Islam’s ideology is immoral to its core - should we declare war against it?


A consensus on morality? Who forms such a consensus? And who decides who will form it? The problem with morality is that everybody is biased. My friend, you must step outside the matrix for a second and ask: “what would I think if I were Muslim?”

Who is Islam? Is a young girl living in a tiny village in the desert a Muslim? Just because she believes in the Qur’an, does she deserve to die? My point is this: do you think Muslims ought to die because of what they believe? Or would you rather Muslims die because of how they act?

If you are going to kill Muslims for their beliefs alone you endorse a Gestapo ‘thoughtcrime’ police state and I think we can both see how this is wrong.

If you are going to kill Muslims for how they act, why don’t you leave the vast majority of innocent people alone? There are some Muslims - fanaticists - who act in the most abhorrent and disgusting way and we have declared war on ISIL for a reason.

I am afraid you have lost me here. What is my duty?

I know. Almost 2000 years ago. It’s changed since then.


I agree that it would not be easy, but if we do not criticise and or condemn it’s ideology publicly and world wide, then we shirk our duty to the world.

I agree, we should definitely criticize and condemn non-Sunni Islam by all means. By all means, we should tell what radical Islamic countries like Iran and Saudi Arabia that what they are doing is absolutely horrible. But a war of words is different than a war of weapons.

We did our duty against Hitler’s ideology and I think we should let duty guide us against Islam’s ideology.
Nazi supremacist and KKK groups still exist today but are not mainstream and the world can tolerate Islam as a small fringe group as well.

I wouldn’t say there are “small fringe groups” when there is a major political movement in Greece (Golden Dawn) that is a neo-Nazi party.

What I do think we both agree is that Islam needs to change much like how Christianity changed over time; from a law-bearing religion like Christianity was in the Old Testament, to a grace-filled and understanding religion that it is in the New Testament.


Nazism was not the third largest religion in the world.


Do you even Hume’s guillotine? Or are you a Kantian?



Sorry coming up a bit late here, but here I go.

Islam happens to be one of the many Universalist religions that dominate the world today, and all universalist religions tend to have so many interpretations that to say “Islam is evil because of people in the middle east” is just as incorrect as saying “atheism is evil because of Stalin” or “Christianity is evil because of Joseph Kony.” What tends to happen is these religions mold themselves around the culture of the region it inhabits. The Buddhism of the US is quite different than, say, the Buddhism of more East Asian countries. The Christianity of Italy is definitely different from the Christianity of Russia. One can hear Imams in Saudi Arabia speaking of executing homosexuals, but I visited a mosque in Salt Lake City once and the imam there spoke of how while Allah doesn’t approve of homosexuality, it is for Allah to judge each man upon death, and not for the people on earth to decide.

What I’m saying is that the problem isn’t so much Islam but the culture of the middle east, which has radicalized itself pretty thoroughly over the last half a century or so. Instead of invading with war, a much more effective way of changing this radicalized culture would be to flood it with our western media instead, because that’s really what we’re good at. In Europe and Japan, Hollywood is already influencing language, thought and culture to be more American. If we can do the same with the Middle East, where a new generation of people born without the intense radicalization of the Cold War that their parents went through are so much more willing to take in Western Culture (and therefore our values), then we can really change the root of the problem instead of demonizing a third of the world.


I wonder: what makes you think that Western culture is better than Islamic culture? When the Western diet spread across Asia during the first waves of globalisation coronary heart disease rates shot up with it. Despite secular “progressive” nation states, often enforced on the Arabs living there, democratic popular support for a much larger role of Islam in public life can poll as high as 88%. Sure, so some strains of Islam are really opposed to homosexuality. You think American culture is somehow objectively “better” though? Your media is run by capitalist elites, much like everything else. Individualism has led to the breakdown of traditional communities. Discrimination based on wealth is higher than ever, and perverse incentives in your capitalist system gobble up natural resources, spew out landfill waste and destroy the planet. Advertisements blare out day and night, feeding brains with corporate messages until they are soldered into our neural networks. The working day doesn’t allow for traditional sleep patterns any more, and rates of stress and depression and mental illness has gone up, because people can’t cope with your version of culture. The West have gone in to a lot of countries as missionaries already, thinking they are helping out the “uneducated locals”. Too often they are doing more harm than good. People have a way of living, is it really right to disrespect and disregard it?


Western culture IS objectively better though. Apart from the obvious technological advances that the West has given the world, the West has been responsible for a great many good interventions in culture, such as the removal of the caste system in India when the British were there.


As you might expect, I don’t agree with a single word of this. My point was really to say that a thing cannot be “objectively better” than another thing. Where welldrinker seemed to imply Western culture was of greater objective value, you go even further and say that Western culture is better, outright. The problem is: even the word “better” means a subjective judgement. “Objectively better” is a paradox - an impossibility - and this is why people shouldn’t be so quick to criticise foreign cultures, and assume that their culture is the best. It’s even more dangerous when people use that spurious assumption to justify intervention - or, worse still, wars or crusades or any form of murder.

I don’t think technology is “obviously” a good thing. It depends on the humanity behind it, what it’s used for. Technological advances gave us the nuclear bomb, they also gave us life saving medical machinery.

Whilst India was under colonial rule, the British Raj actively enforced the caste system, enshrining it into law and into administrative policy, cementing divides instead of healing them, denying jobs to lower-caste workers (although this did begin to change in the 1930s as prominent Indian figures, including Gandhi, railed against the imposed injustice). The caste system was actually British policy. I don’t know if they ever passed a repeal act, but they did enforce the system throughout the Raj - and effective divides still exist today.


What gives u the right to call it an immoral to its core.
The only basis u have for calling something immoral is your culture. You cant judge the morality of a culture by comparing how simiar it is to ur own.


How can you look at two cultures on earth. Where in one culture women are not allowed education and are getting stoned.
And in our American culture women excelling in education and are running for President.

And then say that the first culture isnt objectively worse. You do realize that premise is irrational when reality is taken into account.


Your view is actually one I can see the logic in. That religions are in fact just organized ideologies and of course an organization could have interests that contradict western Civ and customs. So if we like our culture better than others, we ought to preserve it. We may not have the same source of values but commonly in the west, christians and athiests morals align with our moral social advancement.


Joshua, let’s look at the superficials here for a moment. The problem with this argument, on the surface, is that you really aren’t making a fair comparison, and it’s full of exaggerations. Not only are the US a bit slow when it comes to female Presidents (off the top of my head, the Indonesian President Megawati springs to mind, Indira Gandhi was also Prime Minister of India, Cisse Sidibe in Mali, there are certainly more) but that isn’t even the point, it’s a terrible metric as there are too many irrelevant variables. Moving on, the vast majority of Muslim countries allow girls to be educated, they excel, they go to university - you’re basically exaggerating. Also, stoning is a rare punishment in hudud law, and the majority of Muslims would agree that there should be serious conditions imposed on the execution of hudud within Sharia, just as it has been throughout Islamic history. Again, you are exaggerating.

The point is that you cannot even make the comparison. You can’t ever judge if one culture is better than another. Sure, you want to take reality into account. Whose reality is that? The reality of an American, someone who has grown up with your values and ideas and beliefs? Or the reality of an Arabian Muslim, who has been brought up with values and ideas and beliefs which you cannot even begin to imagine - it’s a paradigm shift you simply can’t get your head around. And that’s why you can’t judge what’s best. The two things are not even comparable, and they are not comparable because there is no objective reality. There is no objective reality, therefore the first culture isn’t objectively worse.


There is no such thing as the free world, if you consider the capitalist systems implemented into the west as free then think to yourself what if you were a Kenyan child sourcing minerals for Iphones 16 hours a day, 7 days a week?
Not to mention Islam has 1.6 billion Muslims so how are you meant to declare war against all of them, as a British Muslim it is genuinely insulting to tell me that Muslims as a collective spread religion through the sword, some people do but most certainly do not.


Not to mention there isn’t a concrete set of morals, personally I think capitalism is immoral but some people thing socialism is immoral so how can you judge something by it’s moral worth?


Christianity was spread in Africa through the British empire which was most certainly violent so the spreading of Christianity through the sword actually happened on a larger scale


Christianity has been in Africa LONG, LONG before the british empire ever existed. The first Christian nation in the world was actually Ethiopia in Africa as well.


The first and main christian nations were in Africa and Asian 600 Years before Islamic Caliphs invaded and imposed their religion violently, there founder had an army. And also you see Jesus or his apostles didnt show up in Ethopia and convert the people by force. They actually…you know…served and taught people and poor people liked the message so they converted. No Muslims were ever put into rings with lions to cheering crowds, so dont try to tell me they were ever really victims historically up until the last century.

Don’t try to lecture on history when you clearly do not know it.


Islam invaded every nation from Indian borders to the east. To southern France in the west. And eastern Europe as well. So thats most of Africa, Europe and western Asia. They spread by the sword more rapidly than any faith in history, and no faith has caused the deaths of as many as their conquests and slave trade.(and there are still slaves in africa today in the tradition of the Moors and such. The last nations to abolish slavery were in Africa in um…the 1980s.)


I agree, I wasnt asserting what gender your figurehead is as an actual metric but as a joke. Having a person of a certain gender or race has no effect on sexism or racism that I can see.

Stonings and Child Marriage, and Honors killing STILL HAPPEN. Those dont happen in the west among Christians. These arnt exaggerations these are facts. Also on education do you recall the Muslim girl that was shot in the head because she advocate for women to have an education? Once again that doesnt happen in modern western nations.

Wake up to the reality that right now. At this very moment, there are some places in the world that are better to live in than others. You think if your openly gay that you’d be treated just as well in every country on earth in comparison to western nations?

Are you not saying there is ONE culture on earth that is worse than our own in most aspects. Cut the moral relativism bull. In some cultures female genital mutilations are common, not in the west. Or women dont have any reproductive rights or other forms of rights in countries. Those countries are WORSE than lets say the US. The Western is MORE socially advanced,technolgical advanced, tolerant and morally better than most other cultures in every way.
Countries like Japan, South Korea and China, also have useful cultures that put empasis on slightly different values but due to some westernization they are the only ones who can compete and are doing fine.

Most of Africa, Asia and SA are behide in nearly every way.

Some ideas and beliefs are objectively wrong. They are clearly comparable because reality is objective. And we discover reality through logic, and science. We have morally advanced by moral intuition.

Human nature does not change from one culture to the next. If someone who is not mentally degenerate murders a child, they feel guilty otherwise they are mentally ill. There are cultures YOU would not want to live in now or in history.

Fictionally Star Trek is obviously a better society than The Road.


Mauritania (African muslim state) only criminalised it in 2008…