy... it would be best if its practitioners largely kept within their own domains and left Christianity and The West alone.

The inability of much of the Liberal-Progressive-Socialist-Democratic Left to either recognize or understand or admit this dangerous Incompatibility is one of the more profound INTERNAL dangers facing The West in our times...it is a viper in our midst...

"Rot from within, introduced by outsiders with oftentimes questionable motives, and left to fester by dullards, enablers and cowards." ...

Name one long-standing Muslim Democracy which promises Freedom of Religion and Freedom of Speech and meaningful Womens Rights and egalitarianism and self-governance...

Fail to do so and you are at the Dawn of Understanding in this matter.
 
Last edited:
Nope, many Muslims don't interpret Sharia Law as something to be applied literally in modern times.


Approaches to Sharia in the 21st century vary widely, and the role and mutability of Sharia[19] in a changing world has become an increasingly debated topic in Islam.[5] Beyond sectarian differences, fundamentalists advocate the complete and uncompromising implementation of "exact/pure sharia" without modifications,[2][20] while modernists argue that it can/should be brought into line with human rights and other contemporary issues such as democracy, minority rights, freedom of thought, women's rights and banking by new jurisprudences.

Just as, to my knowledge, most Christians and Jews don't believe that Old Testament law is something to be applied literally into modern times. The Old Testament contains laws such as requiring that people be put to death for working on the Sabbath


“For six days, work is to be done, but the seventh day shall be your holy day, a day of sabbath rest to the LORD. Whoever does any work on it is to be put to death.” Exodus 35:2
Many sure as hell don't mean all.

Now, read this.https://theamericantribune.com/republicans-fear-sharia-law-in-massive-new-muslim-housing-project-in-texas/
These Texas Muslims will not bow down to Texas law, as per there religions teaching. Take your Muslim love and shove it.
 
Back
Top Bottom