CIVIL RELIGIOUS DISCUSSION: All things Islam...

[ArcadiaGP]

I think it's meant as an application of a principle, that if you can extrapolate from one particularly troublesome sect of a religion to apply to all, then it works the same way across different religions. It is notable that the most troublesome sect in Christianity is all show and no go. They're not tossing gays off of buildings. They're just standing around exercising their freedom of speech, holding up signs proclaiming their god hates fags.

Right, I'm not comparing the crimes... I'm providing an example to your histogram comment... Where we look at the extremes and apply those standards to the entire bell.

 

[Think]

please allow me to sidestep sharia for s moment. This caught my attention in the article provided. Can you provide me something other than the authors opinion to support this paragraph? Something from the guiding texts?

The charge of taqqiya is often deployed by "Sharia threat" advocates when confronted with evidence that refutes their thesis. Under this methodology one cannot trust any practicing Muslim. Even if a Muslim preaches and practices non-violence, these individuals would say that person is either not a true Muslim or is practicing taqiyya. While providing a mechanism for critics to ignore any disconfirming evidence, adopting such an interpretation of taqiyya would almost certainly result in every observant Muslim being branded a liar or suspect simply by virtue of being Muslim.

Lying in order to advance one’s faith is not an Islamic doctrine and has never been. I challenge anyone to bring one proof from the Quran or Hadith where it says that ‘one can use deception to advance Islam. ’ You won’t find it

This word itself 'taqiyya" doesn't exist in the quran

"Telling the truth" is a basic Islamic rule;

“And cover not Truth with falsehood, nor conceal the Truth when ye know (what it is). (Qur’an, 2:42)”

“O ye who believe! Stand out firmly For justice, as witnesses To Allah, even as against Yourselves, or your parents, Or your kin, and whether It be (against) rich or poor: For Allah can best protect both. Follow not the lusts (Of your hearts), lest ye Swerve, and if ye Distort (justice) or decline To do justice, verily Allah is well-acquainted With all that ye do. (Qur’an, 4:135)”

“...Help ye one another In righteousness and piety, But help ye not one another In sin and rancour: Fear Allah: for Allah Is strict in punishment. (Qur’an, 5:2)”

“O ye who believe! Stand out firmly For Allah, as witnesses To fair dealing, and let not The hatred of others To you make you swerve To wrong and depart from Justice. Be just: that is Next to Piety: and fear Allah. For Allah is well-acquainted With all that ye do. (Qur’an, 5:8)”

“O you who believe, you shall reverence GOD, and be among the truthful.” (Qur’an 9:119)
Kid's Corner: Telling the Truth

The only ayah that allow muslims to lie to save their lives is Quran 16:106:
"Whoever disbelieves in Allah after his belief… except for one who is forced [to renounce his religion] while his heart is secure in faith. But those who [willingly] open their breasts to disbelief, upon them is wrath from Allah, and for them is a great punishment."

This ayah was revealed because some Muslims (Companions of Prophet Muhammad (p)) were tortured and uttered disbelief so that the persecutors stopped tormenting them. Although they uttered the words, they still believed in Islam, and merely said it so the persecution stops. Hence, the Quran states that those who had done such, there is no blame on them for what they did, and said these things when they were in a situation where it meant either to live and continually be under torture or be put to death. So, there was no sin on those who said things which were contrary to what they believed in their heart.

I hope that answers your point.

 

[hog slayer]

Think,

I'm glad you're here.

 

[T.Lex]

Think,

I'm glad you're here.

No one's more relieved here than I am.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

https://www.indianagunowners.com/forums/introductions-greetings/437687-old-indolent-member.html

 

[ATM]

How many people have they killed?

Excellent question!

Everyone they've even thought of killing.

Hate is death.

 

[IndyDave1776]

The Quran was revealed to Prophet Muhammad who was an illiterate man who claimed to be a prophet just like Abraham, Moses and Jesus.
The question is how do we know he was telling the truth? He was either Lying, deluded or telling the truth:


1. Lying

Before he claimed to be a prophet, he was nicknamed “Al Amin” The trustworthy" one as he was never known to lie. People would lie to get material gain however he was offered wealth, position and women to leave his message but he rejected this and instead lived a life of struggle.
This is not the profile of a liar.
[video=youtube;SLplKvhEKok]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SLplKvhEKok[/video]


.2. Deluded

He might think he is a prophet but is not.However someone who is deluded could bring about a miraculous book like the Quran. The Quran could not be produced by a human so for it to be revealed to Mohammad shows that he was not deluded.

[video=youtube;2ZrJLSDhKUQ]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ZrJLSDhKUQ[/video]

3. Speaking the truth

So therefore when we look at the life and character of Muhammad pbuh we see he was telling the truth and that he is what he claims which is a prophet of God.

While you build a sound case, I could also point out that a similar argument can be formulated regarding Christ. Significantly, one needs to consider subdividing the argument for delusion into two basic possibilities, that of having an imaginary friend and that of faithfully reporting what he saw but being mistaken about the identity and nature of the messenger.

That said, I am not going to start a beauty contest for which there is no means to achieve resolution within the context of the present conversation.

This argument is facile, and I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt with that. You ignore the fact that Islam, or really any system of belief, is not binary, wherein you either accept all of it, or none of it. People don't all believe the same things, not even within a particular religious sect. People don't tend to believe all or nothing. They generally take into belief the parts they like while discarding what doesn't ring true for them. Most people like to have their beliefs ala carte. There is ample evidence of this. If you apply this reasoning as strictly to your own religion as you have to Islam, then you must condemn everyone who calls themselves Christians, but does not believe exactly everything that you do. That's the standard you're applying to Muslims.

Rather, in Christianity, and every other religion, or even every other belief system, the histogram looks much like a bell curve, where at the center, the highest part of the curve, is the core beliefs, and then belief tapers off into the fringes of belief. This is why the argument that 1.8 billion aren't beheading non-Muslims, is a valid indicator on the real-world, core beliefs of Muslims. The portion of muslims who are violent represent a small portion of that 1.8 billion. They are by definition, towards the fringes.

But don't misunderstand what I'm saying. While those violent Muslims are towards the fringe, I am not saying they are insignificant. I am not saying they are not dangerous. They are dangerous, and they are apparently growing as they radicalize more Muslims. I am only saying that you have not established that it's all of them. You've given no empirical evidence to back up that claim. You've only provided rigid definitions selectively favorable to your conclusion.

This is a point with which BBI did much work shaping my understanding of the issue. Given my own beliefs, I am a literalist and consider it to be a binary issue such that when one picks and chooses, he is not adhering to the religion in question but rather using it as source material to form his own religion. This creates a couple of issues for which I have to adjust. First, as you said, not everyone sees it that way, that you have to take the book in its entirety in order to be a faithful believer. Second, regardless of how you answer the first point, that doesn't change the fact that it is irrelevant so far as an individual believes what he believes (assuming that he does at all) and what he believes IS his religion, not what is deemed that he is supposed to believe. At the end of the day, as you suggest, ask 5 different believers and you are likely to get 6 different answers.

To consider all Muslims dangerous... you'd also have to believe all Christians behave like the Westboro Baptist Church. Is that a fair comparison?

No, it isn't. You have the diametrically opposite problem so far as one group is dangerous following its book to the letter and the other group is signally failing to follow its book, particularly on the issues of grace, forgiveness, repentance, usurping God's exclusive right to judge, loving neighbors, praying for enemies (i.e., for their well-being and repentance, not for their destruction), and declaring the Gospel to every living creature (which I believe includes 'fags' among others) as opposed to fashioning placards declaring that God hates them.

All humans have the capacity to be dangerous, why limit the claim to Muslims, or even limit it to actions based on deceptions?

Muslims are not the problem, humans are not the problem, truth is not the problem - deception is.

Excellent point.

What you are missing is what I stated above. Not every Muslim believes every belief you've ascribed to them. Not every Muslim interprets their Quran the way you have. The "not 1.8 billion muslims are terrorists" argument is an adequate, empirical rebuttal of your theoretical argument. A theory ain't **** if its rubber can't meet the road.

Again, you are right about religion a la carte. It just leaves open how you define a Moslem, or any other practitioner of religion. I see examples every day of people who call themselves Christian while basically denying every teaching of Christ or the scripture.

Playing Devil's Advocate, WBC should be replace with simple "Americans."

We could simply call them 'people from Westboro' since, withing the scope of my personal observations, it would stretch past the outer limits of intellectual honesty to call them 'Baptist' or a church.

Think,

I'm glad you're here.

I concur. I hope I never see the day when I hold to my beliefs by default rather than because of good reasons, and you get only default in an echo chamber.

 

[ATM]

While you build a sound case, I could also point out that a similar argument can be formulated regarding Christ. Significantly, one needs to consider subdividing the argument for delusion into two basic possibilities, that of having an imaginary friend and that of faithfully reporting what he saw but being mistaken about the identity and nature of the messenger.

That said, I am not going to start a beauty contest for which there is no means to achieve resolution within the context of the present conversation.

He admitted not reading most of the thread , so he probably didn't see the proper application of the argument against a particular claim of Islam that he won't be able to reconcile.

As he attempted to misapply it as a general question of Mohammed, it leaves the lunatic (deluded) choice by far the most reasonable to conclude.

I hope that sinks in and he goes back to try resolving what could only be abandoned earlier in this thread.

 

[JettaKnight]

First off, welcome to the fray! I'm always happy to have more active members on INGO. Second, I'm equally happy to see a defense of Islam.

2. Deluded

He might think he is a prophet but is not.However someone who is deluded could bring about a miraculous book like the Quran. The Quran could not be produced by a human so for it to be revealed to Mohammad shows that he was not deluded.

There's a whole lot of circular logic here. In order for this argument to stick you'll have to make a convincing case as to why the Quran is miraculous without stating it's miraculous because it came from Allah.

3. Speaking the truth

So therefore when we look at the life and character of Muhammad pbuh we see he was telling the truth and that he is what he claims which is a prophet of God.

I think this is your argument: "Muhammad was known as an honest person, therefore the Quran is true."


I'll keep my counter very terse: "What if George Washington penned a book that started a new religion?"

 

[T.Lex]

There's a whole lot of circular logic here. In order for this argument to stick you'll have to make a convincing case as to why the Quran is miraculous without stating it's miraculous because it came from Allah.

Isn't that the same circular logic/article of faith supporting the Bible or other divine text?

Islam is certainly not alone in that regard, so I'm not sure its fair to fault Muslims for a non-logical point of faith that is shared across many cultures/religions.

I think this is your argument: "Muhammad was known as an honest person, therefore the Quran is true."


I'll keep my counter very terse: "What if George Washington penned a book that started a new religion?"

Too bad L. Ron Hubbard isn't available....

 

[ATM]

...There's a whole lot of circular logic here. In order for this argument to stick you'll have to make a convincing case as to why the Quran is miraculous without stating it's miraculous because it came from Allah...

I don't need that proven. One of my points is that the Quran is more clever in achieving its two primary goals than I could give any mere human credit for.

I find it far more reasonable to conclude that Islam (and its god) is the fabrication of a clever, angry "angel" that hates God and everything that God created.

 

[ATM]

Isn't that the same circular logic/article of faith supporting the Bible or other divine text?

For many who just adopted the Bible or any other book as true, sure. But I would consider that an extremely weak standard of adoption or method of pursuing truth.

 

[historian]

Isn't that the same circular logic/article of faith supporting the Bible or other divine text?

Islam is certainly not alone in that regard, so I'm not sure its fair to fault Muslims for a non-logical point of faith that is shared across many cultures/religions.

The only major difference is that the Quran and other books were either written by or about Mo and his life. Christianity (and Judaism) has a diverse amount of authors writing what could seem to be very disparate books that make up a whole story.

 

[historian]

I will also state that this thread was at the top of page 4 a week ago and is now on page 36.

 

[ATM]

The only major difference is that the Quran and other books were either written by or about Mo and his life. Christianity (and Judaism) has a diverse amount of authors writing what could seem to be very disparate books that make up a whole story.

An enormous (and obvious) distinction.

 

[historian]

As far as Islam being inherently violent, I'm more worried about formerly secular Islamic states (Turkey and Indonesia) veering into the radical path.

I'm glad we got Egypt back from the brink (for now).

 

[T.Lex]

The only major difference is that the Quran and other books were either written by or about Mo and his life. Christianity (and Judaism) has a diverse amount of authors writing what could seem to be very disparate books that make up a whole story.

Yes, but that doesn't inherently make the whole story more true by referring to itself as the source of the truth of the whole story. I'm not trying to be argumentative, just pointing out that logic is not necessarily a virtue when discussing matters of faith. Keep in mind, Mohammed considered parts of the Gospel and Old Testament to also be holy books. In a sense, the veracity of those texts would carry through.

If we, as Christians, expect to have our faith respected, we should endeavor to treat others the same way. We need not accept other beliefs as truth, simply by accepting that the holders of those beliefs are reasonable people.

 

[ATM]

I will also state that this thread was at the top of page 4 a week ago and is now on page 36.

How on earth did that happen? You mean it got interesting? Content is being generated?

 

[historian]

Yes, but that doesn't inherently make the whole story more true by referring to itself as the source of the truth of the whole story. I'm not trying to be argumentative, just pointing out that logic is not necessarily a virtue when discussing matters of faith. Keep in mind, Mohammed considered parts of the Gospel and Old Testament to also be holy books. In a sense, the veracity of those texts would carry through.

If we, as Christians, expect to have our faith respected, we should endeavor to treat others the same way. We need not accept other beliefs as truth, simply by accepting that the holders of those beliefs are reasonable people.

I agree with you, even though you love the Tiber!

 

[T.Lex]

As far as Islam being inherently violent, I'm more worried about formerly secular Islamic states (Turkey and Indonesia) veering into the radical path.

I'm glad we got Egypt back from the brink (for now).

Turkey remains a constitutional system... for now. They are in a troubled time, politically and socially, for sure.

Indonesia, as a government, seems intent on eliminating the radicalism. I'd count them similar to the Philipines in terms of having to deal with the problem domestically.

Here's hoping the Jordanian model, or something similar, becomes popular.