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

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by inhuman)
    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.
    You seem rather confused. I'm not a Muslim; I never once implied or suggested in any form that Muhammad is "true and good for all eternity", whatever that means. I simply pointed out the absurdity of your comparison of Muhammad to Hitler; the Muslims to Nazis.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dima-Blackburn)
    You seem rather confused. I'm not a Muslim; I never once implied or suggested in any form that Muhammad is "true and good for all eternity", whatever that means. I simply pointed out the absurdity of your comparison of Muhammad to Hitler; the Muslims to Nazis.
    Then you don't know anything about Mo. That is what it means to be a Muslim. To accept that the Quran and Mo were the perfect example, eternally. That is what it actually means (and if you now know that, can you see why maybe we think that ideology is a bit daft? Imagine the Church not having moved one bit from 2000 years ago...). That is why I said no successful group of Muslims has ever created a spin off like the Protestants have. Because they can't.

    And no, it is not absurd at all. It is a very fair comparison to compare two warlords. In fact, you tried to point out that he was somehow a more benevolent warlord because of a constitution he created to consolidate his empire.

    And well maybe I was wrong trying to give you the benefit of the doubt that you are just trying to argue from reason and logic. You clearly have a bias. I am confused. My ass. I never once said you are a Muslim or even implied or insinuated it. Maybe you are the one who is confused.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by QE2)
    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.
    Your previous arguments were all about how the Quran was the true word of God and should be obeyed without question.

    Now you've refuted that yourself.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by QE2)
    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?

    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).

    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.
    A vast amount of people blame muslims for the actions of terrorists. You can pretend that the ideology and Muslim community are separately criticised - they aren't. Go onto any YouTube video about a terrorist attack, or on newspaper comment sections, heck even parts of this site - and you have people hating on Muslims and Islam together.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by QE2)
    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?
    Sources on the history of the Jews in the Byzantine Empire. Heraclius, a contemporary of Muhammad, is known for forcibly converting Jews into Christianity while the constitution of Medina allowed the Jews to practise their religion, albeit as dhimmis.

    Given that shari'ah is a subset of Mosaic law, I don't think the Jews deemed the Muslim invaders' culture as aggressive and alien.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by inhuman)
    Then you don't know anything about Mo. That is what it means to be a Muslim. To accept that the Quran and Mo were the perfect example, eternally. That is what it actually means (and if you now know that, can you see why maybe we think that ideology is a bit daft? Imagine the Church not having moved one bit from 2000 years ago...). That is why I said no successful group of Muslims has ever created a spin off like the Protestants have. Because they can't.

    And no, it is not absurd at all. It is a very fair comparison to compare two warlords. In fact, you tried to point out that he was somehow a more benevolent warlord because of a constitution he created to consolidate his empire.

    And well maybe I was wrong trying to give you the benefit of the doubt that you are just trying to argue from reason and logic. You clearly have a bias. I am confused. My ass. I never once said you are a Muslim or even implied or insinuated it. Maybe you are the one who is confused.
    1) I'm aware of the Islamic belief regarding the infallibility of the Qur'an and Muhammad, thank you very much. My confusion stems from the utter irrelevance thereof.

    2) And that's precisely why it's an absurd comparison. Come back when you find a similar document from Nazi Germany.

    3) What's my bias? That I have no interest in entertaining your rather pathetic invocation of Godwin's law?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dima-Blackburn)
    1) I'm aware of the Islamic belief regarding the infallibility of the Qur'an and Muhammad, thank you very much. My confusion stems from the utter irrelevance thereof.

    2) And that's precisely why it's an absurd comparison. Come back when you find a similar document from Nazi Germany.

    3) What's my bias? That I have no interest in entertaining your rather pathetic invocation of Godwin's law?
    I am done. I am not going to argue with someone so blatantly lying:

    1) It is irrelevant? You were the one who said something like "we must consider the time he was in, while not perfect, for his time he was better than the alternative". Given he is eternally the example, that is a completely wrong statement to make. And now you are saying it's irrelevant that he is the eternal example?

    Your arguments are just as logically flawed and biased as alevelstresss'
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by QE2)
    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 exercise.
    This is debatable. The Qur'an itself doesn't suggest a worldly punishment for apostasy and verbal opposition to Islam and its political institutions. Moreover there are numerous Sahih Hadith (I can provide a link to them upon request later when I have access to my laptop) which specifically add the condition of physically waging war in addition to apostasy. This is reflected in the commentary of 15th century scholar Humam:

    "The reason to kill an apostate is only with the intent to eliminate the danger of war, and not for the reason of his disbelief. The punishment of disbelief is far greater with God. Therefore, only such an apostate shall be killed who is actively engaged in war; and usually it is a man, and not a woman. For the same reason, the Holy Prophet has forbidden to kill women. And for this very reason, an apostate female could be killed if she in fact instigates and causes war by her influence and armed force at her disposal. She is not killed because of her apostasy, but for her creating disorder (through war) on earth."

    Now we may disagree with all forms of capital punishment, but this is very different to the persecution of Jews.

    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"!
    Can you list the justifications used by Hitler that are in any way comparable to the above?

    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.
    I'm familiar with that argument as well, but if you look at the polls even fewer British Muslims (24%) believe violence against blasphemers, let alone those who criticise Islam, is justified.

    And in all likelihood, if CP was reinstated in the UK, "treason" (how do you even define it accurately?) would not be included.
    I'm assuming attempts to undermine the social and political institutions through armed revolts, aiding the enemy, leaking confidential information, etc would qualify as treason.

    I, for one, would not be comfortable with someone who genuinely believes that people should be executed for their political views.
    Me neither. But I don't think most Muslims, in Britain at least, believe that.

    I don't see why normally unacceptable behaviour should become acceptable simply because someone claims it has a "spiritual" element.
    It depends on the behaviour. Religious exemptions to general laws are usually allowed in cases where freedom to practise one's religion does not cause any obvious harm to anyone else.

    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?
    Not sure about implementation; we condemn neo-Nazis and generally refuse to associate with them even if they don't implement and act upon their beliefs. But we don't do this with religious people who most likely believe we're going to hell, which can probably be considered the epitome of a disgusting belief. The reason for this partly what I stated in my previous post, and partly as a society we understand that such differences in religious beliefs are inevitable. As a society we've more or less learned to tolerate outdated religious beliefs in order co-exist in peace and harmony. But the lack of any significance and/or consequences for holding Nazi views to one's spiritual state in this world or the hereafter, means, at least in my intuition, that it's fine to publicly condemn any neo-Nazis with swastika tattoos over someone wearing the Muslim hijab, Christian cross, Jewish kippah, Sikh turban, etc.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by alevelstresss)
    Your previous arguments were all about how the Quran was the true word of God and should be obeyed without question.

    Now you've refuted that yourself.
    Not at all. That would only be the case if I had claimed that everything in the Quran must be applied by all Muslims at all times, which I never have, and it would be ridiculous to claim so. I only claimed that Muslims believe that the Quran is infallible and immutable - which they do.

    Take a look at the speed limit analogy again. That explains it very simply.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by alevelstresss)
    A vast amount of people blame muslims for the actions of terrorists.
    No they don't, but they do blame Islam.
    This is your standard straw man, that "vast amounts" (care to give a percentage?) of people blame all Muslims for the acts of individuals.

    You can pretend that the ideology and Muslim community are separately criticised - they aren't. Go onto any YouTube video about a terrorist attack, or on newspaper comment sections, heck even parts of this site - and you have people hating on Muslims and Islam together.
    I am not the one making the claim. It is up to you to supply examples of such behaviour. It is called the burden of proof. And remember that occasional examples are not sufficient as you claim that it is commonplace.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dima-Blackburn)
    Sources on the history of the Jews in the Byzantine Empire.
    Heraclius, a contemporary of Muhammad, is known for forcibly converting Jews into Christianity while the constitution of Medina allowed the Jews to practise their religion, albeit as dhimmis.
    You used the term "in their lands". I agree that the Byzantine Empire was no friend to Jews, but I wouldn't call the Byzantine Empire "Jewish lands".

    Given that shari'ah is a subset of Mosaic law, I don't think the Jews deemed the Muslim invaders' culture as aggressive and alien.
    I would suggest that anyone forcibly occupying someone's lands and imposing a new social and religious system would be viewed as aggressive and alien. (it is a bit of a stretch to claim a practical similarity between Islam and Judaism)
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by QE2)
    No they don't, but they do blame Islam.
    This is your standard straw man, that "vast amounts" (care to give a percentage?) of people blame all Muslims for the acts of individuals.

    I am not the one making the claim. It is up to you to supply examples of such behaviour. It is called the burden of proof. And remember that occasional examples are not sufficient as you claim that it is commonplace.
    Yes they do, go on any YouTube video relating to Islamic terrorism and you have people saying disgusting things in the comments like "Muslims must be deported from Europe. No more refugees!", "MUSLIMS need to go back to their ******** countries and they can take there filthy 7th century CULT with them."

    These are two quotes on the first video I found, source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YHzD6QWnbAA

    So don't lie and pretend people don't hate Muslims, Muslim hatred has never been higher. I feel so sorry for the poor Muslims who are suffering because of this.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    People are lashing out against muslims because they know the government isn't going to do anything about the Islam problem, so they've decided to do something about it themselves. Some people think the necessary action is to just be violent, and while I know why they're doing it, I still think they're wrong. The fact is that Islam is the main enemy of Western Civilisation, and they're banging on the gates. Regressive liberals and Islam apologists are trying to let them in. I've had many a muslim friend, but the fact is that if a muslim wants to integrate with countries like England and the USA, they simply can't follow their religion as it was originally intended to be: a belief system for conquering and waging war on all non-muslims.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AH127)
    People are lashing out against muslims because they know the government isn't going to do anything about the Islam problem, so they've decided to do something about it themselves. Some people think the necessary action is to just be violent, and while I know why they're doing it, I still think they're wrong. The fact is that Islam is the main enemy of Western Civilisation, and they're banging on the gates. Regressive liberals and Islam apologists are trying to let them in. I've had many a muslim friend, but the fact is that if a muslim wants to integrate with countries like England and the USA, they simply can't follow their religion as it was originally intended to be: a belief system for conquering and waging war on all non-muslims.
    Oh yes, the classic! :lol:
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by alevelstresss)
    Yes they do, go on any YouTube video relating to Islamic terrorism and you have people saying disgusting things in the comments like "Muslims must be deported from Europe. No more refugees!", "MUSLIMS need to go back to their ******** countries and they can take there filthy 7th century CULT with them."

    These are two quotes on the first video I found, source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YHzD6QWnbAA

    So don't lie and pretend people don't hate Muslims, Muslim hatred has never been higher. I feel so sorry for the poor Muslims who are suffering because of this.
    What you are showing is racism and xenophobia, as demonstrated by the "Muslims go home" type comments. Those people are making the assumption (as you did) that Muslims are "brown foreigners". To them, the two concepts are synonymous. They would not be able to tell you a single thing about Islamic ideology or why it is incompatible with modern, liberal, secular democracy.

    You are just repeating the same tired old fallacies. Stop wasting everyone's time.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by QE2)
    What you are showing is racism and xenophobia, as demonstrated by the "Muslims go home" type comments. Those people are making the assumption (as you did) that Muslims are "brown foreigners". To them, the two concepts are synonymous. They would not be able to tell you a single thing about Islamic ideology or why it is incompatible with modern, liberal, secular democracy.

    You are just repeating the same tired old fallacies. Stop wasting everyone's time.
    Now I remember why I put you on ignore, circular arguments
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by M14B)
    I thought I can criticize anything and everything I wish in the UK
    nah sorry, if you quote churchill in the streets your gonna be arrested mate!
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by alevelstresss)
    Now I remember why I put you on ignore, circular arguments
    How am I using the conclusion as a premise?
    Are you sure you mean "circular argument"?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by QE2)
    How am I using the conclusion as a premise?
    Are you sure you mean "circular argument"?
    You said that no one hates Muslims

    I just proved to you that people do

    and you make up some excuse about how its racial discrimination, its quite clearly, set in stone, religious discrimination
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by alevelstresss)
    Now I remember why I put you on ignore, circular arguments
    The irony.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    What's your favourite Christmas sweets?
    Useful resources
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • 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

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