“Islam is evil!”

This is a quote thrown around a lot on Twitter and I see it literally all the time. Its often followed with a barrage of resistance from people who you could easily confuse for morons, based on the arguments for Islam being evil vs against. The argument for Islam’s evil seems so obvious and easy to follow, yet if you take even half a critical look at it; it starts to fall apart really easily. The funny thing is that these arguments could easily be avoided entirely if we just added one word to the sentence.

Browsing through Twitter on any given day and you’re not unlikely to find some anti-Islam posts here and there. Maybe that’s just my feed, but I’m willing to take a guess it happens in a lot of people’s feeds too. The arguments for Islam is evil seems pretty compelling, there’s lots of images of death, gore, beheading, immolation, torture, caning, heck even murdered children. Just the other day George Gallaway (Scottish politician-y guy) tweeted an image of a child’s head being held up in the air by a man brandishing a knife. The child was no older than about 12.

The images are super powerful and convince you of the evil of Islam right off the bat. I’m totally against all of the crap I just named above, its abhorrent and I stand fully against this. Yet I’m not against Islam.

That’s because there are lots of problems with calling the above Islam and not making any distinction of the kind of Islam it is. See the fact that there are Muslims – whose religion is Islam – who are also totally against this stuff, who hate seeing children murdered, who are totally non-violent and are instead peaceful people totally invalidates that the above behaviour is Islam as a whole. There are clearly sub sections of Islam – some who do practice this awful shit and some who really really don’t.

The best comparison I have for this is Christianity. In Christianity there are lots of people who believe themselves to be the true believers of the religion, much like we have with groups like ISIS. These groups can be directly contradictory to another group who also believe themselves to be true believers; again much like we have in Islam. So for example you could have a sect of Christianity which believes in gay marriage and one that doesn’t, ie Church of England vs Catholicism.

These denominations aren’t hugely important and when speaking about religion generally we wont really need to make reference to them. Its only when something bad happens that we ever really make a point of it. Like for example when the Catholic priests were raping the altar boys – we didn’t call them “Christian priests” – it was always specifically Catholic.

This is because we know its pretty shitty to throw shade at people who don’t really deserve it. CofE priests weren’t involved with the Catholic’s boy raping – nor was any other denomination of Christianity, so we didn’t include them when talking about it. Yet for some reason this doesn’t transfer to Islam.

You can find countless examples of good Islamic people, good Muslims – who believe in love, truth and helping people. You know? All that crap. As with Christianity, the core religion is the same – however the interpretations of it and the parts that you actually decide to follow are different. This is literally what creates different denominations. CofE Christians are still Christians even despite their whole religion being created because some Brit monarch wanted to bone someone else. (Thank you Henry VIII for divorce!) Yet for some reason we don’t offer Muslims the same?

Obviously hating on Islam as a whole when there are plenty of nice Islamic people isn’t working out for people, so how do we fix this? Its actually laughably simple. Stop calling it Islam. Add one word to that to describe the extreme or radical way Islam is interpreted… I dunno.. maybe… like… Radical Islam? Yep. That’s literally all it would take. Then nobody has any right to say “you’re just being Islamophobic!” because you’re objectively not. You’re not hating all Islam, you’re hating a specific sect of it which is proven to be violent and hateful.

So from now on, don’t refer to the religion of Isis as merely Islam, call it what it actually is and respect those who practice Islam but aren’t hateful war mongers. Call it Radical Islam.



14 thoughts on ““Islam is evil!”

  1. ∂αɾⓡєṉ (@CelticHoe_) says:

    Just to give insight into who I am first; I’m a follower of yours. I agree with you about 40% of the time. You don’t fall down my line of politics but I follow for the purpose of hearing another perspective instead of living inside a bubble where I hear my own opinions being echoed (I hope I don’t sound pretentious lol)

    My main disagreement is with your action of evaluating a religion on the basis of the actions of those who follow the religion. The bible says that you can not eat pig meat or even touch its carcass. This is mentioned in both Leviticus and Deuteronomy. I live in Ireland a majority Christian nation yet our national dish is comprised of a lot of pig meat. Rashers, sausages and pudding(blood sausage made from pigs blood). This isn’t exclusive to the Irish this is something a lot of Christians do across the globe. I’m imaging almost every american Christian at some point in their life have consumed a slice of crispy bacon.
    But that does not mean that Christianity is supportive of eating pig meat. Christianity is still against it. If there is an instance where a Christian does not eat pig meat on the basis of their religion then there religion is to blame for that.

    There are many Muslims out there that do not commit acts of violence. My evaluation of terrorism is not on the basis of the actions of Muslims who commit acts of violence its on the basis of whats advocated in the Qur’an. Of course I came to question whether or not Islam is behind acts of terrorism because growing up so much of it seemed to come from a specific group of people. Since 9/11 there have been 30,000 terrorists attacks internationally. I have both the Qur’an myself and have read it but that’s not required to interpret it as there are online sources so don’t worry. https://quran.com/ This website gives you the Qur’an in several different translations. From my experience quite a few of the verses people claim to be violent aren’t really violent. Well they are but in a respectable sense. The debate between those who view Islam as peaceful or violent debate it whilst claiming these verses are either calls for defence or calls for no justifiable death.
    Some are justifiable because they request for you to kill only if you are being attacked. That okay. Of course you are going to defend yourself if you are being attacked. I see many websites use these verses(like 2:191) to claim Islam as violent that usually have me rolling my eyes after seeing the words “EXPOSED!” In bold writing whilst I get the sense this person watches Info Wars and thinks the Illuminati is behind the music industry.
    But there are some I highly recommend you do look at verse 9:30 and to also read between the verses 47:1 to 47:4. These verses call for believers to kill disbelievers merely because they do not follow Islam. That is not justifiable. There are other verses but they are still debated on whether or not they are calling for unjustifiable death. Verses 5;33, 8:12, 8:60, 8:65, 9:5, 9:30, 9:123 and 22:19.

    There’s another part of your argument I disagree with.”for example you could have a sect of Christianity which believes in gay marriage and one that doesn’t” I think you misunderstand what a sect is. A sect is defined as “a group of people with somewhat different religious beliefs”. Viewing homosexuality as acceptable is not a different interpretation of Christianity it’s ignoring it. If a Catholic priests rapes they are classified as wrong doings within the Catholic church because they were committed by Catholic priests but you could call them Christians it doesn’t need to be focused on the one sect. “Radical Islam” Is not a sect. Sects include Sunni, Shi`ite, Sufis, Baha’is and Ahmadiyyas. The 2 dominant ones include Sunni 84%–90% and Shi`ite 10%–16%.
    Blaming Islam for an act of terror is understandable because The religion of Islam justifies those acts of terror so the inclusion of the word radical is redundant. Instead of dividing Islam into “Islam and Radical Islam” You could instead say Islam and those who decide not to act upon violent verses(moderates). Now there are people who don’t act upon these verses but agree with them. These are fundamentalists. They make up 24% of Muslims internationally. The percentage fluctuates depending on the country.
    I’m getting a sense of political correctness from you. As if you want to bring word policing so that peaceful Muslims aren’t offended. Now my use of the word policing isn’t a claim that you want it incorporated into law as some sort of hate speech law. I’m using it lightly as a synonym of criticism.

    Also another statement. I would not blame Christianity for the acts of priests when it comes to the rape of alter boys. Its not advocated or justifiable by biblical scripture. Now its disgusting and immoral but not Christian.
    Now I am not a Christian apologetic. I view Christianity as evil, There is badness in the Bible. Not too far away from me there’s a town called Roscrea outside one of my local towns where women were sent if they had a child outside of marriage. A lot of the women, some as young as 13 died. But there death was avoidable. They weren’t given any treatment during the pregnancy and that was many because the nuns wanted them to suffer(the movie Philomena was based on an event that occurred there). The bible does not agree with premarital sex. Now I don’t know whether or not death is the punishment but its still horrible. But there verses that do request death and unjustifiable violence like the request to stone gay people to death. With that being said I’m hardly going to defend a religion that wants me dead. Christianity is evil in a very unjustifiable sense.


    • cursedeblogger says:

      I praise you for following someone you dont necessarily agree with – I do the same and its important to keep those echo chambers as smashed as possible!

      On political correctness – its not about that in my opinion. I’m not bothered about offending Muslims, I’m bothered about radicalising people. I’m going to write about this in a post tomorrow, but the short story is that we ostracise people from society based on calling their religion evil, and its no wonder they end up in the arms of radical Islam. We need to break that cycle.

      Instead we should take Islam to be an umbrella term for anyone who is a Muslim and practices some form of Islam. From there we can then slice it up into pieces and name each one – kinda like how we have with Christianity’s denominations.

      I think it makes a lot more sense socially – in order to break the cycle of radicalisation – to not call people’s religion inherently evil or wrong. Because that implies they are wrong for having those beliefs, and that pushes them out of societies and into the hands of terrorists. If adding one word to the way we talk about Islam can help that – by calling it radical Islam instead. Then I really don’t see a strong argument for why not.

      Thanks for the comment! 🙂

      Liked by 1 person

      • ∂αɾⓡєṉ (@CelticHoe_) says:

        “short story is that we ostracise people from society based on calling their religion evil”
        Okay. I think this is quite ludicrous. I do not think that you should ignore a fact for the purpose of not hurting somebodies feelings. Islam is evil. It calls for the death of non believers. It calls for the death of gay people. There is zero legitimacy to radicalisation.
        The prevention of hurting feelings should not be accounted for.
        Political correctness is defined as “the avoidance of forms of expression or action that are perceived to exclude, marginalise, or insult groups of people who are socially disadvantaged or discriminated against.”
        You are requesting people to avoid a form of expression or action. You can search the definition if you wish because by definition you are being PC. Now I’m not using that as some kind of boogeyman phrase but facts should not be prioritised over emotions.
        Also this is almost an anti-blasphemy type request. “You cant criticise a religion it has a bad affect” Since calling Islam is a evil is criticism then requesting people not to is advocacy against blasphemy. Blasphemy is defined as “the action or offence of speaking sacrilegiously about God or sacred things; profane talk”
        I’m sorry but I’m very against blasphemy. Especially since blasphemy laws in many countries prohibit LGBT people and women to advocate for their rights in countries like Saudi Arabia. Now I highly doubt you’d be an advocate for blasphemy laws but your request is anti-blasphemy.

        “Instead we should take Islam to be an umbrella term for anyone who is a Muslim and practices some form of Islam….kinda like how we have with Christianity’s denominations.”
        Again, you are falsely comparing “forms” of Islam to denominations. Catholics and protestants are the equivalent of Sunni and Shia rather than radical Islam and non-radical Islam. Radical Islam is not a denomination. Islam is radical in its self. “non-radical” isn’t a form of Islam or a denomination. Its nothing at all, there is no such thing. There are groups you can divide Muslims into like moderate or fundamentalist. But there is no such thing as moderate Islam there are only moderate Muslims. Muslims are following the religion whilst Islam is the religion. A moderate is somebody who isn’t living there life by the rules whilst Islam is the rules.

        “I think it makes a lot more sense socially – in order to break the cycle of radicalisation – to not call people’s religion inherently evil or wrong. Because that implies they are wrong for having those beliefs, and that pushes them out of societies and into the hands of terrorists.”
        You are giving legitimacy to Islamist ideology. There is zero defensibly for the acts of a terrorist. There should be no request of a changed language for the purpose of accommodating to the feelings of someone in prevention of terrorism. Criticism should be shifted towards the action of killing not the action of criticising. If the act of killing by a terrorist can be back tracked to a point in time where the person felt marginalised by people as the result of somebodies criticism of Islam. Its the terrorist who should be criticised not the person criticising the religion. Radicalisation is not a legitimate response to critique of religion so scrutinise the radical not the person professing their opinion of a religion.


        • cursedeblogger says:

          Again, this is not about political correctness. This is about helping break a cycle of radicalisation. I literally do not care about people’s feelings – I care about how we’re ostracising people from society and creating an environment where its easy for radical islam supporters to get their grips into non-radical Muslims.

          This isn’t political correctness, its a practical solution to the problem of radicalisation. We either want to stop it or we don’t, and if we do we should probably work towards that goal.

          I agree, there should be no legitimacy to radicalisation, we should help dismantle the cycle and environments that enable it to have legitimacy to people. This involves change on our part, we’re going to have to change the way we speak about Islam and learn to accept that it is not all radical. Whereas there are parts which support killing non-believers, there are also parts which suggest entirely the opposite.

          “There is no compulsion where the religion is concerned.” (Holy Quran: 2/ 256)

          As with any religious text, its up to people to decide which parts they believe. Islam itself isn’t evil inherently, its the interpretations and actions of believers which make people feel that way. But since a lot of people who believe in Islam do not believe in these things, we shouldn’t tar all of Islam with this brush of evil. We should instead focus our tarring on where its needed – on radical Islam specifically.


  2. ∂αɾⓡєṉ (@CelticHoe_) says:

    Just to give you my opinion on another thing. I see you arguing on twitter against those who say that people who aren’t going by their religion word for word aren’t real Muslims or Christians etc.
    I disagree with that. If somebody is Muslim but is peaceful I classify them as moderate rather than non-Muslim.

    Liked by 1 person

  3. ∂αɾⓡєṉ (@CelticHoe_) says:

    Now for some reason the reply option isn’t given on your comment so I can’t reply to your reply of my reply to your reply of my reply. So I’m gonna have to leave the comment here on its own. So here it goes.
    “I care about how we’re ostracising people from society and creating an environment where its easy for radical Islam supporters to get their grips into non-radical Muslims”
    The action of terrorism in response to feeling ostracised is not a legitimate response. The criticism should be pointed at that not what made them feel ostracised.

    “we’re going to have to change the way we speak about Islam”
    Again, the definition of political correctness is: “the avoidance of forms of expression or action that are perceived to exclude, marginalise, or insult groups of people who are socially disadvantaged or discriminated against.” You are advocating for people to stop the action of saying “Islam is evil” to prevent marginalisation. This is the definition of political correctness so I don’t see why you are saying you aren’t being PC about it?

    “Islam itself isn’t evil inherently, its the interpretations and actions of believers which make people feel that way”
    Okay firstly I will ask you too look up “Islam definition” on google. When it gives you the definition click on “Translations, word origin and more definitions” . When you look at the Origin it will show that the word is derived from ‘aslama which means to submit to god.
    Now of course that isn’t exactly bad but it is quite authoritarian. The reason why I am bringing it up is because from my reading of the Qu’ran there is a sense of othering and hate towards the other and a request to push the belief and in many instances in a violent way. There so many calls to war for the purpose of conquering. Whilst reading it I come across a repetitive use of the slurs “kuffar” and “inifdel” meaning non believer. And yes they are slurs. I included 10 verses in my first reply but they are calls for death. I didn’t mention there are 109 verses in total that call for hatred towards non believers but not death.
    The verses that put me into shock overshadow the verses that brought me happiness(the peaceful ones). And I’ve completely ignored the sexist verses or the homophobic ones.
    Is it inherently evil? Inherently is defined as meaning :” in a permanent, essential, or characteristic way” I think that it is most definitely inherently evil.
    Also, your statement that its the actions of believers that makes people fee that way. For some yes but for me my interpretation of Islam is on the basis of the Qu’ran. I argued this. What the follower of a religion does does not always reflect the teachings of the sacred text belonging to that religion. I gave the example of Christians eating pig meat. My belief that Christianity is against eating pigs isn’t on the basis of what Christians do its on the basis of what the religion says.
    Now I want you to give your opinion on these two quotes from a book.
    “Obstacles do not exist to be surrendered to, but only to be broken”
    I think this is a very inspirational quote, very motivational. Its like something I’d see on a poster in the wall of a gym or in the lounge outside the room of a mental health therapists office.
    “Those who have no understanding of the political world around them have no right to criticise or complain”
    I think this makes sense. Well they can have the freedom to do so but to have a discussion on a topic you know nothing about is very irrational.
    Those statements aren’t bad write? Sounds like a good book with a relatively good moral compass. These quotes are from Mein Kampf. These two statements do not make the book “not inherently evil”. In a permanent, essential, or characteristic sense yes it is. It advocates for dictatorship and Nazism.

    And I’m gonna go back to my first argument. The decision to kill is what you are drawing attention away from. What led to them being ostracised isn’t what needs to be criticised. Firstly that doesn’t need to occur. A person doesn’t need to feel ostracised so instead they should be criticised for doing so as opposed to criticising the statement making them feel that way. That reaction doesn’t need to be the case in reaction to the statement “Islam is evil” not only that but the decision to kill as the result of felling ostracised is not understandable. Also when it comes to discussing the cause of radicalisation most fingers are pointed at Mosques. Its exposure to fundamentalist views that cause radicalisation. Feeling ostracised doesn’t need to be present.

    not only that but saying Islam is evil is understandable. So is Christianity. So is Nazism.(I am aware that not all these systems of belief are on an equal level of badness). A non-evil religion should not advocate for unjustifiable death. A peaceful verse well not make up for it. What will make it non-evil is the removal of those verses not accompanying them with peaceful verses. I’m gonna call Islam violent and I’m not going to say radical Islam because its redundant. The same why I’m not gonna say “bad obesity”. The word bad is redundant. Is there a good obesity? Is it good to have a body weight that increases your likelihood of joint problems, failure during pregnancy, developing diabetes or cardiovascular disease.
    So what if the result of being obese allowed that person fit into oversized clothes that where expensive and where given to that person for their birthday. That’s a benefit. The expensive clothes don’t go to waste. But obesity is still inherently bad.
    Now what if people repeated the statement “obesity is unhealthy” and made that person feel ostracised. (please don’t laugh at this analogy) And what if that obese person committed an act of terror because they felt ostracised. Should the statement “obesity is unhealthy” be removed? No. The action of killing should be criticised.


    • cursedeblogger says:

      It’s simple. It’s not pc because it’s not about their feelings or whatever. It’s purely a practical solution to a problem.

      You’re right, it isn’t okay that non radical Muslims end up radicalised and they shouldn’t. But the facts are that we bring them to our countries then hate them for being here. They become isolated and then they are taken advantage of by radical Muslims. This cycle doesn’t just end on its own and if we want to stop radical Islam from radicalising Muslims we need to play our part. We need to separate the good guys from the bad guys. Otherwise they’re all just going to be bad guys. That problem is significantly bigger than changing the way we use our language to describe a religion and people within it.

      I disagree it’s inherently evil and that can be proven by peaceful Muslims following Islam who don’t believe in the bad shit in the book. Sorry but you’re a straight wrong about that.

      It’s on the basis of what a book says. The religion is more than just a book though. To say Islam or Christianity are purely confined to the words inside their holy texts is a little retarded. We both know that isn’t exactly accurate.

      If you choose to continue calling the whole of Islam violent you choose to spread hate against all Muslims. Because all Muslims follow a form of Islam. If you spread hate you contribute to the environment that enables radicals to indoctrinate other Muslims into radical Islam.

      If you do this. We will continue to reap what we sow. There will be more terror there will be more blood shed. You will have played a part in this. It isn’t redundant because not all Muslims Ergo not all Islam is violent and radical. It isn’t redundant because your word choice is having a real effect on people that is really causing issues.

      You can choose what to do. Personally I advocate for not hating the whole of islam and instead advocate for hating the bits worthy of hate. The radical Islam.


  4. ∂αɾⓡєṉ (@CelticHoe_) says:

    “It’s simple. It’s not pc because it’s not about their feelings or whatever. It’s purely a practical solution to a problem”
    I really don’t understand your avoidance of my labelling of your advocacy as political correctness? I have copy and pasted this definition three times. Political correctness is defined as: “the avoidance of forms of expression or action that are perceived to exclude, marginalise, or insult groups of people who are socially disadvantaged or discriminated against”
    You are avoiding a form of expression or action (saying “radical Islam” instead of Islam”) for the purpose of preventing a perceived marginalisation of certain groups(Muslims).
    I really don’t get why you against against my labelling because you meet the definition.

    “I disagree it’s inherently evil and that can be proven by peaceful Muslims following Islam who don’t believe in the bad shit in the book. Sorry but you’re a straight wrong about that.”
    Again. The actions of believers do not indicate what is said in the sacred text. I gave the example of Christians eating pig meat. The action of Christians eating pig meat does not mean that Christianity is pro pig eating. Its whats written i the book that determines the values of the religion. Think of the law for example. There are murders out there. But people committing acts of murder does not mean the country has legalised murder. Some people don’t follow rules. If a Muslim is peaceful that does not reflect the religion. Its whats written in the book that reflects the religion. A Muslim who does not commit an act of violence is a moderate. They are practising Islam in moderation.

    “The religion is more than just a book though. To say Islam or Christianity are purely confined to the words inside their holy texts is a little retarded. We both know that isn’t exactly accurate.”
    Think of religion as Law. “To say law is purely confined to legislation is a little retarded”.
    Without legislation there is no law. Law is legislation. Islam isn’t entirely its book. There are customs that can’t be linked to Islam. But the actions of peaceful Muslims or violent Muslims do not dictate what the religion advocates for. The same way the actions of citizens do not dictate what the law stands for. It is whats being said within the law or the Qu’ran that dictates whats being said. You’ve made the argument that the actions of Muslims do not dictate what the religion says “Islam itself isn’t evil inherently, its the interpretations and actions of believers which make people feel that way.” And now you are making the argument that it is the actions of Muslims that dictate what the religion says “To say Islam or Christianity are purely confined to the words inside their holy texts is a little retarded”. Pick one instead of contradicting yourself.

    “If you choose to continue calling the whole of Islam violent you choose to spread hate against all Muslims”
    I do not hate all Muslims. “spread hate” If by that you mean others will hear my statements and misinterpret what I’m saying and decide to hate all Muslims and paint them all with a broad brush then their misrepresentation should be criticised not my statements. I am not advocating for the hatred of all Muslims. There are Muslims like Majid Nawaz and Malala that I admire.

    “Because all Muslims follow a form of Islam”
    There are no forms of Islam there are only forms of Muslims. A moderate is someone who follows Islam in moderation. They might believe in Allah and that Muhammad was his messenger. They might lightly present Islamic clothing and pray a few times but that’s it. A fundamentalist takes it word for word and has a tendency to have very dangerous views.
    Being a moderate is not the decision to follow a different “form” of Islam. Its the decision to not follow it entirely. That is not a new denomination or sect that is making the decision to ignore the 100’s of violent verses.

    “If you spread hate you contribute to the environment that enables radicals to indoctrinate other Muslims into radical Islam”
    “It isn’t redundant because your word choice is having a real effect on people that is really causing issues”
    You seem to have this idea that it is more important to criticise my statement than to criticise the killer. You have not yet said “we need to prevent people from committing acts of terror as the result of feeling ostracised” your criticism is “we need to stop them from feeling ostracised”. Do you not see the flawed prioritisation in that?
    Muslims aren’t the only people that have the potential to feel marginalised. This can include gay people for example. It also includes atheists in the US. A gallop poll showed that in America Atheists are viewed almost as negatively as Muslims. Only one percentage in a difference. Now let me ask you… where are all the atheist terrorists? If I hear someone call my belief in atheism as evil and as the result I fell ostracised and decide to commit an act of terror. The finger should not be pointed at the person calling the belief evil it should be pointed at my decision to kill. It is more immoral to kill than to insult. If you had a sense of morality you would concentrate on the decision to kill rather than the decision to criticise.
    Now back to the while thing about Muslims not being the only group of people who are viewed negatively by parts of society. There is not an abnormal amount of terrorism coming from the Atheist community or the LGBT community for a reason. Its because insulting Muslims is not to blame for terrorism. People have a tendency to point fingers at economic standards of living or feeling ostracised for being the result of terrorism. But yet there are prominent terrorist figures like Osama bin laden who grew up in a billionaire family with close ties to the Saudi Royal family. The explanation given for his radicalisation is exposure verses of Islam he had not yet witnessed. It a fundamentalist interpretation that resulted in this not feeling “ostracised”. Terrorism commonly occurs throughout majority Muslims nations such as Egypt, Turkey, Pakistan etc. Muslims make the majority of these nations. How does a Muslims experience the feeling of being “othered” and ostracised by statements such as “Islam is evil” when they happen to be living in Islamic societies? What explanation can be given to there motives??? I’d say that the most ostracised people living in majority Muslims nations are religious minorities such as Christians and Jews rather than Muslims. But there seems to be no prevalence of Christian or Jewish terrorism in Pakistan, Turkey or Egypt??? Your argument of terrorism being the result of Muslims feeling ostracised is not valid.

    “not all Islam is violent”
    I never said Islam was entirely violent. I know that there are peaceful verses. My argument wasn’t that Islam is entirely violent my argument was against your statement that Islam isn’t inherently violent. By definition Islam is inherently violent.


  5. Robotpie says:

    Ah, the famous parallel between Islam and Christianity. At first sight, a very useful one: both are monotheistic, Abrahamic religions and they are the two religions with the most followers worldwide. Now, why I believe Islam is fundamentally evil and Christianity isn’t, is because of the structures of their holy books.

    Let’s start with the Bible. The Bible is the source of Christianity, divided into two parts. One part, the Old Testament, is pretty much copied from the Jews. God obviously does, and commands His followers to do, lots of evil stuff. Because Jesus (God Himself) believed in the Old Testament, Christianity assumes it is true. That sounds pretty evil to me. However, Christianity is mostly the religion of Christ (hence the name), who features in the New Testament. He often goes against the Old Testament there, contradicting things like the harsh punishments stated in the OT with sayings as “love thy neighbour”, which is hard to interpret as anything else than “don’t stone them to death”. Since this is a direct source of God’s word and is said at a later time than the OT, Jesus thus trumps his dad with his message of love. Another thing to consider is that the Bible was written by non-perfect beings according to Christianity, and that it is thus possible fallible.

    Now in (Sunni) Islam, there is a bit of a problem: The whole Quran was written down in the same period by a man possessed by a perfect, omnipotent being. This means that the Quran itself is also perfect, and should be read literally. This is why it’s not translated; it could lose meaning in languages other than Arabic. This perfect book (since it was dictated by a perfect being) cannot be interpreted differently (since it’s literally perfect) than what it literally says, or Allah would have found another way to say it. This means that doing anything other than what the Quran states is by definition un-Islamic.

    The difference between the two should be clear by now: Christianity is interpretable (because it’s written by non-perfect beings) and thus fluid, while Islam is rigid and cannot be interpreted other than the letter of the text of the Quran itself. This doesn’t mean all Muslims are bad; it just means that the good Muslims don’t fully follow their faith.

    Liked by 1 person

    • cursede says:

      But they still follow a form of Islam all the same, and if its a practical solution to the problem of radicalisation I don’t see why its such a big deal to just change the way we talk a little. I updated this post over here: https://cursedeblogger.wordpress.com/2017/01/11/quick-point-re-islam-is-evil/

      I can see your points, for sure, but the fact that its possible to be both Muslim and not follow the hateful and murderous parts of the Qu’ran is enough for me. Islam will never change, Islam will never reform, not if we keep defining it as evil. Whereas if we facilitate the reform and change to Islam via accepting that there is more than one form ie deciding it is in fact able to be interpreted. Islam will change, eventually the hateful and incompatible parts of it will die out, ie radical islam.


      • Robotpie says:

        “But they still follow a form of Islam all the same”
        What I am trying to say is that for all intents and purposes there is no such thing as forms of Islam. There is only Islam. It cannot have multiple forms because it fundamentally cannot have multiple interpretations. Now, this doesn’t hold true because there is contradictions in the book, but the evil stuff is just as correct as the good stuff, while (as I explained) in Christianity the good stuff trumps the evil stuff.
        You can call yourself Muslim and sincerely believe you are one, but Muslims do not follow Islam fully. You cannot follow Islam fully, since it is contradictory. That doesn’t mean it’s not evil.
        Sunni Islam will never change because it does not accept any legal authority past the point of (I believe, I might misremember) Ali, who died in the 9th century. In Shia Islam, the Ayatollah can still make changes to interpretations and stuff, but in Sunni Islam the law has not changed for 1000 years and it never will.
        I have a problem with the term “radical Islam”, because it is just Islam. The perfect book literally tells you to do something so it’s normal, not radical, when you do it from a religious point of view.

        Also, against the argument of preventing radicalization by changing the way we talk, is pretty worrying of itself. If just the choice of words make some Muslims ticking time bombs, the problem is with those Muslims, not the words. Violence against any group should obviously never be allowed, and hate crimes against Muslims are just as bad as against any other group.


        • cursede says:

          Its not that they’re ticking time bombs, though trust me the irony of that phrase is not lost on me. It’s that if you treat people badly they tend to find people who will treat them well – this happens to be believers of radical Islam. Who use and exploit vulnerable Muslims for their aims. You’ll notice its never the hate-spreading Imams who are carrying out terrorist attacks, but refugees and immigrants who are failing to assimilate. People on the lowest end of the radical religious food-chain.

          This same kinda thing happens with paedophiles too. We demonise and hate them, so they search out people who don’t. This is how you create a paedophile ring and its the reason why child sex tourism is possible. They’re working together and can harm more people than they ever could solo, this applies to terrorism and radical Islam down to a tee.

          I think that you make good points about the nature of the religion and interpretations of it, but I think that we have to take part in the social change for the practical reasons above. We want terrorism to stop, so we need those moderate followers of Islam not to think we hate them and all of Islam. We need to direct our hatred where it belongs and that’s in the people using Islam to justify radical behaviour. We need to do this to cut off the cycle of radicalisation and if we do, we’ll totally see a whole lot less terrorism in the west. I guarantee it.

          The west is an absolutely amazing place to live, we’re so free and so equal, especially compared to a lot of the countries these people come from. They have absolutely no good reason to ruin the great thing they’ve got going by being here – until we demonise them and their core beliefs as a whole, like how we do with Islam.


          • Robotpie says:

            I think you make a good point about people finding people who will treat them well, but I don’t think that is the problem. Yes, it is true that people who are mistreated are the ones that commit acts of violence, but hating something they believe in is not the same as treating them badly. You can hate Islam, but still be nice to Muslims. As St. Augustine would say, hate the sin, but love the sinner. The same goes for any ideology: I hate communism, but I don’t think commies are bad people. They’re just a little misguided.

            The same could be said about the paedophiles; I think it’s okay to label attraction to pre-pubescent children as wrong, but we should see paedophiles as people with an unfortunate sexual preference, and only once they start molesting children should we punish them (or rather, let the justice system punish them).

            I agree with you on your points of making it very clear to Muslims that we do not hate them, but a problem is that I think it’s only right to hate Islam, while many Muslims have integrated it into their identity, being personally offended when you insult Islam. You say we need to direct our hatred at what you call radical Muslims, but I think what is scary is that they can explain their actions perfectly with a book that 1.6 billion people worldwide follow and hold as absolute truths. This leads to shocking numbers in surveys like this one: http://www.pewresearch.org/files/old-assets/pdf/muslim-americans.pdf#page=60


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s