Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta

Are ISIS muslims? watch

Announcements
  • View Poll Results: Are ISIS militants MUSLIMS?
    Yes.
    124
    42.91%
    No.
    77
    26.64%
    They are muslims. But not "true" muslims
    71
    24.57%
    Idk
    17
    5.88%

    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Quite deceptive of you not to quote me (so as to not expect a response ey?, I have witnessed this before by numerous Muslim apologists)

    (Original post by Hasan_Ahmed)
    I wasn't clear what I meant by Islam as a whole with you, but I have explained it earlier in this thread. Islam is comprised of two thaqalayn or 'weighty things', which make up the 'rope of god'. These are the Quran and Ahlulbayt...
    Must be said again, this is under your subjective interpretation of Islam (Shia Islam) to which many other Muslims would contest.

    When I said, 'Islam doesn't need to be coherent' I meant that there doesn't have to be a single recognised correct interpretation. Incoherence, as in 'not consistent', as in 'different people say different things'.
    And these different people, with different interpretations can lead to a whole lot of confusion, violence and intolerance- best displayed by ISIS and other Muslims who have such hatred for 'Shias'.

    When I was talking about the positive effects of Islam, I wasn't talking about the religion revealed by muhammad, but by the overall message of the entirety of the prophets from before him, who the Quran says have been sent to every people. We don't know all their names, there's apparently been tens of thousands.
    Circular logic. So you made a claim, but as expected with Muslim apologists, unable to prove it and unable to inform us who they are and unable to provide evidence for their existence. Great.

    'Are these positive effects, the thousand year history of Islamic slavery, sex slavery, imperialism, colonialism, religious discrimination, gender discrimination, cruel and unusual punishments, childhood indoctrination, child marriage, oppression of homosexuals and apostates etc, etc,'
    No, they aren't. This is the legacy of the so-called muslim caliphate. I don't agree with any of those things.
    Understood.

    When I said that other interpretations are fine, I assumed that you'd infer I'd meant the ones that aren't interested in killing each other for their beliefs or lack of them. I don't claim that that path to whichever interpretation is 'true' Islam is clear, because the historical waters have been muddied by certain hadith writers, which has put everything into disarray. People of different interpretations should be cooperating with one another in discussion to either discern the truth of islam, or discover together that it should be discarded - producing a situation conducive to learning and spreading education, not violence. If sunnis want to consider me a non muslim, fine. Just don't hurt or hate people for being shia.
    To repeat again, after more than a thousand years, the title of 'True Islam' is still very much contested by various Muslims, still trying to ascertain the truth. What a 'perfect' religion.

    (On another note, I empathize with the discrimination and hatred received by innocent Shias, from many Sunni muslims)

    The spread of ideas like the welfare system, encouragement of hygeine, women's rights and etc started with Islam, though not necessarily during or after Muhammad
    What utter BS. Such lies are expected from a Muslim apologist. The concept of a Welfare system, encouragement of hygeine and the promotion of women's rights, did not at all whatsoever start with Islam.

    They have existed in Pre-islamic civilizations, with the Romans having a system of Welfare, with the Romans also promoting hygeine, through their famous baths, and women's rights being present and promoted as far back as ancient Egypt.

    You think you can get away with such lies.

    This is a sign of your desperation- resulting from your vested interest in Islam- that you're willing to lie and post misinformation, so as to keep the image of Islam intact.

    Besides, you don't need Islam to implement a welfare system, to encourage hygeine, nor to promote women's rights.

    Respect for gender equality was enshrined by every religion I have studied that appears to have basic theological and social principles in common with that of Muhammad's teachings, such as ancient vedic religion, zoroastrianism, some native american religions, and others.
    More lies, it's clear that historically Islam has sanctioned Gender discrimination and accorded women few rights in comparison to that accorded to men. Such inequality as receiving half the inheritance as that accorded to males, their testimony being half that of men (especially in financial matters), restrictions on their freedom of movement (i.e. requiring a mahram, when travelling in a certain context) requiring segregation from men, divorce procedure being harder etc etc.

    You might not believe this under your subjective interpretation of Islam, but it is very apparent in many other interpretations.

    You won't gey away with lies and misinformation.

    Poverty is a human injustice. Nobody is naturally impoverished - there is always a system which is, through intention or not, oppressive, which results in the creation of poverty. The ideas of zakaat and khums, if implemented properly, would eventually eradicate it. While of Islamic origin, I don't consider it to be a solely religious or even islamic idea - just that Islam called for it.
    I'll repeat again, "You don't need Islam to liberate people from poverty. Moreover, ironically it was your god who has allowed poverty to exist (and can stop it in a instance, yet does not) and continues to create children and place them in the most impoverished and unhealthy environments- most of which seems to encompass many Muslim countries. Your god seems very sadistic.

    Furthermore, if you need religion to liberate the poor, you're not much of an empathetic and good human being at all.The cognitive dissonance within you is very strong."

    A justly intended interpretation is one that is followed because someone's conscience tells them that it's the right way to ensure that nobody is persecuted or oppressed.
    And it seems the subjective conscience of numerous fallible humans, have resulted in different conflicting, competing, and contradicting interpretations, many self-proclaiming as the 'True' and a 'Just' interpretation, even if they seem to sanction, what seems to us to be 'oppression'.

    The method of prayer doesn't matter in the bigger picture picture. Sincere worship, honesty and justice are necessary. Worship is beneficial in that a person can't be arrogant if they sincerely believe that only god knows all the faults of others. The reason why 'allahu akbar' is so sacred is because it enshrines humility towards other humans because of the existence of an incomparably greater God. I am not saying that atheists and agnostics can't be humble, I am saying that this is a method by which to gain humility
    I'll repeat again, "Why does your god require worship? How does a lack of worship to a diety that is yet to be objectively proven, lead to arrogance?" and you don't need Islam to have humility.

    I'm not a gnostic theist. I don't claim to know that Islam is correct for sure. I do think that a certain interpretation has potential as a beneficial system. But, the point I tried to make before is that it doesn't need to be implemented, only discussed. So long as a few aspects of it can penetrate into policy and philosophy, it will have done good.
    I would be interested to what these 'aspects' are and if they are unique to Islam. But we'll leave this conversation for another time.

    Also, the whole flogging thing was only a rule of deterrent. It'd never happen, because nobody (at least in those days) would have sex in front of three people willing to report them. I don't think that rule is applicable anymore for obvious reasons, like cameras. It's up to individual muslims not to have sexual relations that they consider unlawful, and to educate themselves for the reasons why they are.
    Number 1- This doesn't in anyway justfy, human beings to be violently 'flogged' for the non violent, non offence of consensual adult sex. Bearing in mind such a punishment as 'Flogging' is prohibited under the UN conventions against torture, to which the vast majority of the world (including many Muslim countries) are signatories.

    Number 2- if the sharia conditions (for flogging consensual adult sex) are impossible to meet, then the sharia ruling, pertaining to adulterers, is hardly a deterrent.

    However you've seem to have appealed to cultural/historical relativism, and have dismissed this ruling, okay.

    To clarify again, I think that 'real' Islam, or at least what I think it is, is a perfect system. Not that this interpretation is going to be clear to everyone. According to shia narrations, it was going to get murky until the 12th imam arrives anyway, so we can only try our best to do the right things right now.
    To repeat again, "A religion that proclaims itself to be 'perfect' would not result in so much misinterpretations. The cognitive dissonance in you is very strong."

    So far you've resorted to fallacious points, lies and misinformation, all practiced before by many other Muslim apologists. Well done you.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hasan_Ahmed)
    1. The Quran is perfect for what it is - one half of the rope of god. I have discussed this on this thread before.
    What you mean by this is "It is perfect for the purpose that I have arbitrarily decided it is able to satisfactorily fulfil".
    However, this is not the purpose that the Quran claims for itself.

    2. "…He causes not to stray, except those who forsake (the path)," (Quran 2:26)
    There are many verses where there is no such qualification. And what about 7:179 where Allah creates many men for hell, with hearts that cannot understand.

    The Quran does not say that God actually misguides people. This misunderstanding was a point of contention for me before I became muslim which was one of the reasons I was not muslim at the time. The word translated as 'mislead' in the quran is 'yudhillu' which means 'to leave astray', not 'to lead astray'. All the cases where this word is used in the quran make more linguistic sense when considered in this way.
    No, it means "lead astray" or "mislead". Are you claiming that dozens of native Arabic speaking Muslims, scholars, professional translators, online translators, etc, all got it wrong? Pah! The desparation with which apologists look for a way out of the problems of the Quran can be quite funny. Just like the 5:33 "and finally, leave them" nonsense!

    Anyway, even assuming your blatant attemp at equivocation, if Allah guides some people, and does not guide others, then he is still interfering with our free will and you still have exactly the same problem! This is compounded by hi "setting a seal" etc. It's bad enough that he withholds his guidance from some, but to deliberately prevent them from seeing the light and changing their minds is clear predetermination and removal of free will.

    The contradiction still stands - even accepting your defence.


    3. Absolute mercy is not lack of justice.
    :confused: Didn't say it was. I was just pointing out that the Quran in wrong when it says that Allah is most merciful, because he clearly isn't. If he had spared just one person from hell or told Muhammad not to kill just one of his victims, he would have been more merciful.

    The contradiction still stands.

    The islamic hell is not permanent - according to the imams, once the value of your sins is cleansed from you by the 'fire' of hell, all human beings will receive heaven.
    I don't see waht this has to do with my point (other than to prove that Allah could be more merciful than he is)...but nonsense! There is nothing in the Quran that states this. Do you mean to tell me that you use the opinion of an imam to contradict the Quran?! Sounds a bit shirky to me.

    4. In fus'ha arabic, 'clay' is used in the metaphorical sense to mean several things. One meaning is 'ground', and another is 'stuff' or matter. The 12 imams confirmed the latter interpretation before there was a need for apologists to realign their interpretations with modern scientific information.
    Another error that many apologists seem to make is the old "It's just a metaphor" catch-all. Thing is, a metaphor has to be appropriate - especially if you are claiming that it is perfect!
    Using "molded from potter's clay" as a metaphor for the human evolutionary process is completely inappropriate (although it does make sense in the context of earlier and creation myths from the region. Coincidence? You decide!)

    5. The quran says that the creation of new life is begun by a process involving a mixture of fluids from the male 'sulb' of loins to the female 'tara'ib' or lower abdomen.
    The problem with this bit of apologetics is that it does not use what is actually written in the Quran. Rather, it relies on Bucaille's explanation of what he thought the Quran meant, assuming that it was scientifically accurate.

    The quran doesn't mention sperm cells or ova, but the fluids they are contained within. If the Quran was to go into detail about the cells, or even meiosis and etc, it would become a book of science and not a guide to be taken alongside the prophets and imams, which would defeat the point.
    Why would it defeat the point? The passage in question is already in the Quran, but wrong. What is so wrong in tweaking it slightly so that it is correct.
    "He was created with seed from the testes, joined in the womb with an egg, like a grain of sand, from the woman".
    There ya go. Just as short, unequivocal and biologically accurate. If I can do it, why couldn't Allah?
    Proof that the Quran is not perfect and contains error.

    I don't consider any of the hadiths regarding muslim soldiers having sex with captured female prisoners of war to be accurate based on my studies of their reliability.
    Why am I not surprised?

    Basically, any hadith that shows Islam or Muhammad in bad light will simply be rejected as inaccurate "based on your studies".

    Hisham's hadiths from even before he travelled to iraq were often full of lies - he was one of the hadith writers of the faction of Abu Huraira, who was publicly exposed for lying outright several times. Sunni scholars have not accused, and do not accuse him of lying and instead try to excuse his more flagrant lies by calling him forgetful. The shia have no reason to try and excuse him.
    And no, there are some positive hadiths that are false too, like those used to argue that homosexuality and 'natural eunuchs' were readily accepted and given the right to engage in what they wanted.
    Ah, so it is a sectarian issue with you.

    It appears that you are not equipped to discuss mainstream matters of the Quran and Islamic doctrine as you subscribe to your own version of Islam that bears little resemblance to what is practiced by the vast majority.

    Nothing wrong with that per se, but it renders and further discussion pointless .
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hasan_Ahmed)
    The Prophets and Imams are considered to be infallible By the shi'a.
    This is no more than circular assertion. It is no different to saying "The Quran is all true because it says it is".
    Meaningless.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by QE2)
    Actually, the Quran states that fitnah (disbelief/opposition) is worse than killing. (2:191)

    All depends on your definition of "murder". Essentially, it means killing someone unlawfully.

    So killing those that Islam permits is OK.

    So it is not forbidden if the victim is guilty of "fasad" (defind as opposition to Allah and his Messenger, amongst other things).

    You also forgot to mention the following verse...
    "Indeed, the penalty for those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger and strive upon earth to cause corruption (fasad) is none but that they be killed" - 5:33
    In his authoratative classical tafsir, Ibn Kathir explains 'wage war' to include "opposition, contradiction and disbelief", and that the verse is general in nature and applies to all those guily of such crimes.
    yh k whatevs
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by booksandcats)
    yh k whatevs
    Not sure what you mean.
    Is it...
    "Damn, you are right", or
    "Damn, you have exposed my disingenuity", or
    "Damn, I don't know the Quran as well as I thought", or
    "Damn, those dawahganda websites have been feeding me rubbish".
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by QE2)
    Not sure what you mean.
    Is it...
    "Damn, you are right", or
    "Damn, you have exposed my disingenuity", or
    "Damn, I don't know the Quran as well as I thought", or
    "Damn, those dawahganda websites have been feeding me rubbish".
    that's ur opinion and ur allowed to think whatever u want and so am i, but i don't give 2 sh*ts tbh
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by booksandcats)
    that's ur opinion and ur allowed to think whatever u want and so am i, but i don't give 2 sh*ts tbh
    I didn't present an opinion. I asked you a question.

    If you can't answer, that's ok. It is a common problem for religionists.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hasan_Ahmed)
    There are no contradictions or faults. The time I explained a so called contradiction so far has depended upon linguistic analysis, not the use of secondary historical sources. You claim the quran has faults based on translations of certain words -from secondary sources- like Ibn Kathir. You cannot justify that the primary source is contradictory via a secondary source and then claim that doing the same to prove that the quran isn't contradictory via linguistic analysis rather than secondary historical sources (not linguistic ones) is invalid.
    I have some questions.

    - How does the Quran describe Jesus' end here on earth?

    - is it true that Allah loves not the unbelievers? (2:98, 3:32).

    - is it true that the Quran describes the trinity as Father, Son and Mary?

    - is it true that Muslims simultaneously reject inherited sin but accept the immaculate conception of Jesus?

    - In Koran 7:125, death by crucifixion is stated to exist at the time of Moses in 1500BC. Yet Encyclopedia Britannica, in harmony with all records of history, reports that crucifixion did not exist any earlier than 500 BC. My question is: to how do you explain this seeming historical error?

    - For this reason was man created alone, to teach that whoever destroys a single life, it is as if he has destroyed an entire world; and whoever preserves a single life, it is as if he has saved an entire world. --Talmud, Sanhedrin 37a

    Because of this, we decreed for the Children of Israel that anyone who murders any person who had not committed murder or horrendous crimes, it shall be as if he murdered all the people. And anyone who spares a life, it shall be as if he spared the lives of all the people. --Quran, Surah 5:32

    I was told by a Jewish friend that this would be a mistake. If Allah had decreed this to the people of Israel you would expect to find it in the Torah. However, it is in a Jewish cometary on Abel - the Talmud. I have always wondered Muslim response?


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    They're as Muslims as Nazi's were racists, but not true racists if that makes sense.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by string56)
    Quite deceptive of you not to quote me (so as to not expect a response ey?, I have witnessed this before by numerous Muslim apologists)



    Must be said again, this is under your subjective interpretation of Islam (Shia Islam) to which many other Muslims would contest.



    And these different people, with different interpretations can lead to a whole lot of confusion, violence and intolerance- best displayed by ISIS and other Muslims who have such hatred for 'Shias'.



    Circular logic. So you made a claim, but as expected with Muslim apologists, unable to prove it and unable to inform us who they are and unable to provide evidence for their existence. Great.



    Understood.



    To repeat again, after more than a thousand years, the title of 'True Islam' is still very much contested by various Muslims, still trying to ascertain the truth. What a 'perfect' religion.

    (On another note, I empathize with the discrimination and hatred received by innocent Shias, from many Sunni muslims)



    What utter BS. Such lies are expected from a Muslim apologist. The concept of a Welfare system, encouragement of hygeine and the promotion of women's rights, did not at all whatsoever start with Islam.

    They have existed in Pre-islamic civilizations, with the Romans having a system of Welfare, with the Romans also promoting hygeine, through their famous baths, and women's rights being present and promoted as far back as ancient Egypt.

    You think you can get away with such lies.

    This is a sign of your desperation- resulting from your vested interest in Islam- that you're willing to lie and post misinformation, so as to keep the image of Islam intact.

    Besides, you don't need Islam to implement a welfare system, to encourage hygeine, nor to promote women's rights.



    More lies, it's clear that historically Islam has sanctioned Gender discrimination and accorded women few rights in comparison to that accorded to men. Such inequality as receiving half the inheritance as that accorded to males, their testimony being half that of men (especially in financial matters), restrictions on their freedom of movement (i.e. requiring a mahram, when travelling in a certain context) requiring segregation from men, divorce procedure being harder etc etc.

    You might not believe this under your subjective interpretation of Islam, but it is very apparent in many other interpretations.

    You won't gey away with lies and misinformation.



    I'll repeat again, "You don't need Islam to liberate people from poverty. Moreover, ironically it was your god who has allowed poverty to exist (and can stop it in a instance, yet does not) and continues to create children and place them in the most impoverished and unhealthy environments- most of which seems to encompass many Muslim countries.

    Furthermore, if you need religion to liberate the poor, you're not much of an empathetic and good human being at all.The cognitive dissonance within you is very strong."



    And it seems the subjective conscience of numerous fallible humans, have resulted in different conflicting, competing, and contradicting interpretations, many self-proclaiming as the 'True' and a 'Just' interpretation, even if they seem to sanction, what seems to us to be 'oppression'.



    I'll repeat again, "Why does your god require worship? How does a lack of worship to a diety that is yet to be objectively proven, lead to arrogance?" and you don't need Islam to have humility.



    I would be interested to what these 'aspects' are and if they are unique to Islam. But we'll leave this conversation for another time.



    Number 1- This doesn't in anyway justfy, human beings to be violently 'flogged' for the non violent, non offence of consensual adult sex. Bearing in mind such a punishment as 'Flogging' is prohibited under the UN conventions against torture, to which the vast majority of the world (including many Muslim countries) are signatories.

    Number 2- if the sharia conditions (for flogging consensual adult sex) are impossible to meet, then the sharia ruling, pertaining to adulterers, is hardly a deterrent.

    However you've seem to have appealed to cultural/historical relativism, and have dismissed this ruling, okay.



    To repeat again, "A religion that proclaims itself to be 'perfect' would not result in so much misinterpretations. The cognitive dissonance in you is very strong."

    So far you've resorted to fallacious points, lies and misinformation, all practiced before by many other Muslim apologists. Well done you.
    You've made decent points, and I'm gonna have to think about them. I didn't not quote you on purpose. I must've forgotten to press the button.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by QE2)
    What you mean by this is "It is perfect for the purpose that I have arbitrarily decided it is able to satisfactorily fulfil".
    However, this is not the purpose that the Quran claims for itself.

    There are many verses where there is no such qualification. And what about 7:179 where Allah creates many men for hell, with hearts that cannot understand.

    No, it means "lead astray" or "mislead". Are you claiming that dozens of native Arabic speaking Muslims, scholars, professional translators, online translators, etc, all got it wrong? Pah! The desparation with which apologists look for a way out of the problems of the Quran can be quite funny. Just like the 5:33 "and finally, leave them" nonsense!

    Anyway, even assuming your blatant attemp at equivocation, if Allah guides some people, and does not guide others, then he is still interfering with our free will and you still have exactly the same problem! This is compounded by hi "setting a seal" etc. It's bad enough that he withholds his guidance from some, but to deliberately prevent them from seeing the light and changing their minds is clear predetermination and removal of free will.

    The contradiction still stands - even accepting your defence.


    :confused: Didn't say it was. I was just pointing out that the Quran in wrong when it says that Allah is most merciful, because he clearly isn't. If he had spared just one person from hell or told Muhammad not to kill just one of his victims, he would have been more merciful.

    The contradiction still stands.

    I don't see waht this has to do with my point (other than to prove that Allah could be more merciful than he is)...but nonsense! There is nothing in the Quran that states this. Do you mean to tell me that you use the opinion of an imam to contradict the Quran?! Sounds a bit shirky to me.

    Another error that many apologists seem to make is the old "It's just a metaphor" catch-all. Thing is, a metaphor has to be appropriate - especially if you are claiming that it is perfect!
    Using "molded from potter's clay" as a metaphor for the human evolutionary process is completely inappropriate (although it does make sense in the context of earlier and creation myths from the region. Coincidence? You decide!)

    The problem with this bit of apologetics is that it does not use what is actually written in the Quran. Rather, it relies on Bucaille's explanation of what he thought the Quran meant, assuming that it was scientifically accurate.

    Why would it defeat the point? The passage in question is already in the Quran, but wrong. What is so wrong in tweaking it slightly so that it is correct.
    "He was created with seed from the testes, joined in the womb with an egg, like a grain of sand, from the woman".
    There ya go. Just as short, unequivocal and biologically accurate. If I can do it, why couldn't Allah?
    Proof that the Quran is not perfect and contains error.

    Why am I not surprised?

    Basically, any hadith that shows Islam or Muhammad in bad light will simply be rejected as inaccurate "based on your studies".

    Ah, so it is a sectarian issue with you.

    It appears that you are not equipped to discuss mainstream matters of the Quran and Islamic doctrine as you subscribe to your own version of Islam that bears little resemblance to what is practiced by the vast majority.

    Nothing wrong with that per se, but it renders and further discussion pointless .
    I accept the Quran as having the purpose which is says it has, but I think we understand the verses about it differently. I understand it in the context of what Muhammad said about it at Ghadir al Khumm. 7:179 says hell is made for the men and djinn who go astray, not the converse. The Quran also says that every good deed will be rewarded and every bad deed punished, which the shia imams explained meant that hell was not permanent, or the reward would be impossible. I think the clay metaphor is correct in terms of it representing the earth, since that's the source of our bodies' material.

    The other points you make are fair enough and I need to look into this more to decide what I believe.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Scrappy-coco)
    I have some questions.

    - How does the Quran describe Jesus' end here on earth?

    - is it true that Allah loves not the unbelievers? (2:98, 3:32).

    - is it true that the Quran describes the trinity as Father, Son and Mary?

    - is it true that Muslims simultaneously reject inherited sin but accept the immaculate conception of Jesus?

    - In Koran 7:125, death by crucifixion is stated to exist at the time of Moses in 1500BC. Yet Encyclopedia Britannica, in harmony with all records of history, reports that crucifixion did not exist any earlier than 500 BC. My question is: to how do you explain this seeming historical error?

    - For this reason was man created alone, to teach that whoever destroys a single life, it is as if he has destroyed an entire world; and whoever preserves a single life, it is as if he has saved an entire world. --Talmud, Sanhedrin 37a

    Because of this, we decreed for the Children of Israel that anyone who murders any person who had not committed murder or horrendous crimes, it shall be as if he murdered all the people. And anyone who spares a life, it shall be as if he spared the lives of all the people. --Quran, Surah 5:32

    I was told by a Jewish friend that this would be a mistake. If Allah had decreed this to the people of Israel you would expect to find it in the Torah. However, it is in a Jewish cometary on Abel - the Talmud. I have always wondered Muslim response?


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    1. The quran says that Jesus wasn't killed and ascended without ressurection, but not to heaven. To some hidden place, or something.
    2. It was understood by some scholars that the word 'kafir' comes from the root word 'kfr' meaning 'to cover'. The word kaafir doesn't mean unbeliever but someone who knows the truth in their hearts, yet doesn't submit because of their arrogance. The quran says, 'Say (O Muhammad SAW): "Whether you hide what is in your breasts or reveal it, Allah knows it, and He knows what is in the heavens and what is in the earth. And Allah is Able to do all things.' 3:29 The people who simply don't believe out of lack of convincing or knowledge are called 'jahil' or unaware, ignorant.
    3.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collyridianism
    This was an arabian christian sect existing around Muhammad's time that reveres mary as a part of the trinity instead of the holy spirit.
    4. We believe that Jesus was born without need of a human father, and that all Prophets and Imams are born infallible. Our beliefs about this are not related to inherited sin.
    5.
    http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Qur...l/crucify.html
    Article explaining that the word used for crucifixion in the fus'ha arabic of the quran does not necessarily refer to the use of a cross, which is what was invented by the romans. It could be wrong, though.
    6.
    This is incorrect. I have jewish heritage and attended a synagogue a few times, having lengthy discussions with the people there including the rabbi. The issue of the talmud has already come about. The talmud is split into two parts. The mishnah is the 'oral torah' or the words divinely inspired to Moses which didn't have a place in the torah, whereas the gemara is the scholarly commentary you mention. The reference is from the mishnah.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hasan_Ahmed)
    You've made decent points, and I'm gonna have to think about them. I didn't not quote you on purpose. I must've forgotten to press the button.
    Understood. Given you're a shia muslim, perhaps you might be interested in this thread, in which some users (sunni Muslims I'm assuming) would like some clarification on some matters pertaining to the Shia view/interpertation.

    http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/show...274983&page=26
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hasan_Ahmed)
    7:179 says hell is made for the men and djinn who go astray
    No it doesn't. It says "We have certainly created for Hell many of the jinn and mankind".

    It is clear and unambiguous.
    The purpose of such passages is obvious. Muhammad needed an explanation for those people who would not give up their old gods, despite Muhammad claiming that his message is clear and self evident.
    "Oh Prophet, if you claim that Allah's message is clear and true, why do so many people reject it?"
    "Ah, that is because Allah has put a seal on their hearts so they cannot see the truth".

    Even if you take the position that Allah knows what these people will do:
    1. Why does he need to prevent them from changing if they won't change of their own accord?
    2. Why would he deny them the chance of changing their minds?
    It makes no sense.

    I think the clay metaphor is correct in terms of it representing the earth, since that's the source of our bodies' material.
    You may think the metaphor is appropriate (well, you're hardly likely to think otherwise, are you?) but it clearly isn't.
    If he said that "man came from the earth", it would be a little better, but he doesn't say that. He says that he "molded man from potter's clay and breathed life into him". Muhammad is clearly just recycling existing creation mythology. That is the fatal flaw in the metaphor argument. If there was no existing concept of man being molded from clay and having life breathed into him by god, you might be able to get away with it.

    Still, it would have been better if he'd said something like ...
    "In the beginning I created life as a seed in the earth, and as ages passed, life grew from the earth as the tree grows from the seed, and man is the magnificent flower that blooms at the top of the tree."
    A far more appropriate metaphor. And I am a mere mortal, so why could Allah not manage something better?
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by QE2)
    I didn't present an opinion. I asked you a question.

    If you can't answer, that's ok. It is a common problem for religionists.
    Religionists? Who said I had a religion?
    Dude i answered ur question, dunno what ur problem is?
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hasan_Ahmed)
    2. It was understood by some scholars that the word 'kafir' comes from the root word 'kfr' meaning 'to cover'. The word kaafir doesn't mean unbeliever but someone who knows the truth in their hearts, yet doesn't submit because of their arrogance.
    Again, this whole concept makes no logical sense. It assumes that there are people who know that Islam is true, and that by rejecting it, they will suffer unbearable torture for all eternity.
    Yet they still reject what they know to be true, through "arrogance".

    It has yet to be explained to me why anyone would do that. What does "arrogance" mean in this context? That they think that they will escape hell? If they genuinely believe that, then they clearly do not think that the message of the Quran is true, by defenition! Therefore they are not "covering the truth".

    It is just another apologists' non sequitur.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by booksandcats)
    Religionists? Who said I had a religion?
    I just assumed that as you were using standard Muslim apologist interpretations and arguments, that you subscribed to them. It's rather unusual to find an atheist who quotes the same disingenuous apologetics as religionists.

    My mistake!

    Dude i answered ur question, dunno what ur problem is?
    You didn't answer anything. You just said "yh k whatevs". That's not really an answer now, is it?
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by QE2)
    I just assumed that as you were using standard Muslim apologist interpretations and arguments, that you subscribed to them. It's rather unusual to find an atheist who quotes the same disingenuous apologetics as religionists.

    My mistake!

    You didn't answer anything. You just said "yh k whatevs". That's not really an answer now, is it?
    You shouldn't just assume things but I just accepted what u were you saying that's all. I have quite a few muslim friends and they sometimes talk about this subject and I researched it a bit. I'm just open to everything, but that's just my opinion. What exactly was your question again?
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    A lot of people look at atrocities that ISIS commit such as massacring anyone who won't bow down to them, enslaving countless people and raping children and think "that's extreme, it's not Islam."

    That's a ridiculous point of view given that they are doing exactly what Muhammad did. If anything they're the true Muslims.
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    I do believe ISIS folks are following and interpenetrating their version of Islam much like the other million Muslims who follow their own brand of Islam.

    That being said like many Muslims, they also carry out "bad" deeds which doesn't necessarily revoke their muslim tag.

    However, I find that blowing up Mosques, killing Muslim worshipers in the process, beheading aid workers etc far too grotesque to consider them as an "every day you see" Muslim.

    They are Muslims of the lowest values, but obviously far from your everyday Muslims. Option C.


    (Original post by KimKallstrom)
    A lot of people look at atrocities that ISIS com mit such as massacring anyone who won't bow down to them, enslaving countless people and raping children and think "that's extreme, it's not Islam."

    That's a ridiculous point of view given that they are doing exactly what Muhammad did. If anything they're the true Muslims.
    Blossoming with hate!
 
 
 
Poll
Do I go to The Streets tomorrow night?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.