Muslims aren't the problem, Islam is

Scroll to see replies

Because ISIS will think if crucifying someone is an acceptable punishment then it is also acceptable to crucify someone for their own reasons too.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Posted from TSR Mobile

The quran tell them HOW to punish people

Wouldn't it be better if the quran didn't say this was the correct way to punish someone for 'certain' crimes?

Reply 361

TheArtofProtest

Original post by chemting

Hi again, sorry to butt in here, but could you please clarify something? You have mentioned before:

"A believer, by definition, is someone who accepts a particular faith.
A disbeliever, by definition, is someone who rejects a particular faith.
A non-believer, by definition, is someone who does not believe in a faith.
An unbeliever, by definition, is someone who has no faith."

Could you please, therefore, clarify what is the difference between someone who rejects a faith, who doesn't believe in a faith, and having no faith?

Belief is usually taken to mean adherence to a particular religion.

Let's get the easy one out of the way first.

a) Unbeliever - An atheist, agnostic or someone who ascribes to no faith at all (i.e: has no religion).

For the remaining 3 terms, let me demonstrate with analogies/examples:

Believer - There is a Jew who believes in Judaism.
Non-believer - There are Muslims/Christians who believe in their respective faiths, in ignorance of the scriptures of other faiths.
Disbeliever - There are non-Jews who have actively rejected the Jewish doctrine and instead are following the path which they prefer.

If you prefer to think of it in linear terms, (-1, 0, 1) where -1 represents disbelief and 1 represents belief, then it is quite clear that non-belief stands at 0.

Or, say Person A (Believer) has an opinion which Person C (Disbeliever) says he is completely opposed to whilst Person B (non-believer) says he has no opinion.

The difference between the terms is that disbelief is the complete opposition of belief, antithesis if you prefer, whilst non-belief is simply a neutral stance.

And here endeth the lesson.

Reply 362

TheArtofProtest

Original post by BaconandSauce

The quran tell them HOW to punish people

Wouldn't it be better if the quran didn't say this was the correct way to punish someone for 'certain' crimes?

Texas State Law takes the position that those convicted of murder should be administered the death penalty.

Now, you don't see ordinary people taking that piece of legislation and going off and hunting down those they believe to be murderers, do you?

Reply 363

BaconandSauce

Original post by TheArtofProtest

No because they have people to do that for them like the people living under ISIS rule. But as you know that wasn't my point.

and again you missed the start of the conversation and jumped on my rebuttal to another poster (I'm beginning to see a trend here)

Reply 364

QE2

Original post by BaconandSauce

disbelief inability or refusal to accept that something is true or real.

I know what it means

so the number of people who disbelieve in Islam is around 3/4 of the worlds population

If you have a counter argument then fell free to present it

Original post by TheArtofProtest

I give up trying to educate you how non-belief =/= disbelief.

Can't be bothered arguing with people who are so far up in their confirmation bias that they fail to exercise even an iota of logic or rational thought process.

"Disbeliever" - Synonyms; Nonbeliever, Unbeliever.
There. That's put that to bed. Thanks are not necessary.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/disbeliever

Reply 365

QE2

Original post by usi227

Let me give you a definition - Islam is derived from the Arabic root
"Salema": peace, purity, submission and obedience. In the religious sense, Islam means submission to the will of God and obedience to His law.
Perhaps we are both right.

The root does not have the same meaning as the derivation. Salaam is the word meaning peace, Islam is the word meaning submission.
It is a common "mistake".

Reply 366

QE2

Original post by Zainab Baber

You are COMPLETELY wrong there. I have studied Islamiyat for 3 years and it is a religion which promotes peace, equality, forgiveness , kindness and love. There are people who want to "destroy" Islam and its followers, they are the "false Muslims" and they are ones ruining Islam's reputation. It's upsetting to know how many people think like that. Study about it and then preach please!!! :colonhash:

You have obviously been only studying selected extracts from the Quran and sunnah then.
To anyone who has looked at them objectively, Islam is a religion of both peace and violence, of equality and discrimination, of tolerance and oppression.
And you are far more likely to receive the former qualities if you are a Muslim and the latter if you refuse to submit to Islam.

Reply 367

La Verite

if muslims excuse the beliefs and ideas of islam, they are the problem. obviously.

Reply 368

TheArtofProtest

Original post by QE2

"Disbeliever" - Synonyms; Nonbeliever, Unbeliever.
There. That's put that to bed. Thanks are not necessary.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/disbeliever

If you can't see any difference in the terms used, then you are just expressing your cognitive dissonance.

I'm yet to fathom out exactly why you would be so disingenuous as to do that. because from what I've observed of your posts, they seem to be articulated quite well.

Reply 369

QE2

Original post by usi227

Male circumcision is done for a purpose. There are, surprisingly enough, benefits to being circumcised as a male and often men can get infections caused by drops of urine remaining trapped under the urethra after relieving oneself, other issues can arise from the foreskin as well! (pardon the pun). You're right in that it is not strictly mentioned in The Quran but scholars around the world have agreed that its a must.
Female circumcision on the other hand has NO BENEFITS. People claim that it prevents high libido but realistically, there's no evidence. This guy below summarised it nicely:
Is FGM prescribed by religious law? Contrary to popular belief, FGM is not a practice prescribed in Islam. It is in fact, a cultural practice that transcends religious affiliation as it is practiced among Christian, Islamic, and Shamanistic communities in Africa, Asia, and the Middle East. Although not prescribed by religious law/tradition—I would argue that religion does play a role in preserving and empowering the practice because many practitioners erroneously believe it to be a religious obligation. Because religious leaders are silent and do not take an active and public stand against this brutal practice, they share responsibility for the suffering it has caused to countless generations of women. I should note, FGM is not mentioned in The Quran at all. I know this is a little off topic but its interesting nonetheless.

Male circumcision has no real health benefits, especially with proper hygiene. That's why the NHS refuses to carry out the procedure nless there is a clinical need.

You say that despite male circumcision not being prescribed in the Quran, it is mandatory because scholars agree that it is. Yet, when the same case for FGM arises, you reject it! Why is that?

If FGM is not perpetuated by religious requirement, why is it now so prolific in Indonesia. There was no cultural tradition of FGM there brfore the arrival of Islam in the 13th century, and in those regions where Islam is not dominant, it is only Muslim girls who are victims. The Indonesian Ulemma Council has described it as "morally reccommended" by Islamic teaching and opposed government moves to ban it.
How do you explain that?

Reply 370

QE2

Original post by IshaAmaani

Well not really... however, it seems as though the problem comes from people misinterpreting what islam teaches which leads to extremists. So yeah I am disagreeing with the OP

If you read the Quran and sunnah, you will see that it is not "misinterpretation", but just a "different interpretation" to the one you favour. Islamic scripture in ambiguous, contradictory and therefore open to interpretation. The "extremists" take a literalist, unedited approach, probably closer to the Islam that was practiced by Muhammad. The "moderates" thake a more modern, revisionist approach, closer to the Islam practiced by modern moderates.

I agree that the latter is far more desirable, but it is not necessarily more legitimate from a scriptural sense.

Reply 371

QE2

Original post by usi227

I agree with parts of that but disagree with others. Much of what is written in The Quran is based for the 600AD Arabic way of living which means a lot of the things we read in it today seem a bit extreme but I think Muslims need to use their common sense in conjunction with Islamic teachings because at the end of the day Muslims believe that the Prophet Muhammad was sent down to perfect good manners.

Now, this is a perfect example of "moderate revisionism". A traditional reading of the Quran and sunnah would possibly regard this as innovation. To suggest that the Quran is not perfect, timeless and universal!?

Reply 372

2209857t

the Nazis were christians so I suppose it's like saying the nazis were ok but Christianitys wrong?

Reply 373

QE2

Original post by samzy21

Because ISIS will think if crucifying someone is an acceptable punishment then it is also acceptable to crucify someone for their own reasons too.

The Quran says that crucifixion is a punishment for "waging war against Allah". As Allah is not of this world, one cannot physically wage war against him. Therefore, it must be referring to his message - which is Islam. Ibn Kathir's tafsir confirms "wage war" to include "opposition, contradiction and disbelief". He goes on to state that the ayah is general ain use and applies to all those who commit the crimes mentioned (which also inclused "fasad", elsewhere in his tafsir described as "disobeying god's law").

Now, not everyone will agree with Ibn Kathir, but he is regarded as one of the finest of classical scholars and his tafsir is one of the most widely used in the Muslim world. So we have to accept that his interpretation is one of the legitimate interpretations of the Quran, and therefore anyone acting on it is acting within the bounds of Islam.

To simply say that those acting on such interpretations are not Muslims or are not acting Islamically, is to misunderstand the nature of Islam.

Reply 374

dozyrosie

Original post by TheArtofProtest

That's not true. Texas allows for the death penalty, but a judge cannot give a sentence that is harsher than a juries recommendation. Most murderers in Texas are not executed.

Reply 375

QE2

Original post by TheArtofProtest

My post was copied straight from a dictionary website. Take it up with its operators.

Look, everyone knows your reasons for attempting to derail discussion with off-topic pedantry and obfuscation, so it kinda defeats the object.

Reply 376

TheArtofProtest

Original post by dozyrosie

That's not true. Texas allows for the death penalty, but a judge cannot give a sentence that is harsher than a juries recommendation. Most murderers in Texas are not executed.

I believe you missed the whole point of that post, which was addressed in the latter part of my post.

Reply 377

mariachi

Original post by TheArtofProtest

a) Unbeliever - An atheist, agnostic or someone who ascribes to no faith at all (i.e: has no religion).
Believer - There is a Jew who believes in Judaism.
Non-believer - There are Muslims/Christians who believe in their respective faiths, in ignorance of the scriptures of other faiths.
Disbeliever - There are non-Jews who have actively rejected the Jewish doctrine and instead are following the path which they prefer.