Was Muhammad unobservant? Watch

tazarooni89
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#161
Report 9 years ago
#161
(Original post by Throne)
Isn't that discriminatory against gays? We don't know whether gay emotional and sexual desires are due to biological or environmental reasons but we do know that those feelings aren't a choice and that a person can't change his or her sexual orientation, so the complete prohibition on homosexuality does seem to discriminate against gay people.
No, it's not discriminatory against gay people. It doesn't matter how gay you are, having sex with someone is still a choice.


The Quran does not, but Muhammad had some things to say about gay people: kill them.
Muhammad didn't say anything about gay people.
He made it illegal to have sex with someone of your own gender in public.

Being gay and having sex with someone of your own gender (in public) aren't the same thing.
0
reply
NothingCrushesUs
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#162
Report 9 years ago
#162
(Original post by tazarooni89)
Muhammad didn't say anything about gay people.
He made it illegal to have sex with someone of your own gender in public.

Being gay and having sex with someone of your own gender (in public) aren't the same thing.
So what, heterosexual people were allowed to have public sex, but homosexual people weren't? And you're arguing that there was no discrimination in that?
0
reply
Imperatrix
Badges: 0
#163
Report 9 years ago
#163
(Original post by tazarooni89)
The definitions do not say that it has to be an aspect of their form. It simply says "aspect". Islam is an aspect. The definition makes no distinction as to whether it is an aspect of their lives or their form.
Anyone with half a brain cell will be aware that it is referring to a person's form, considering it describes it as "a particular part or feature of a matter", with matter being a person's form, not the activities within their life.

That appears to be what you base your entire argument on, the vague pragmatics of what the dictionary may be alluding.

You're starting to sound desperate now.

(Original post by tazarooni89)
Yes, they could. So?
What utter drivel. That's offensive to people who have actually suffered from intense racism, due to their race, and not due to the belief in some indoctrinated medieval ideology.

(Original post by tazarooni89)
You might not like the fact that I'm being pedantic with definitions, but you're the one that said "Go and look up race", so you really don't have anything to back your point up anymore.
Neither do you. I could provide my own connotations as to what the dictionary may be referring to, in an attempt to weaken your argument; however, I am aware that it is a juvenile and weak debating activity.

You're correct, you are being pedantic, and you're now grasping at straws.
0
reply
Meus
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#164
Report 9 years ago
#164
(Original post by Throne)
Most people may want to be respect but most are aware that such respect ought to be earned rather than imposed.

Secondly, there's much in the religious belief of Muslims which may be construed as disrespectful to women, gays, non-Muslims, etc. So why should I be respectful to such a group of people?
That's fair but then you don't need to agree let alone respect something to actually understand it, and this is your goal is it not? To understand Islam? The issues of criticism you mentioned in regards to women, homosexuality and people of other faiths can be found in monotheism in general as opposed to Islam specifically - the question is though what is the rationale behind these doctrines.

Having said that, many people don't respect Islam for whatever reason, be it valid or not, and by the same token there are many Muslims who do not respect other faiths, be it for valid reasons or not. The shame about it all is that those people are unwilling to try to understand.
0
reply
Throne
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#165
Report Thread starter 9 years ago
#165
(Original post by boxingfan91)
If it was about sufficient conditions then why are their humans in places like Africa and Asia where climates and surroundings are much different to here in England, surely by your theory they would still be apes. Also, there's apes here in England, how come they haven't evolved.
They have evolved.

(Original post by boxingfan91)
I'm not arguing that we haven't evolved, because we have, but it's something absurd to say we evolved from apes considering they are still in existence in the same conditions human live in today.
We didn't evolve from modern day apes - we have a common ancestor.

(Original post by boxingfan91)
They aren't at all vaque, because its very clear of what it means. But again, you've already made your choice so its not going to change your view anyhow.
I've provided you with a definition of the term 'vague' and your verses clearly fall into that definition. If you're not willing to suppress your bias for just a moment, then I don't see the point of this discussion.

(Original post by boxingfan91)
As your looking up the dictionary definitions, maybe you'd want to look up the Qur'an and try reading that to conjure more useful points.
Why should I read the Quran? There are countless religions in the world and all of them make the claims that you are making on behalf of Islam, so unless you can prove that Islam is objectively speaking, more plausible than any of the other religions in the world, it would be completely arbitrary to read the Quran and not another religous text.

(Original post by boxingfan91)
Becuase the topic is about Islam. <_<

Had the topic been about Christianiy it would be different. But the topic is specifically about Islam so its only sensible to use Islamic knowledge. Otherwise your points are pretty much redundant as you have no knowledge and using your own opinions as well as others' to form an argument.
Yes, but I'm not criticising Islam on a substantive issue - it's procedural, so I don't need to have a great knowledge about Islam; the discussion is about Muhammad's illiteracy.

(Original post by boxingfan91)
Ok, let's just assume for a second Darwinism is correct. Couldn't Adam and Eve be apes? It doesn't render the argument in any way, it just means they were a bit different to how we are today.
You can interpret the Adam and Eve tale metaphorically - as many Christians do - to accomodate evolution. That's fine.
0
reply
Pyropink
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#166
Report 9 years ago
#166
Maybe he had more important issues to address, and at that time it wasn't as important to be literate as it is now. It was a difficult time period, and perhaps it wasn't exactly meant for Muhammad to suddenly start reading novels and become literate when he has a much more important role.

Sorry for any repetitions
0
reply
tazarooni89
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#167
Report 9 years ago
#167
(Original post by NothingCrushesUs)
So what, heterosexual people were allowed to have public sex, but homosexual people weren't? And you're arguing that there was no discrimination in that?
When did I say heterosexuals were allowed to have public sex? What kind of stupid law would that be?
0
reply
tazarooni89
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#168
Report 9 years ago
#168
(Original post by Imperatrix)
Anyone with half a brain cell will be aware that it is referring to a person's form, considering it describes it as "a particular part or feature of a matter", with matter being a person's form, not the activities within their life.

That appears to be what you base your entire argument on, the vague pragmatics of what the dictionary may be alluding.
I haven't said anything about what the dictionary may be alluding to. You said "go and look it up", so I showed you what it says. You're the one who's trying to introduce your own interpretation to it, making it refer to a person's form.

If the dictionary was talking only about people's forms, and if anyone with half a brain cell could realise that, then it wouldn't have been difficult for it to say so.
0
reply
NothingCrushesUs
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#169
Report 9 years ago
#169
(Original post by tazarooni89)
When did I say heterosexuals were allowed to have public sex? What kind of stupid law would that be?
well in that case you were suggesting that homosexuals were allowed to have public sex, whereas heterosexuals weren't - you're driving yourself into a hole with this argument
0
reply
tazarooni89
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#170
Report 9 years ago
#170
(Original post by NothingCrushesUs)
well in that case you were suggesting that homosexuals were allowed to have public sex, whereas heterosexuals weren't - you're driving yourself into a hole with this argument
I was just stating one of the laws that Muhammad made. Homosexuals were prohibited from having public sex. It's true.

I didn't say anything about heterosexuals because heterosexuals were not the topic under discussion.


I was suggesting nothing more and nothing less than what I actually said.
0
reply
boxingfan91
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#171
Report 9 years ago
#171
(Original post by Throne)
We didn't evolve from modern day apes - we have a common ancestor.
I know that. I'm on the same ground when you say we evolved, because we have, I just don't buy into the whole thing that we came from another animal.


I've provided you with a definition of the term 'vague' and your verses clearly fall into that definition. If you're not willing to suppress your bias for just a moment, then I don't see the point of this discussion.
I don't really see the vagueness in it, it clearly states something, and its clear what it means. Although, I do agree it doesn't say straight out 'the sun shines on the moon and we get the reflection', its a bit blended in, sort of like poetry, but it would be obvious for any person of decent literature level to understand the meaning behind the verse.

Quran is sort of like poetry, but only better, there's a meaning behind every verse, and imo that's the beauty of it.


Why should I read the Quran? There are countless religions in the world and all of them make the claims that you are making on behalf of Islam, so unless you can prove that Islam is objectively speaking, more plausible than any of the other religions in the world, it would be completely arbitrary to read the Quran and not another religous text.
I'm not saying just read the Qur'an and not other text, by all means read other scriptures such as the Bible, Torah, etc. Like with anything its good to have a large scope of knowledge before creating opinions on a matter.


Yes, but I'm not criticising Islam on a substantive issue - it's procedural, so I don't need to have a great knowledge about Islam; the discussion is about Muhammad's illiteracy.
But you made the point that the Prophet wrote the Qur'an, which is clearly not an islamic belief. Had you read it you'd realise it's from God, and given to him.

discussion is about Muhammad's illiteracy.
Someone sums it up well earlier on in this thread, can't remember the poster's name though. But basically having a written education isn't the only way to signify intelligence, nowadays there's GCSEs, A Levels, University, Masters Degree, etc. as an approval of education, these weren't round during the Prophet's time.

Like I said before, the Prophet may not have been able to read or write well, but he was a successful merchant (which requires business knowledge), and interpreting the Qur'an itself is a unique literature.

And he did learn to read, otherwise he wouldn't have memorised the whole Quran by heart, letter by letter.
0
reply
tazarooni89
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#172
Report 9 years ago
#172
(Original post by boxingfan91)
And he did learn to read, otherwise he wouldn't have memorised the whole Quran by heart, letter by letter.
Most Muslims believe that he memorised the Qur'an miraculously, upon hearing it first time when it was recited to him by Gabriel.

It was revealed over 23 years, bit by bit - so he didn't have to sit down and memorise it all in one go, it wouldn't have been all *that* difficult for a normal to memorise it just by hearing it either.


I'm not sure if he ever did learn to read, but I don't think he would have to be able to read in order to memorise the Qur'an. After all, part of the miracle of the Qur'an is that it is easy to memorise. And he was a prophet as well - God usually seems to help them out.
0
reply
NothingCrushesUs
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#173
Report 9 years ago
#173
(Original post by tazarooni89)
I was just stating one of the laws that Muhammad made. Homosexuals were prohibited from having public sex. It's true.

I didn't say anything about heterosexuals because heterosexuals were not the topic under discussion.


I was suggesting nothing more and nothing less than what I actually said.
You've just contradicted yourself again - now you're suggesting that before Muhammad made this law, they were allowed to have public sex, which suggests that heterosexuals already weren't, yadda yadda yadda. Like I said before, you've trapped yourself in a vicious circle.
0
reply
tazarooni89
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#174
Report 9 years ago
#174
(Original post by NothingCrushesUs)
You've just contradicted yourself again - now you're suggesting that before Muhammad made this law, they were allowed to have public sex, which suggests that heterosexuals already weren't, yadda yadda yadda. Like I said before, you've trapped yourself in a vicious circle.
Before Muhammad made laws, there were hardly any laws in Arabia anyway. Both homosexuals and heterosexuals could have sex in public without legal punishment.
When Muhammad came, public sex of any kind became prohibited.


I'm not suggesting anything except for what I say explicitly. Don't try to read deeper meanings. I hold no responsibility for what you misinterpret.
0
reply
NothingCrushesUs
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#175
Report 9 years ago
#175
(Original post by tazarooni89)
Before Muhammad made laws, there were hardly any laws in Arabia anyway. Both homosexuals and heterosexuals could have sex in public without legal punishment.
When Muhammad came, public sex of any kind became prohibited.


I'm not suggesting anything except for what I say explicitly. Don't try to read deeper meanings. I hold no responsibility for what you misinterpret.
Here we go again... So you're now saying that he made all public sex illegal, which directly contradicts your point earlier, that

...He made it illegal to have sex with someone of your own gender in public...
You're now suggesting that you yourself hold something against homosexuals.
0
reply
tazarooni89
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#176
Report 9 years ago
#176
(Original post by NothingCrushesUs)
Here we go again... So you're now saying that he made all public sex illegal, which directly contradicts your point earlier, that

...He made it illegal to have sex with someone of your own gender in public...
How is that a contradiction?

He made all public sex illegal, including sex with your own gender. Both statements are true.


I didn't say he made it illegal to have sex only with someone of your own gender.


You're now suggesting that you yourself hold something against homosexuals.
I didn't say that, and if you're going to continue to deliberately misinterpret what I say, despite me asking you not to, then this conversation is over.
0
reply
NothingCrushesUs
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#177
Report 9 years ago
#177
(Original post by tazarooni89)
How is that a contradiction?

He made all public sex illegal, including sex with your own gender. Both statements are true.


I didn't say he made it illegal to have sex only with someone of your own gender.




I didn't say that, and if you're going to continue to deliberately misinterpret what I say, despite me asking you not to, then this conversation is over.
I'm sorry to do this but...
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Damnit you can't even understand yourself, let alone your religion, you've now just changed your argument to suit the loopholes in it - continuously:

"it was for gays"
"it was for heterosexuals"
"it was for gays"
"it was for heterosexuals"


yaddayaddayadda... as far as I'm concerned, your now at the bottom of a crater as deep as Everest is tall...
0
reply
The Blind Monk
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#178
Report 9 years ago
#178
(Original post by tazarooni89)
That's not discrimination though. It is treating them differently, but it's not simply because of what group they belong to, it is because of their individual characteristic of not being Muslim, if you see the distinction.

Yes, but Muslims aren't the ones sending them to Hell. Muslims aren't the ones doing the discriminating.
Erm discrimination is a form of choosing based on critera: right? (and I don't necessarily mean in a pejorative sense.) Therefore not being allowed to marry them based upon a distinction is discrimination correct?

I don't really see the vagueness in it, it clearly states something, and its clear what it means. Although, I do agree it doesn't say straight out 'the sun shines on the moon and we get the reflection', its a bit blended in, sort of like poetry, but it would be obvious for any person of decent literature level to understand the meaning behind the verse.

Quran is sort of like poetry, but only better, there's a meaning behind every verse, and imo that's the beauty of it.
Assuming it is not vague (and I think it is but that is besides the point) how does it account for the the disagreements with modern science then? If it is the unvarnished word of God then surely it should be in accordance with His principles (which one assumes are revealed through science.)

Tazarooni: I believe the issue at hand over the 'race' is one of common usage not the dictionary definition (I am not saying the people attacking you are taking a useful semantic angle: I don't really think they are.) I just think it is not idiomatic to say the 'muslim race' or anything similar
0
reply
roots
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#179
Report 9 years ago
#179
(Original post by Throne)
Muslims claim that the 7th century Arab warlord they regard as 'prophet' was illiterate and so he couldn't have written the Quran. They assert that the Quran was dictated to the Quran by an actual angel called Gabriel over a twenty-two year period.

My question is this, why was Muhammad illiterate? Wasn't he a successful merchant? That would imply that he would (at least) know how to count and arguably to read and write to some extent. Not to mention the fact that Islam supposedly places great emphasis on knowledge, academia and literacy which makes you wonder why - even if we, for the sake of argument, accept that he was illiterate when he first began receiving revelations - he remained illiterate throughout those twenty-two years.
If what you propose, if what you have conjectured were true there would be a record of it, the enemies of Islam wouldnt let anything pass but even they had limits.
0
reply
tazarooni89
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#180
Report 9 years ago
#180
(Original post by The Blind Monk)
Erm discrimination is a form of choosing based on critera: right? (and I don't necessarily mean in a pejorative sense.) Therefore not being allowed to marry them based upon a distinction is discrimination correct?
Discrimination is not choosing based on criteria, it's choosing based on generalised characteristics rather than individual ones.

For example - "I don't want to date criminals. Black people are criminals, so I won't date them" is discrimination.

But "I don't want to marry a non-Muslim" is not discrimination, because the criteria are chosen around the individual, rather than the group.

Tazarooni: I believe the issue at hand over the 'race' is one of common usage not the dictionary definition (I am not saying the people attacking you are taking a useful semantic angle: I don't really think they are.) I just think it is not idiomatic to say the 'muslim race' or anything similar
I completely understand where you're coming from. When you say "race" you're usually talking about ethnicity.

However, I was simply responding to someone who decided to be snide towards someone else by saying "Go and look up 'race', you brainless cretin".
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Latest
My Feed

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.

Personalise

Have you registered to vote?

Yes! (219)
39.46%
No - but I will (38)
6.85%
No - I don't want to (37)
6.67%
No - I can't vote (<18, not in UK, etc) (261)
47.03%

Watched Threads

View All