CIVIL RELIGIOUS DISCUSSION: All things Islam...

[gregr]

I would say that you all have covered the argument pretty thoroughly. In the end, one group is presenting the argument that the God of Jews and Christians is incompatible in nature with Allah. Others are arguing that both are one in the same and by extension all paths must lead to the same destination. While I choose not to wade into the argument, I will point out that all concerned are well advised to be sure that they are right to the best of their ability for obvious reasons! As for the best solution we are going to have today, I believe I covered that earlier:

I`ve staked my life, here, and throughout eternity on believing Jesus when He said He is the only way to the Father. I stand by His Words.

 

[IndyDave1776]

I`ve staked my life, here, and throughout eternity on believing Jesus when He said He is the only way to the Father. I stand by His Words.

We are on the same page, but we probably aren't going to make any progress with this approach, much as Paul preached eloquently at Mars Hill but didn't gain a single believer.

 

[hog slayer]

We are on the same page, but we probably aren't going to make any progress with this approach, much as Paul preached eloquently at Mars Hill but didn't gain a single believer.

bingo

 

[Benp]

I don't think either side is going to sway anyone, nor is anyone trying to sway anyone, we are just talking. These conversations are good because they require you to be able to explain what you believe, and if you can't explain it then you either need to dig into it and find out or find something else that makes sense.

 

[spencer rifle]

We are on the same page, but we probably aren't going to make any progress with this approach, much as Paul preached eloquently at Mars Hill but didn't gain a single believer.

Maybe. We have no way of knowing (yet) what long-term effect his words had as they were reflected on over time. Seeds.

 

[ATM]

Maybe. We have no way of knowing (yet) what long-term effect his words had as they were reflected on over time. Seeds.

bingo

 

[RobbyMaQ]

Cute move to bring in some garbage about the 1A and how beliefs must be respected, just when it seemed like our point might finally get some attention. There are some very deceived people among us, even here on INGO. Who's to blame for this?

I made it clear in subsequent posts. Respecting one's right to believe in whatever god they wish is part of 1a.
Requiring someone to 'prove' their belief, is disrespecting their right IMO. You don't have to like it, or believe it, to respect their right to choose whatever god they wish.
1A gives one the right to question or say whatever they wish... but it doesn't make them any less of an ******* for doing so.

 

[ATM]

I made it clear in subsequent posts. Respecting one's right to believe in whatever god they wish is part of 1a.
Requiring someone to 'prove' their belief, is disrespecting their right IMO. You don't have to like it, or believe it, to respect their right to choose whatever god they wish.
1A gives one the right to question or say whatever they wish... but it doesn't make them any less of an ******* for doing so.

I'm sorry you don't get it yet, but your premise is terribly flawed and was clearly refuted.

I will stop posting for now, the demonstrations are complete.

 

[Lelliott8]

I made it clear in subsequent posts. Respecting one's right to believe in whatever god they wish is part of 1a.
Requiring someone to 'prove' their belief, is disrespecting their right IMO. You don't have to like it, or believe it, to respect their right to choose whatever god they wish.
1A gives one the right to question or say whatever they wish... but it doesn't make them any less of an ******* for doing so.

With respect, I will completely respect that right, even as I respectfully stand by my fellow man and respectfully ridicule the absurd things humanity has and will continue to be led to believe.

 

[hog slayer]

Maybe THINK would be willing to publicly condemn ISIS as well as any other group of "radical" Muslim followers?

 

[Kutnupe14]

Maybe THINK would be willing to publicly condemn ISIS as well as any other group of "radical" Muslim followers?

Bro, seriously?

 

[hog slayer]

why not? They're not a real representative of the Muslim community.

 

[Think]

Maybe THINK would be willing to publicly condemn ISIS as well as any other group of "radical" Muslim followers?

Muslims everywhere are condemning this over and over. However implying that someone is somehow responsible for something that he never liked/committed isn't helpful at all. Besides, what's obvious is obvious. Have a look here: 75 Reasons Why Muslims Must Stop With Their Terrorism Condemnation Ritual

 

[hog slayer]

Muslims everywhere are condemning this over and over. However implying that someone is somehow responsible for something that he never liked/committed isn't helpful at all. Besides, what's obvious is obvious. Have a look here: 75 Reasons Why Muslims Must Stop With Their Terrorism Condemnation Ritual

I think the article is best summed up with this quote:

The killing of innocent civilians is a monstrosity. To be suspected of condoning something as monstrous and being asked or expected to disassociate oneself from it, simply because of one’s faith, is grossly unfair. Muslims are bearing the brunt of this.

I'll contend that fairness is a word used by grade school kids. As an adult I don't think I've ever used it in composing a defense.

There are 75 numbered paragraphs, but many are the same essential argument. This IS about discrimination. It's about discriminating against those that cannot coexist in a peaceful society, and in our case a western society. If that's Islam, so be it. But according to the many posts In this thread it's NOT about Islam. Rather, its about the radical Muslims. So I wouldn't be asking you to apologize for Allah. Or condemn what he says. Or say the Quran is violent. All I'd be asking is that you state that these actions are not representative of the faith.

 

[Benp]

There is also the argument that I've heard about these mosques that are promoting hate, which inspires violence.

 

[jamil]

Maybe THINK would be willing to publicly condemn ISIS as well as any other group of "radical" Muslim followers?

Bro, seriously?

why not? They're not a real representative of the Muslim community.

Muslims everywhere are condemning this over and over. However implying that someone is somehow responsible for something that he never liked/committed isn't helpful at all. Besides, what's obvious is obvious. Have a look here: 75 Reasons Why Muslims Must Stop With Their Terrorism Condemnation Ritual

We've kinda "progressed" to a state of fallacy where we think that not denouncing something means we agree with it. It's become a thing, more now than I remember it in the past. I call it a fallacy because people don't apply it consistently. They apply it according to their bias. They apply it when it suites them, and argue that its silly to apply it when it doesn't suit them. For example, Democrats have claimed that if Trump doesn't denounce white supremacy, it must mean he supports it. Of course that's absurd. Trump supporters rightly say this is absurd, but then they go and demand that the same thing from Muslims. Any Muslims not seen denouncing Terrorism means they support it. If it is absurd for Democrats to do this to Trump, the principles that make that true for them makes it true for Muslims. And it's all sides that do this. People do this.

It's unfortunate, and it's unfair, but, it appears to be a component of the human function of egocentrism. So. Pragmatically, it doesn't matter what is "fair" or what is absurd. Rather, because people who don't agree with you, will condemn you if you aren't seen condemning evil, pragmatically, maybe you have to play the game. Because the terrorists come from your religion, because white supremacists tend to come from the right, because violent, riotous protestors tend to come from the left, regardless of how poorly bad actors represent our true beliefs, people have progressed to a social state where we kinda need to be seen condemning people who do evil.

 

[IndyDave1776]

We've kinda "progressed" to a state of fallacy where we think that not denouncing something means we agree with it. It's become a thing, more now than I remember it in the past. I call it a fallacy because people don't apply it consistently. They apply it according to their bias. They apply it when it suites them, and argue that its silly to apply it when it doesn't suit them. For example, Democrats have claimed that if Trump doesn't denounce white supremacy, it must mean he supports it. Of course that's absurd. Trump supporters rightly say this is absurd, but then they go and demand that the same thing from Muslims. Any Muslims not seen denouncing Terrorism means they support it. If it is absurd for Democrats to do this to Trump, the principles that make that true for them makes it true for Muslims. And it's all sides that do this. People do this.

It's unfortunate, and it's unfair, but, it appears to be a component of the human function of egocentrism. So. Pragmatically, it doesn't matter what is "fair" or what is absurd. Rather, because people who don't agree with you, will condemn you if you aren't seen condemning evil, pragmatically, maybe you have to play the game. Because the terrorists come from your religion, because white supremacists tend to come from the right, because violent, riotous protestors tend to come from the left, regardless of how poorly bad actors represent our true beliefs, people have progressed to a social state where we kinda need to be seen condemning people who do evil.

While I agree with you in principle, there is a significant difference between the example of Trump and Islam. In Trump's case, it is obvious political mudslinging as most Americans who use their heads for something other than a hat rack understand that being a white American does not automatically make you a racist unless you make a public spectacle of declaring otherwise. Largely through the efforts of BBI, I have come to understand that the majority of our Moslem neighbors are just as peaceful as anyone else and do not approve of blowing up people, places, and things. Watching an interview with King Abdullah II of Jordan also did much to shape my understanding. Barring this, I had several terrorist groups presenting themselves as the public face of Islam, a book that to the best of my understanding not only condoned but commanded them to engage in combat against us, terrorism or conventional, video of mobs chanting 'death to America', and opinion polls among Palestinians showing a majority to support suicide bombings. For a bonus, we have things like honor killings and persecution of religious minorities (with some notable exceptions like pre-war Iraq). On the other side, we had crickets, unless you want to count CAIR which would deny, deflect, and defend most any action, intent, or subversive activity by most any Moslem to the point of not being credible so far as I am concerned.

So, without having been taken in hand by an actual practitioner of Islam, what can I have been expected to believe other than that the only Moslems who did not either engage in jihad, financially support jihad, or philosophically support jihad were slackers and not representative of the religion?

 

[foszoe]

Too many points, but here we go

Muslims believe the wisdom contained in previous revelations were put in its final form in Quran. The ten commandments are included in Quran, which mean that they are divinely inspired. In some prophetic sayings Prophet Muhammad said:“If you do ask the people of the book – as is inevitable – then consider what agrees with Allah’s Book and accept it, and whatever contradicts Allah’s book reject it.” [al-Musannaf (6/112)]. So, it's predictable that Muslims won't agree on something like the crimes and Major sins attributed to God's prophets in OT.

Thanks for responding

How would the two commandments, "Thou shalt not kill (murder)" and "Thou shalt not commit adultery" be understood by Muslims? Are there verses in the Quran which abrogate their meaning? Can the hadiths abrogate the Quran?

The word “abrogation” in Islamic terminology means one rule has been replaced by another rule or a general rule has been made specific.

The classic example of abrogation in the Quran is the gradual prohibition of alcohol.First, Allah discouraged the believers from drinking alcohol by highlighting its negative effects. Although people earned some benefit from alcohol through trade and entertainment, it was made clear that the harm in it is greater than its benefit.
Allah said:

​

They ask you about wine and gambling. Say: In them is great sin and some benefit for people, but their sin is greater than their benefit.
Surat al-Baqarah 2:219

​

Then, Allah prohibited the believers from approaching prayer while in a state of drunkenness.Allah said:

​

O you who believe, do not approach prayer while you are intoxicated until you know what you are saying.
Surat al-Nisa 4:43

​

Finally, Allah prohibited alcohol completely once the people were ready for it.
Allah said:

​

O you who believe, wine, gambling, sacrificing on stone alters, and divining arrows are but defilement from the work of Satan, so avoid them that you may be successful.
Surat al-Ma’idah 5:90

​

Thus, the prohibition of alcohol came gradually over time. It is important to understand this progression so that we do not misinterpret the previous verses to think that alcohol is merely discouraged.
The wisdom behind the gradual prohibition was that Arab society in the beginning was not ready to abandon drinking alcohol. They needed to strengthen their faith in order to overcome their desire to drink.

Regarding arrangement of Quran, the Prophet always arranged for each passage of the Qur'an to be recorded in writing as soon as it was revealed. Further details can be found here: How were the Quran?s Verses and Chapters Arranged? | About Islam

And yes, Muslims believe that Prophet Muhammad was sent to raise moral standards and spread harmony and peace in society. Many "guidelines books" , such as ( this one) were published to teach Muslims to emulate the Prophet and reject bad actions and behaviors.

I hope that would help.

Who provides guidance for the average Muslim on what verse abrogates another? In your example, it appears to be the chronological appearance of the verse? If that is so, is it ALWAYS chronological? If not, a brief example of one that isn't and how that was decided would be educational. Is the Quran is arranged chronologically? If not, is there general agreement among Muslim scholars on the chronology? For example, I own a Chronological Bible. Is there such a thing in the Muslim World?

 

[foszoe]

Well, in a nutshell, I deny your premise for it allows no room for Divine Revelation.

There are two types of knowledge, empirical and experiential. The secularist would have one believe that only empirical knowledge matters. I reject that. I place them both on a level playing field. If one can not design a scientific experiment to substantiate experiential knowledge and move it to the realm of empirical knowledge that does not mean the experiential knowledge is false.

HOWEVER it does mean that I would be unable to prove empirically to you that my experiential knowledge is true. Now when those with shared experiences form a society, lets say People who have seen ghosts, People who have seen UFOs, People who have had alien abductions, etc, you could call them a community of believers.

would you walk into their midst and tell them it never happened? It's only their belief that any of it is so?

I think your main thrust is when those who have experiential knowledge disagree that one perspective can not be proven empirically. That I agree with.

As to me being wrong, I have admitted it to be so just up a post or two that it can and does happen.

I accept the logic from the perspective of God. But from man's perspective, which is the only perspective you or Jews, or muslims have, it is only your belief that any of this is so. What if, from God's perspective, you are the one who is wrong.

 

[jamil]

While I agree with you in principle, there is a significant difference between the example of Trump and Islam. In Trump's case, it is obvious political mudslinging as most Americans who use their heads for something other than a hat rack understand that being a white American does not automatically make you a racist unless you make a public spectacle of declaring otherwise. Largely through the efforts of BBI, I have come to understand that the majority of our Moslem neighbors are just as peaceful as anyone else and do not approve of blowing up people, places, and things. Watching an interview with King Abdullah II of Jordan also did much to shape my understanding. Barring this, I had several terrorist groups presenting themselves as the public face of Islam, a book that to the best of my understanding not only condoned but commanded them to engage in combat against us, terrorism or conventional, video of mobs chanting 'death to America', and opinion polls among Palestinians showing a majority to support suicide bombings. For a bonus, we have things like honor killings and persecution of religious minorities (with some notable exceptions like pre-war Iraq). On the other side, we had crickets, unless you want to count CAIR which would deny, deflect, and defend most any action, intent, or subversive activity by most any Moslem to the point of not being credible so far as I am concerned.

So, without having been taken in hand by an actual practitioner of Islam, what can I have been expected to believe other than that the only Moslems who did not either engage in jihad, financially support jihad, or philosophically support jihad were slackers and not representative of the religion?

Much of the Trump thing was indeed politically induced, but the point is still the same, that people, especially anyone under any kind of scrutiny, for whatever reason, are just expected to condemn evil. Unless someone has a reason to legitimately suspect otherwise, the default should be to suspect that normal people don't agree with evil and shouldn't be expected to have to say it for every evil that happens along.

I understand what you're saying. I went through the same thinking with BLM, where I felt that Black people not condemning the violence done by people chanting "Black Lives Matter", meant they tacitly supported it. I now see this thinking as a form of "false choice" fallacy, to believe that someone must condone something evil just because they don't openly condemn it.

And to your point, it seems most natural to think that way from one's own perspective. If all I see on the news is Black people chanting "black lives matter" while violently tearing their city apart, my tendency is to think that any black person who doesn't as equally loud, chant condemnation from the rooftops, then they must support the violence too.

And, I also remember the discussions here with BBIs about Islam and terrorism, and I also admonished Muslims in one of those threads, that if they want to be taken as being peaceful, they need to openly condemn violence. I would have to overcome my tendency to view things from just my perspective to gain a perspective that sees the fallacy in that thinking.

To THINK and other Muslims, as I said, pragmatically, since people just tend to think this way, for the sake of your neighbors suspicions, the peaceful majority of Muslims who live in the West need to be seen by their neighbors condemning this violence. That doesn't mean it's fair. I hate that society has come to this thinking that not explicitly condemning evil means you tacitly support it. It's just the reality of society today. We are so eager to shame people for wrongthink that we seek every opportunity to find examples to shred. So you can think you're being principled about it, saying no, I'm not going to perpetuate this tendency. But meanwhile your neighbors continue to whisper about you. Pragmatically, when it comes to fear, you sometimes need to make it obvious.