Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by QE2)
    I'm sure that the Nazi would give some equally plausible argument as to why the Jews aren't being killed simply for being Jews.
    I disagree. We know the reasons that are given for anti-Semitism, and none of them really pertain to treason as such.

    The capital punishment argument is a red herring as it would only apply to capital crimes as defined by UK law. Wanting to kill someone simply because they changed their mind on a contentious issue cannot be compared.
    It's not a red-herring. Those who want to kill someone for mere apostasy that is not accompanied with active treason tend to be Wahabis, so choosing to disassociate with them would be understandable. But the capital punishment, as it would be applied here according to UK law, can be compared since treason would undoubtedly be a capital offense.

    I absolutely agree with this, but I don't see why it should colour serious discussion. Mutilating a child's genitals cannot be made acceptable simply by wearing a special hat and scarf!
    I'm not sure I follow. My point was that the public condemnation of neo-Nazis in public would be justified since it has no spiritual/religious element to it, whereas public condemnation of a Muslim wearing the Islamic headscarf for instance would be anti-Muslim bigotry that is, quite rightly, a criminal offense in this country.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by inhuman)
    Roman emperors? Greek emperors? Cradle of democracy and yet had slaves and rampaged through the world.

    Not to mention, doing something worthwhile (and I would beg to differ that this document is worthwhile, it was merely yet another another way of consolidating his empire), in no way shape or form, outdoes any of the evil he did.

    The mere fact you are trying to argue that, speaks VOLUMES.
    Actually, it kind of does. The so-called evils he did must be looked at in light of historical circumstances. The British Empire was arguably the most "evil" in terms of imperialism; nevertheless it was better than other empires in the sense that it resulted in the spread of democratic values. Likewise, Muhammad, while not a perfect saint, was clearly the better alternative in many ways at the time. The Jews WELCOMED the Rashidun Caliphate in their lands; can the same be said for Hitler and his Nazis?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by alevelstresss)
    The Quran was written 1500 years ago, so there's no doubt that the writer aimed it for their exact type of society.
    The mistake you're making here is looking at the Quran as a historically- and culturally-relative, socio-political document written by men.
    Muslims absolutely and fundamentally reject this approach. To them (and I mean the vast majority), it is the actual, perfect and unchangable word of god.

    To the objective observer, it is clearly the work of 7th century Arabs, but Muslims are not objective observers.

    That doesn't mean that Islam hasn't moved on, its community which constitutes some 1.5 billion people has moved on, so Islam has moved on.
    Ironically, you are now conflating "Islam" with "the behaviour of Muslims", which you were criticising people for on other threads. Muslims are as much a product of their environment as they are a product of Islam. Islam itself has not changed. One of the main claims of proof for its divinity is the "fact" that the Quran has not changed one word since it was written.

    Yes, it would be ideal if the ills of Islam are condemned or rejected.
    Yes. It would. But it is not happening.

    And if you travel to the right places in the UK, or southern-state parts of America, those racist values are still very existent today. I watched a documentary on Trump supporters about a month ago, and racism is still extremely prevalent in some parts of the US. They are simply not 'universally rejected'.
    We were talking about specific issues in the UK. A sign like the one I described would not be possible.
    And I thought you believed that extremist beliefs were perfectly acceptable as long as people didn't act on them, so I don't see why you are complaining about racists unless they are carrying out racist attacks.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    I dislike a lot of Islamic teachings and can't stand hanging out with most conservative Muslims (though to be fair, the same applies to most conservatively religious people, whatever their religion). I just get uncomfortable with how irresponsible some people get when criticising Islam and how they do a poor job at making sure that it doesn't spill over into anti-Muslim bigotry.

    I have seen people on YouTube, social media and even this website who do a great job differentiating the two, but I have also seen people who can't tell the difference and those who do it in a more subtle manner. It simply isn't acceptable to brush aside the odd "nuke them all" comment, saying that guilt by association shouldn't apply while at the same expecting Muslims to take responsibility for extremists. Sure, there are instances in which Muslims should feel a duty to stand up to extremists (I'm talking about when they are in the same place as someone who is expressing views that are clearly bigoted and dangerous, not when a random person with the name "Ahmed" sets off a car bomb in Iraq) but it goes both ways. Anti-Muslim bigots do rear their heads among critics of Islam and ex-Muslims, looking for validation and they mustn't get any. It is disheartening to see that their views seem to be rarely challenged when they do.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by QE2)
    The mistake you're making here is looking at the Quran as a historically- and culturally-relative, socio-political document written by men.
    Muslims absolutely and fundamentally reject this approach. To them (and I mean the vast majority), it is the actual, perfect and unchangable word of god.

    To the objective observer, it is clearly the work of 7th century Arabs, but Muslims are not objective observers.

    Ironically, you are now conflating "Islam" with "the behaviour of Muslims", which you were criticising people for on other threads. Muslims are as much a product of their environment as they are a product of Islam. Islam itself has not changed. One of the main claims of proof for its divinity is the "fact" that the Quran has not changed one word since it was written.

    Yes. It would. But it is not happening.

    We were talking about specific issues in the UK. A sign like the one I described would not be possible.
    And I thought you believed that extremist beliefs were perfectly acceptable as long as people didn't act on them, so I don't see why you are complaining about racists unless they are carrying out racist attacks.
    How can you say that, when we live in a world where almost 100% of Muslims evidently don't 'strike the heads off non-believers' on sight? These people cannot be true Muslims and simultaneously think that it is the unchangeable, unconditional word of God. Muslims have majorly moved on to make their religion compatible with a world different to the one for which it was written. It would be blatantly obvious if we lived in a world where every single Muslim unconditionally follows the Quran as if it is the word of God.

    And yes, I think anyone should have the right to believe what they want. Its only a problem when it conflicts with the law through acting on such beliefs. The Orwellian police-state that you propose where we don't have freedom of religion or freedom to think of "backwards thoughts" is a far worse world than the one that the very people you are trying to condemn propose.
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by alevelstresss)
    The Quran was written 1500 years ago, so there's no doubt that the writer aimed it for their exact type of society.
    As far as I'm aware, both Islam and the majority of it's adherents express the claim, that the Quran is "perfect and timeless". It is to "serve as a guide and inspiration for all humanity, at all times".

    That doesn't mean that Islam hasn't moved on,
    There are various sects and interpretations of Islam.

    its community which constitutes some 1.5 billion people
    All of whom vary in their sects and interpretations of Islam.

    has moved on
    What have the majority of Muslims moved on from what? Is it the claim that the Quran/Islam is "perfect and timeless" - that it is to "serve as a guide and inspiration for all humanity, at all times". Have they "moved on" from this?

    If so, that's something very significant, source?

    so Islam has moved on.
    I'm assuming you're referring to the various sects and interpretations of Islam, Muslims adhere to.

    Yes, it would be ideal if the ills of Islam are condemned or rejected.
    I would agree, though I can't imagine this happening any time soon, especially given it will present Islam as a flawed religion, to which most Muslims would be hesitant to claim.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dima-Blackburn)
    I disagree. We know the reasons that are given for anti-Semitism, and none of them really pertain to treason as such.
    Firstly, the passages from the sunnah, and classical tafsir like Ibn Kathir make no mention of "treason". It is a device constructed by modernist apologists as a public relations excercise.

    Likewise, I'm sure that modern Nazis would come up with justifications for their anti-semitism. And I would suggest reading Mein Kampf. Hitler's justifications for his policies was not just "because they were Jews"!

    It's not a red-herring. Those who want to kill someone for mere apostasy that is not accompanied with active treason tend to be Wahabis, so choosing to disassociate with them would be understandable. But the capital punishment, as it would be applied here according to UK law, can be compared since treason would undoubtedly be a capital offense.
    But when you look at the "treason" argument, it just involves publicising anti-Islamic views. Even the most rabid, right-wing capital punishment supporter would advocate execution for people opposing the policies and ideology of the government.
    And in all likelihood, if CP was reinstated in the UK, "treason" (how do you even define it accurately?) would not be included.

    I, for one, would not be comfortable with someone who genuinely believes that people should be executed for their political views.

    I'm not sure I follow. My point was that the public condemnation of neo-Nazis in public would be justified since it has no spiritual/religious element to it, whereas public condemnation of a Muslim wearing the Islamic headscarf for instance would be anti-Muslim bigotry that is, quite rightly, a criminal offense in this country.
    I don't see why normally unacceptable behaviour should become acceptable simply because someone claims it has a "spiritual" element.

    If public condemnation of neo-Nazis is acceptable because of their unacceptable beliefs, why is the public condemnation of Muslims for their unacceptable beliefs not acceptable (assuming a comparable level of implementation of said beliefs)? Surely it cannot be simply because one group claims that their unacceptable beliefs were dictated by god?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Emperor Trajan)
    As far as I'm aware, both Islam and the majority of it's adherents express the claim, that the Quran is "perfect and timeless". It is to "serve as a guide and inspiration for all humanity, at all times".



    There are various sects and interpretations of Islam.



    All of whom vary in their sects and interpretations of Islam.



    What have the majority of Muslims moved on from what? Is it the claim that the Quran/Islam is "perfect and timeless" - that it is to "serve as a guide and inspiration for all humanity, at all times". Have they "moved on" from this?

    If so, that's something very significant, source?



    I'm assuming you're referring to the various sects and interpretations of Islam, Muslims adhere to.



    I would agree, though I can't imagine this happening any time soon, especially given it will present Islam as a flawed religion, to which most Muslims would be hesitant to claim.
    Its impossible to say that the Quran is perfect and timeless if Muslims don't follow it word-for-word nowadays. There are things condoned in the Quran, in fact encouraged, which are objectionable and very few Muslims do it.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dima-Blackburn)
    The Jews WELCOMED the Rashidun Caliphate in their lands;
    According to whom? The Muslim historians of the caliphate?
    Why would a culture welcome conquest by an aggressive and alien culture.

    Remember that Hitler claimed to be liberating the sourrounding territories. Imagine, if Germany had won, what the history books written by Goebbels department would have said about the welcome from the Czechs, Poles, etc?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dima-Blackburn)
    Actually, it kind of does. The so-called evils he did must be looked at in light of historical circumstances. The British Empire was arguably the most "evil" in terms of imperialism; nevertheless it was better than other empires in the sense that it resulted in the spread of democratic values. Likewise, Muhammad, while not a perfect saint, was clearly the better alternative in many ways at the time. The Jews WELCOMED the Rashidun Caliphate in their lands; can the same be said for Hitler and his Nazis?
    NO!!!!!

    He is the truth for all eternity! You cannot look at it in historical context. That is the whole point of the Quran.

    And going from the holiest of all holy prophet, almost equal to Allah himself, true and good for all eternity to "while not a perfect saint" and simply "the better alternative"...

    Stop. You are simply embarrassing yourself. Because you don't seem like a ignorant fool blindly pounding out his or her agenda. You actually try to argue. But this is not it.
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by alevelstresss)
    Its impossible to say that the Quran is perfect and timeless
    But many Muslims appear it to be very possible and firm that the Quran is "perfect" and "timeless".

    if Muslims don't follow it word-for-word nowadays.
    I myself would agree on the time restricted nature of the Quran, but most Muslims seem firm that every word in the Quran is "perfect and timeless" - that it is to "serve as a guide and inspiration for all humanity, at all times".
    How would you convince them otherwise?

    There are things condoned in the Quran, in fact encouraged, which are objectionable
    Presumably like enslaving female captives of war?

    and very few Muslims do it.
    Does that then translate to as a lack of support for what most Muslims don't do?

    For example it appears slavery is permitted by Islamic scripture, but most Muslims don't practice it. However I've encountered much apologetics supporting slavery, authored by Muslims - likely arising from a need to defend Muhammad and the Sahaba (revered as role models by many Muslims) figures who've permitted the enslavement of female captives.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by alevelstresss)
    How can you say that, when we live in a world where almost 100% of Muslims evidently don't 'strike the heads off non-believers' on sight? These people cannot be true Muslims and simultaneously think that it is the unchangeable, unconditional word of God. Muslims have majorly moved on to make their religion compatible with a world different to the one for which it was written. It would be blatantly obvious if we lived in a world where every single Muslim unconditionally follows the Quran as if it is the word of God.
    This is simply failing to differentiate between "Islam" and "the behaviour of Muslims". You've done this for dozens of pages on other threads.

    Just because the majority of Muslims do not apply every permission and command in the Quran does not mean that they reject its infallible immutability. You seem to be missing the fundamental logical disconnect required to believe in infallible revelation in the first place. If people can't see the fundamental contradiction between free will and predetermination, they won't see a contradiction between claiming infallible immutability and ignoring the bits that they disagree with.

    Just pop over to ISOC and ask whether they think the Quran is the infallible, immutable word of god. If it is not 100%, it will be close.
    Then ask if they think that it is acceptable to use female captives for sex. Most will say it isn't (probably using historical relativism) and some will attempt to justify it (precisely because it is permitted in the Quran and sunnah).
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by QE2)
    This is simply failing to differentiate between "Islam" and "the behaviour of Muslims". You've done this for dozens of pages on other threads.

    Just because the majority of Muslims do not apply every permission and command in the Quran does not mean that they reject its infallible immutability. You seem to be missing the fundamental logical disconnect required to believe in infallible revelation in the first place. If people can't see the fundamental contradiction between free will and predetermination, they won't see a contradiction between claiming infallible immutability and ignoring the bits that they disagree with.

    Just pop over to ISOC and ask whether they think the Quran is the infallible, immutable word of god. If it is not 100%, it will be close.
    Then ask if they think that it is acceptable to use female captives for sex. Most will say it isn't (probably using historical relativism) and some will attempt to justify it (precisely because it is permitted in the Quran and sunnah).
    The behaviour of Muslims is what matters. If the Quran says violent things, and the behaviour of Muslims is generally good - then the problem is not to do with the ideology, but rather the people who choose to follow its violent interpretations. So you cannot incriminate all Muslims or Islam, and maybe start progressing on the issue and incriminate the terrorists who evidently don't care about Muslims/Islam, and simply want to install their political ambitions.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Emperor Trajan)
    But many Muslims appear it to be very possible and firm that the Quran is "perfect" and "timeless".



    I myself would agree on the time restricted nature of the Quran, but most Muslims seem firm that every word in the Quran is "perfect and timeless" - that it is to "serve as a guide and inspiration for all humanity, at all times".
    How would you convince them otherwise?



    Presumably like enslaving female captives of war?



    Does that then translate to as a lack of support for what most Muslims don't do?

    For example it appears slavery is permitted by Islamic scripture, but most Muslims don't practice it. However I've encountered much apologetics supporting slavery, authored by Muslims - likely arising from a need to defend Muhammad and the Sahaba (revered as role models by many Muslims) figures who've permitted the enslavement of female captives.
    Either the Quran is timeless and perfect or it isn't. If it is perfect, then its quite obvious that a lot of Muslims disagree, given that they don't readily 'strike the heads off believers' or as you put it, enslave female captives.

    And I wouldn't worry about the actions of Muslims 1500 years ago. The entire world was more predisposed to barbarism back then, and not just Islam.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MeYou2Night)
    I'm 23, white, atheist from Somerset. Everyone where I'm from is white really.

    Critising Islam should be allowed, as its a set of ideas, and any set of ideas should be critiqued. Not to do so, would be intellectually ridiculous.

    Being anti Muslim would be to discriminate agianst individual Muslims, which is a problem and should be challenged.
    /end thread

    (Original post by BaconandSauce)
    I must admint I do struggle with this

    Islam is a turd of a faith. It has abhorrent tenants that have no place in civil society and should be actively fought where ever it raises its ugly head.

    Now if someone says to me I am a muslim and proud I will just dismiss them as they openly claim to be part of something I detest

    I know I keep going Godwin but it's the same with the Nazis

    No one said it's OK to hate National socialism but you can't hate individual Nazis as that would be bigotry

    It's the same with racism no one said you can hate racism but not individual racists

    so I am confused as why we would give muslims this free pass when for any other hate filled ideology we don't
    It's perfectly okay to hate someone because they believe that Aryans are the superior race. The difference is with Islam, not every muslim will believe the same thing. Many believe FGM to be abhorrent, hardly anyone in the west thinks that women are inferior to men

    So hating any muslim on the street without knowing their beliefs first, is stupid

    But hating someone for example, because they believe that men and women should be completely segregated in society, is absolutely fair game. Regardless of religion.
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by alevelstresss)
    Either the Quran is timeless and perfect or it isn't. If it is perfect, then its quite obvious that a lot of Muslims disagree
    Source?

    given that they don't readily 'strike the heads off believers' or as you put it, enslave female captives.
    So because most Muslims do not 'strike off the heads of unbelievers' or enslave female captives, that translates as a lack of support for enslaving female captives and 'striking off the heads of unbelievers' - when the need for this arises i.e. as a Muslim once explained to me, the sword verse (you're presumably referring to) is only to be followed when Muslims are persecuted by 'unbelievers'.

    ...despite the apologetics authored by Muslims supporting the enslavement of captives and 'striking off the heads of unbelievers' - when the situation arises.

    And I wouldn't worry about the actions of Muslims 1500 years ago. The entire world was more predisposed to barbarism back then, and not just Islam.
    I would worry. Most Muslims view Muhammad and the Sahaba as role models for all humanity. They do not view such individuals to have engaged in 'barbarism', whatever you think it means. When there are Muslim apologists and various Muslim majority countries permitting punishing apostates and then justify this via Islamic scripture and the actions/thoughts of revered Muslim figures. I'm concerned.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Emperor Trajan)
    Source?



    So because most Muslims do not 'strike off the heads of unbelievers' or enslave female captives, that translates as a lack of support for enslaving female captives and 'striking off the heads of unbelievers' - when the need for this arises i.e. as a Muslim once explained to me, the sword verse (you're presumably referring to) is only to be followed when Muslims are persecuted by 'unbelievers'.

    ...despite the apologetics authored by Muslims supporting the enslavement of captives and 'striking off the heads of unbelievers' - when the situation arises.



    I would worry. Most Muslims view Muhammad and the Sahaba as role models for all humanity. They do not view such individuals to have engaged in 'barbarism', whatever you think it means. When there are Muslim apologists and various Muslim majority countries permitting punishing apostates and then justify this via Islamic scripture and the actions/thoughts of revered Muslim figures. I'm concerned.
    I don't need a source to tell you that 1.6 billion Muslims don't behead non-believers on sight.

    And there's no point in whinging about Muhammad's actions 1500 years ago when we've had equally, if not more despicable characters in recent years who are idolised by some members of humanity.
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by alevelstresss)
    I don't need a source to tell you that 1.6 billion Muslims don't behead non-believers on sight.
    Could you point me to where in the Quran it states "behead non-believers on sight" and clarification, say by a well reputed tafsir or Muslim scholar on how such a verse is to be understood in light of the Quran functioning as a timeless guide/inspiration for Muslims? (I gave one explanation provided by a Muslim from a past conversation, clarifying the infamous "sword verse" )

    And there's no point in whinging about Muhammad's actions 1500 years ago when we've had equally, if not more despicable characters in recent years who are idolised by some members of humanity.
    How would you convince a Muslim who reveres Muhammad and the Sahaba as role models for all humanity and supports (what presumably you would view as reprehensible) such as persecuting apostates, blasphemers, homosexuals - that the guidance of Islamic scripture and such revered Muslim figures, are to be restricted to a society "1500" years ago?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by alevelstresss)
    The behaviour of Muslims is what matters.
    Not if you are criticising Islamic ideology.
    You really need to understand that there is a difference.
    The incidence of domestic abuse in Muslim families is utterly irrelevant if the issue is whether or not Islam permits a husband to beat his disobedient wife (under certain conditions).
    It does, demonstrably and undeniably. Scholars are in almost universal consensus that it is permitted.
    You keep claiming that hardly any Muslims follow Islam properly, or that they don't believe the Quran is infallible or immutable (which they do BTW, almost unanimously), but that is not the point.

    If the Tories proposed a law allowing husbands to beat their disobedient wives (under certain conditions) would you think it was an acceptable law, as long as most people didn't actually commit any beatings - or would you oppose it as barbaric and anachronistic, because the idea is fundamentally wrong?

    So you cannot incriminate all Muslims or Islam,
    You're doing it again. Islamic ideology and the behaviour of Muslims are two different things.
    And nobody blames all Muslims for the actions of individuals (except apologists for Islam who need to play the Islamophobia card).

    and maybe start progressing on the issue and incriminate the terrorists who evidently don't care about Muslims/Islam, and simply want to install their political ambitions.
    Why is it so difficult for you to understand that Islamic ideology is a major factor in Islamist terrorism and Islamic sectarian conflict? I just don't get it.
    It really is like arguing with a creationist who keeps asking for evidence for evolution, even though you have shown them several, separate, verifiable pieces of evidence.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by alevelstresss)
    Either the Quran is timeless and perfect or it isn't. If it is perfect, then its quite obvious that a lot of Muslims disagree, given that they don't readily 'strike the heads off believers' or as you put it, enslave female captives.
    Ah, I think I have spotted another misunderstanding.
    Not every passage in the Quran is a compulsory command. Just because 5:33 says that the punishment for fasad is death, crucifixion, dismemberment or exile, it does not mean that every Muslim must, or even can, kill, or whatever, every person guilty of fasad.
    The law states that the speed limit on many UK roads is 60 mph, but that does not mean that every driver has to drive everywhere at 60, or he is a bad driver or disobeying the law if he doesn't. He drives at 60 only where conditions allow.

    Many Muslims I talk to claim that all the things like slavery, sex slaves, executions, discrimination, etc, only apply in a true Islamic state run under proper sharia, not some hybrid democracy or whatever. And the punishments can only be applied by the rulers of such a state.

    So, you can see that they are not being bad Muslims by not enacting these prescriptions, they are merely following the rules - as they see them.
 
 
 
Poll
Do you agree with the PM's proposal to cut tuition fees for some courses?
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.