Sam performs unyielding feats of mental gymnastics to ascribe nuance to Jewish and Christian violence, yet when it comes to Islam he becomes as rigid as a brick. Then, when anyone tries to point out his hypocrisy, he claims that his views are misrepresented and that he's being persecuted. It's shocking to see so many of you claim he's a good debater in any way - he's a joke. Cenk, if anything, tried too hard to find common ground with a bigot and suffered for that fact.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Cenk Uygur (The Young Turks) interviews Sam Harris for 3 hours (Religion & Islam)
- Thread starter Duji
- Start date
- Status
speculawyer
Member
And others will perform unyielding feats of mental gymnastics to try to paint Muslim, Jewish, Hindu, and Christian violence as all being at completely the same level. Never mind the fact that you if look at the current Wars in the world:
http://www.warsintheworld.com/?page=static1258254223
And do Ctrl-F 'Islam' you get a 156 matches and no other religious term even comes close.
But I know . . . it is all poverty, colonialism, land disputes, and every other excuse you can come up with.
Maybe you don't like Sam's theories . . . but at least he is trying to understand the situation instead of pretend it doesn't exist.
speculawyer
Member
Yeah, this is definitely one of many things that Cenk covers whereas it is one of Sam's main areas of study. But it was very interesting and they both said interesting (and stupid) things.
You mean there may be some complexity that explains why conflicts arise in a certain part of the world? I never would have imagined!
speculawyer
Member
Yeah . . . and it is just a COMPLETE RANDOM COINCIDENCE that so many Islamic groups are involved!
Amazing!
speculawyer
Member
(BTW, it is NOT just 'a certain part of the world' . . . it is all over the world including Canada now too!)
Son of Sam
Banned
But i'm not saying that. Are you denying there is a movement of fundamental Islam right now? Why are you ignoring this?
We know there is a movement, we know it is proliferating, and all it takes if for this movement to infiltrate the more moderate leaders in some of these countries with actual power, with potential for nuclear weapons, like Pakistan.
Right, from the author of End of Faith and Letters to a Christian nation. He's so gentle. Or maybe you forgot when he wrote about Sarah Palin and how having her in the white house would be the most dangerous thing for the world? He mentions this again in the video with Cenk, a long with the fact that the U.S has tons of fundamental Christians dying to get into the White House.
I think what separates the Quran from other holy books is the Quran is claimed to be a literal transcript of God's words beginning to end. And it's all cohesively put together into one relatively short book as it was revealed over a period of 23 years. Compare this to the Bible/OT where much of it isn't the literal word of God but divine inspiration instead, and also the fact that it contains many, many different books therein that often oppose each other's overall message. This makes the interpretation game a lot more open range when it comes to the Bible/OT unlike the Quran. Also Muhammad stressed that this was God's final book and that he was God's final messenger. We also have the famous Hadith ascribed to Muhammad, which is quoted by the imam every Friday prayer I've ever been to: "Of all matters, the worst are innovations; and everything new is an innovation, and every innovation is a deviation, and every deviation leads to Hell-fire." Innovating, or adding new ideas to the religion is forbidden and most Muslims would tell you this. Simply put, Islam gives a lot less room for non-literalist interpretations by its very nature.
Yeah . . . and it is just a COMPLETE RANDOM COINCIDENCE that so many Islamic groups are involved!
Amazing!
Name a single war/conflict in the Middle East and I can give you centuries of history and a myriad of socioeconomic factors that led to that point. That's what happens when you go beyond a high school level of study on a subject. You should try it, you might learn something.
The flip side of this is that the Quran is a complex text written in a form of Arabic that most of the Muslim world is unqualified to read/interpret - for a number of various reasons. This is what keeps Islam from being a monolithic religion, and why it's so tied to the cultural and socioeconomic factors of the region where it's being implemented.
Yes, but if you want to have an honest discussion on whether or not the doctrine of Islam leaves more or less room for interpretation compared to the other major religions, the answer is very clear: it doesn't, and it's not even close. The Quran is dogma in its purest form. I recommend you read it actually.
In theory, yes. In practice, no. If you've read the Quran, and compare it to the practice of Islam across the entire spectrum, you'll know that the reality is much more nuanced than the doctrine would dictate.
Son of Sam
Banned
Yes, from a purely literary standpoint here is a book so poorly written it's followers still can't reconcile if they like dogs or not.
What a weird interview.
There are points when I agree with Cenk, and others where Harris has the better argument -- probably more often than not, I agree with Harris, especially on his thesis which for better or worse simply states that at some point Religion can and will become an overriding force in a persons life, and people will make decisions based majorly or even solely on the strongly-held belief.
That said, again, what a weird interview. I almost feel like if you watch it backwards, you'll have more of a sense of what people are really saying in it, because you'll start with the paradigm: Harris, a philosopher, asking philosophical questions and trying to show how the fundamental philosophy doesn't need to change much when included in a realistic context, and Cenk who is a strict pragmatist attempting to underlie just how complex interactions between people and their world really is.
My problem with Cenk in this interview I guess is that too often his answers or ideas are completely non-committal to a point of absurdity. It's always "Yes and no" or "50%-50%" with him, and he won't allow himself to consider *any* philosophical points and instead just says "The world doesn't work like that" basically. It's not even that he is wrong, it's just that instead of analyzing that he seems content with painting everything as too complex to really grasp, and instead relies purely on historical items drenched in uncertainty to derive a point about current events that I don't feel are strongly correlated thematically.
That said, Cenk's point is well-taken with respect to some of Sam's more disturbing items surrounding game theory. It should go without saying that if you argue philosophy with non-philosophers, you will get a non-philosophical approach -- so Sam may not talk down to his readers, but it feels like, if you want to make progress with a different kind of audience you need to really work on the phrasing.
After watching this, I *do* feel -- if Harris is being honest about his past ideas -- that it is perhaps true that his ideas or points have been unfairly misrepresented. He does seem like he cares about distinguishing different kinds of muslims, he does seem to believe that Religion is a strongly weighted factor and not the only factor, and I feel like he gets the salient points made here. Cenk doesn't give an inch, on the other hand, which is bothersome somewhat, and there are some cringy moments where Cenk seems to ignore reality, but other than that I guess it was overall worth watching.
I still think, as an Atheist, that Harris is perhaps my least favorite modern representation in the media for Atheism. Some of his ideas really do not gel with me, and while I wouldn't peg him for a racist per se, he must be aware that sometimes he gives himself enough liberty in discussion to stray just far of left of "PC" on the spectrum in the name of pragmatism and "honest discussion", but then he butters up words. I mean, "uncomfortable" == torture? C'mon.
Thanks for linking OP!
There are points when I agree with Cenk, and others where Harris has the better argument -- probably more often than not, I agree with Harris, especially on his thesis which for better or worse simply states that at some point Religion can and will become an overriding force in a persons life, and people will make decisions based majorly or even solely on the strongly-held belief.
That said, again, what a weird interview. I almost feel like if you watch it backwards, you'll have more of a sense of what people are really saying in it, because you'll start with the paradigm: Harris, a philosopher, asking philosophical questions and trying to show how the fundamental philosophy doesn't need to change much when included in a realistic context, and Cenk who is a strict pragmatist attempting to underlie just how complex interactions between people and their world really is.
My problem with Cenk in this interview I guess is that too often his answers or ideas are completely non-committal to a point of absurdity. It's always "Yes and no" or "50%-50%" with him, and he won't allow himself to consider *any* philosophical points and instead just says "The world doesn't work like that" basically. It's not even that he is wrong, it's just that instead of analyzing that he seems content with painting everything as too complex to really grasp, and instead relies purely on historical items drenched in uncertainty to derive a point about current events that I don't feel are strongly correlated thematically.
That said, Cenk's point is well-taken with respect to some of Sam's more disturbing items surrounding game theory. It should go without saying that if you argue philosophy with non-philosophers, you will get a non-philosophical approach -- so Sam may not talk down to his readers, but it feels like, if you want to make progress with a different kind of audience you need to really work on the phrasing.
After watching this, I *do* feel -- if Harris is being honest about his past ideas -- that it is perhaps true that his ideas or points have been unfairly misrepresented. He does seem like he cares about distinguishing different kinds of muslims, he does seem to believe that Religion is a strongly weighted factor and not the only factor, and I feel like he gets the salient points made here. Cenk doesn't give an inch, on the other hand, which is bothersome somewhat, and there are some cringy moments where Cenk seems to ignore reality, but other than that I guess it was overall worth watching.
I still think, as an Atheist, that Harris is perhaps my least favorite modern representation in the media for Atheism. Some of his ideas really do not gel with me, and while I wouldn't peg him for a racist per se, he must be aware that sometimes he gives himself enough liberty in discussion to stray just far of left of "PC" on the spectrum in the name of pragmatism and "honest discussion", but then he butters up words. I mean, "uncomfortable" == torture? C'mon.
Thanks for linking OP!
Son of Sam
Banned
This is probably the one thing i struggle with the most. On one hand it's a terrible thing to even consider, but when you understand what they mean by torture it' becomes a little different.
When people think about torture they immediately picture something out of a Bond movie, or something gruesome like in SAW. That's not reality. As horrific as waterboarding is it's not being strapped to a table and watching your balls get cut off.
If faced with an adversary willingly telling you they are going to blow up a plane and the only way to get it out of them is to make them really uncomfortable, well, i dunno? My morals may start to bend a little. The problem is when you open this pandoras box how far will you go? These things must be discussed.
We're going to get to an age where cracking the human mind, neurologically, is going to be the way people get interrogated. This topic will come up again and the debate however unsettling will have to be had.
Right now i stand with making someone "uncomfortable" but not to the point of waterboarding. It would have to be highly scrutinized, and a complete last resort tactic with a known adversary that possess true intelligence. It would have to be an incredibly rare case.
Maninthemirror
Banned
The problem exists with those who want to interpret it incorrectly from what has been since 7th century, you seem to be Saying there is no problem with them having an incorrect interpretation. It's quite simple, there is plenty of proof and common sense proofs that the moderate view of Islam is the historically correct one and only Centuries later did fundamentalism creep in slowly.
Very few Muslims believe in supernatural, most believe in evolution as a science and base science as as a fact of nature
Dongs Macabre
aka Daedalos42
So I'm not sure whether this video is an accurate representation of the views of most Muslims, but it's apparently from the largest Muslim organization in Norway, so I would imagine that it's somewhat accurate.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EYAcLudBbhg
If you look at the room, pretty much everyone raises their hands when the speaker asked whether they believe in the things he said. It's not just a large amount of them, it's the overwhelming majority. It doesn't matter what you think the correct interpretation is, it matters what the majority of Muslims think (and isn't the sect you're in not recognized by many Muslims?). If a large percentage of Muslims have these kinds of belief, that's a problem.
I recall you saying that you don't believe the diversity of life is possible without evolution being guided by a god a few months ago in a thread about those caterpillars that look like snakes. When even a moderate Muslim like you can't reconcile science with their beliefs without choosing which parts of science they believe in, that's a problem.
Really?
citation: http://www.sciencemag.org/content/322/5908/1637.full
Last year, Turkey banned Charles Darwin's texts on evolution. Dawkins and a bunch of other authors were also banned. http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2013/01/16/what-turkeys-ban-on-darwin-means/
Do Muslims like dogs? I remember a few Muslim taxi drivers in Sydney made the news for not letting guide dogs in their cabs.
Except you can't draw a straight path from practicing Islam and those actions. Not in the slightest. This is where your argument completely falls apart. Like Christianity, Judaism, Hindu, or Yazidism, the central text of the religion is conflicting within itself(which requires numerous value judgements), it requires interpretation throughout, and historical context is needed in order to understand the intent and motivations of the passages(which in and of itself leads to different conclusions). All of this leads to wildly different interpretations individually and organizationally about a given religion. So to say that a strict adherence to the text leads to those actions is patently false. Simply because there is not a singular way to interpret any religious text.
I cant think of any solid rationalization that can explain away the missteps in logic you are presenting here.
When you say modern society I assume you mean western democratic societies similar to Europe and America?
Either way the point about moderate muslims holding incompatible views isn't unique to Islam and ignores addressing why Muslims are lagging behind other religions? I assume you are inferring that Islam is unique in being incompatible with modernization? Otherwise this point is kind of a throwaway considering you seem to be trying to make the case that singles out Islam as posing unique problems that aren't possible in other religions. At the risk of addressing a straw man, I will just say that evidence suggests that in America, Muslims very much are shifting their ideals and beliefs. Albeit at a slower rate. Which suggests that like other ethnic groups and religions they are not immune to assimilation or liberalization.
Does that mean I am ok with the backwards beliefs? Or even organized religion at all? No., but I don't take the leap that the religion itself is not reformable or able to progress. Now I would agree with those like Harris that express their belief that the world would be better without religion but that doesn't change the fact that often times these arguments that attempt to blame religion as the root of violence are often way off the mark.
Furthermore I don't ignore the influences outside of religion that have prevented modernization in the Islamic world. Which ties in to the other paragraph. Harris and other often take far too abstract and generalized view of the problems facing the middle east. As do you it seems. Attributing almost singular blame to the religion while diminishing the greater importance that poverty, despotic regimes, Western meddling, suppression of rights and beliefs, and lack of education have had to creating the culture and beliefs of those in the region.
You had me in agreement til the last sentence. Justified how? Saddam posed no immediate threat to the United States. The arguments for invasion where proven false. What justification did we have exactly?
This last bit I agree with.
Come on Speculawyer, you are better then deflectionary red herrings.
Son of Sam
Banned
I'll answer this one real quick
The guy was a monster. His sons were complete and utter psychopaths. Do you not know this? Removing S. Hussein was justification alone for going into Iraq, it just wasn't a popular one with the public.
The war in Iraq has resulted in something like 120-200k deaths for Iraqis since 2003. Saddam murdered over 1 million of his own people. There was reports that one of his sons was so psychotic he fucked someones bride on her wedding day and threw her off the balcony.
speculawyer
Member
I don't know what this means in this context.
speculawyer
Member
And for the zillionith time. Neither I nor you is an official judge as to what is the 'correct' interpretation. The problem is that these dangerous fundamentalist interpretations do exist and it happens with an unfortunately high frequency. (Again, a very small percentage but high enough to be quite dangerous.)
speculawyer
Member
Go ahead . . . knock yourself out. Explain how every single one of these conflicts is not due to religious differences:
http://www.warsintheworld.com/?page=static1258254223
And most people would say your interpretation is incorrect, thats the problem with a religious text that has so many various plausible interpretations.
Umm, believing in god is believing in the supernatural so...
Speculawyer there's a fascination with foreign powers and the middleeast, I'd say theres fantastic hypocracy when it comes to rights to invade, grab land and control resources from western powers when dealing with that region, we've been meddling in that place for a long time there's much more complex range of factors involved, its got very little to do with religion. Palistine, oil, trade routes, proxy wars and in recent times heavy civilian casualties from drones its been continous carnage over there. You should at the very least attribute some of these as factor to modern wars. War is a way of life for people there, its logical to assume their perception of justice is different to ours due to this, and so would twist whatever code they follow to motivate them to fight back. I mean you have Israelis setting up deck chairs and cocktails to watch the shelling of Gaza, Jewish kids writing prayer's on bombs, this isnt an indication of the faith but of how twisted things can get through war.
Good book on the matter even though its titled about palistine it goes into detail about many factors in the region.
http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/0141399511/
Good book on the matter even though its titled about palistine it goes into detail about many factors in the region.
http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/0141399511/
RustyNails
Member
This is not true. Belief in the unseen is part of mainstream Islamic faith, both Shia and Sunni.
RustyNails
Member
This stuff about "every interpretation is valid" is not true. There's a difference between personal interpretation, which may or may not be valid, to scholastic interpretation which has broad consensus among the ulema and is likely to be valid. The scholarly interpretation is based on a broad, exhaustive study of Quran itself through it's context and setting, along with the sunnah of the Prophet and the conduct of rightly guided caliphs.
BOY was I fucking wrong for thinking you had a modicum of credibility on this site. You are either in extreme denial or are incredibly ignorant. My money's on the former. You seriously should take a break from posting, rethink everything, and come back when the cognitive dissonance is gone.
You make it sound like an either or proposition. When it's so obviously not. It's poor analysis when you group them up altogether like that.
You're trying to equate a bunch of fractured movements into a single worldwide movement. And it's just poor reasoning coloured clearly with a tinge of Islamaphobia. You can't see it for but for your blatant racism.
It doesn't matter to you that the situation in Palestine is entirely different to the one in Indonesia. You just want everyone to go look: Those pesky Muslims. We, liberals need to do something about this. Why doesn't anyone see it like I do? etc etc etc.
Because you're crazy!!! ha ha.
But keep on, trucking along. Telling everyone to concentrate on some monolithic version of Islam alone, not politics, not history, not any of the far better reasons on the table. Not even local history.
Even when you've got a death cult in ISIS, who are now killing their own folks, you want everyone to swallow how it's all the same. When someone is going to ask you where did ISIS come from? You're so blind, you'll keep peddling some anti-islamic site's quran quotes, as if that is where the answer lies. Instead of something like this:
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/aug/22/syria-iraq-incubators-isis-jihad
You're just bad for any serious discussion on the topic. Because as soon as Islam comes up, you can't seem to see anything else.
Besides being factually incorrect about Saddam's direct murder toll(unless you are including the iraq-iran war which we supported) there are numerous problems with your logic here.
Iraq did not pose a clear, direct or imminent threat to the United States. Measured by the standards of the "Just War" doctrine, the war proposed to the American people against Iraq proved utterly false in terms of a sufficient cause. Pre-emptive strikes such as what was initiated against Iraq must meet a high standard of justification, otherwise they are acts of aggression that violate international law. That is precisely why the Bush administration concocted the completely idiotic Bush doctrine as a way to rationalize attacks against sovereign countries that didn't actually meet the criteria of international law or the "just war" doctrine.
Your rationale attempts to place your own personal assessments about the ruling family of a sovereign nation as the legitimization of an act of war for one sovereign country against another. That is just silly. Maybe if the argument you are making was the one the Bush administration proposed to the American people or the UN - and then received validation from those organizations - you would have some sort of ground to use that argument as a justification. However that is not the case.
The fact that you personally deem Saddam or his sons as psychopaths does not justify war under any agreed upon pretense.
It means you made a point that may be true but was completely irrelevant to what was being discussed. It failed to address anything the poster brought up and in its construct your post seemingly attempted to shift the conversation. Never actually addressing anything the poster said.
ThoseDeafMutes
Member
Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I was under the impression that belief in God was somewhat important in Islam, too.
The thesis of Islam: There is no God but Allah and Muhammad is His Messenger.
Say that aloud in Arabic and you become a Muslim. It's really that easy. Allah falls under "the unseen" in case you were wondering.
I never agreed with this statement when it came to the Quran.
There are verses in the Quran which clearly state that it is "complete" and 'if God wishes to say more he could empty oceans of ink by writing more, but the book is complete'. There are also verses that say the Quran "is easy to understand".
Yet you have people still claim how you cannot understand the Quran due its complexity when it comes to translation, and it isn't complete so you need things such as the hadith to guide you.
To me this is the fundamental problem with Islam today. You literally have a religion that is completely divided, and the different sects have killed countless people from each others sect. Yet the Quran has said to never divide.
You also have Muslims try and kill you when you draw the prophet or say anything negative about him. The same prophet who has said in the Quran that his followers shouldn't worship him as he is JUST a messenger and a normal human being, and not to idolize him
These are the key problems in Islam for me. It is also so deeply ingrained that you cannot have a rational conversation about it. Trust me, I have tried, and been banned from a mosque. The whole episode was just bizzare.
I agree that it is fractured. And there are a lot of things that are frustrating about the Ummah for lack of a better word - in that, it is only an Ummah on paper, with no real union or dialogue between the 1 billion people.
On the political turmoil front:
You have a coalition of imams year after year speaking against terrorism - speaking with one voice. But the turmoil only worsens.
You have the US/the west/the-rest-of-the-world try to democratise the region, perhaps undoing what was done before; through bombing runs & invasions, but the situation only worsens.
Empowering the people didn't really work either. I think it is safe to say the Arab Spring failed.
On the political turmoil front:
You have a coalition of imams year after year speaking against terrorism - speaking with one voice. But the turmoil only worsens.
You have the US/the west/the-rest-of-the-world try to democratise the region, perhaps undoing what was done before; through bombing runs & invasions, but the situation only worsens.
Empowering the people didn't really work either. I think it is safe to say the Arab Spring failed.
That depends on who you ask, where you ask, how many you ask, and how you define moderates.
If you are asking whether sound arguments can be made in favour of homosexuality, separation of church and state [secular democracy], opposing the penalty for apostasy, and calling for gender equality... then I believe yes.
That isn't to say it is a popular opinion. Not even close.
Heavy's Sandvich
Member
You got banned from a mosque because you had a chat?
Son of Sam
Banned
I'm being factually incorrect? How many did he kill? Low estimates range from a quarter to half a million of his own people. That's on the low end. On the higher end it's a million or more. You want to argue numbers? He was a fucking monster. And where are you going with this? I never said anything about the U.S using removing Saddam as a just means to going into Iraq, i said the opposite. You're just going off into a tangent here.
There is an argument to be made that the U.S should no longer attempt to be the "world's police" and let everyone go fuck themselves. This is a real debate here in the country. Let everyone deal with their own problems; be it genocide, hunger, disease, fundamentalism, dictatorship, conflict, etc. You seem to be wanting to promote this stance... i'm not like you.
I believe in the modern secular society in which we can make justified claims to a well being for all. If that means removing a tyrant like Saddam or Kim Jong-un with a potential for collateral damage than so be it. You may feel like you're taking some type of moral high ground for "letting them be" but you're not on the higher ground. You'd essentially condemn hundreds of thousands, if not millions of people to a bleak existence.
I'm a liberal but this is where many common liberals fail- This idea that the moral high ground is not interfering with a "sovereign nation" and their people. If those people are being oppressed to living a life of bondage then it is the global societies obligation to remove the people from those horrific circumstances regardless of how blind they are to their own circumstances.
RustyNails
Member
Belief in God as well as belief in the unseen (Al Ghaib) is part of the faith for the two cannot be separate from each other.
"A.L.M. This is the Book; in it is guidance sure, without doubt, to those who fear Allah. Who believe in the Unseen, are steadfast in prayer, and spend out of what We have provided for them;"
Quran 2:1-3
Few examples of al Ghaib is belief in the angels, soul and the hour of judgment.
ThoseDeafMutes
Member
I was making a joke because god is supernatural, since the other guy said that many Muslims don't believe in the supernatural
Maninthemirror
Banned
I was making a joke because god is supernatural, since the other guy said that many Muslims don't believe in the supernatural
When I said supernatural I meant that everything that is for us as humans be it common men or prophets is set under natural conditions of this universe based on laws of nature set forth by God. It is mentioned in the Quran that although God can will things to change if he wants, everything in the universe and among every human and animal and nature is set to follow the path of nature that is already set by the rules of what many know the paths of science.
God, the miracles by God and angels and such are things which don't follow it because God is ever present in good and bad situations ever present and angels and such could or could not be explained through how the brain is interpreting a visual or mental perception sent by God to someone to receive a message
A simple example. When the Quran says the people of the cave as in those who escaped persecution after Jesus were in the cave without coming out for 300 years; it means metaphorically they were out of realm of public and society until 300 years later due to persecution after which Christianity flourished which coincides with Constantinople triggering the flourish of Christianity around 330 AD
RustyNails
Member
As far as I know the Quran doesn't say its complete, but the religion is (which isnt to say Quran is incomplete). I think you meant to say Quran is accessible...it is and it isn't. There are some verses that are very clear in their meaning, such as belief in Allah, praying and giving charity will get you to heaven. Other verses need context and they dont make any sense without it. Chapter 9 is especially context sensitive. You can personally interpret it though. But you do need Hadiths to guide you. It will explain how to perform a prayer, performing hajj, umrah, etc (Quran doesn't). The confusions you point out are because of a lack of papacy or a Caliphate in Islam's case. Without a higher authority to decree what is appropriate and what isn't, people follow the local imam who may or may not know anything about Islam beyond a recitation. Lack of unity is a real problem.
CrankyKong
Member
This debate was way too complex for me and hurt my head but I just want to say I really like TYT and hope their wolf pac thing gains traction.
Maninthemirror
Banned
The Quran is pretty simple to understand. The interpretation is how it applies to what is not mentioned beyond the obvious, that is where the interpretation comes in and you correlate that with Hadith which does not contradict the Quran and you correlate it with common sense ideas which don't contradict the Quran
Well that certainly is subjective. I'd think ISIS members also think their 'common sense' is perfectly in line with the Quran.
Maninthemirror
Banned
That is if you want to give Isis validity. Is murder common sense in any society ? Is rape ? Is forced conversions? Is compulsion in anything common sense in any society ? Maybe if people stop giving Isis the benefit of the doubt moderates can counter just one extremism which is Isis and not the polar opposite side which seeks to discredit the moderates too. Where is self defense in the face of religion being eliminated and people dying from those opposing then certainly you would by your logic agree with the Iranian government who yesterday put the death the woman who killed her husband who was raping her
Do not agree with this.
Look at these verses;
6:19, 6:38, 6:114; 7:52; 17:12; 11:1; 41:3; 12:111, and 16:89.
Pretty much every single one says how he has provided ths "complete" book and "everything"? is in it, and that you should refer to it and nothing else. In verses 66:1 and 33:37 the Quran states how only God can prohibit things and that the Prophet cannot, which also contradicts Hadith.
Verse 6:119 is one of my favourites, as it clearly states how you should eat and do something unless God prohibits it, and that you shouldn't listen to ANYONE else besides God, and other people knowledge and opinions are meaningless.
I can post a dozen more verses where the Quran implies and says how you should only listen to God and the Quran and nothing else, and that it is complete.
I have tried to have this discussion many times rationally with other 'experts' on the religion, and then they say how those verses are taken out of context, or that my interpretation is wrong. I love when they use that excuse. They themselves first say how Quran has many interpretations, and then when it comes to these verses, theirs are the only ones that are correct.
[Quran 7:185] Have they not looked at the dominion of the heavens and the earth, and all the things God has created? Does it ever occur to them that the end of their life may be near? Which HADITH, besides this (Quran) do they believe in?
[Quran 31:6] Among the people, there are those who uphold baseless HADITH, and thus divert others from the path of God without knowledge, and take it in vain. These have incurred a shameful retribution.
[Quran 39:23] God has revealed herein the BEST HADITH; a book that is consistent and points out both ways (to heaven and hell). The skins of those who reverence their Lord cringe therefrom, then their skins and their hearts soften up for God's message. Such is God's guidance; he bestows it upon whomever He wills. As for those sent astray by God, nothing can guide them.
[Quran 45:6] These are God's revelations (Quran) that we recite to you truthfully. In which HADITH other than God and His revelations do they believe?
[Quran 52:34] Let them produce a HADITH like this (Quran) if they are truthful.
[Quran 68:44] Therefore, let Me deal with those who reject this HADITH(Quran); we will lead them on whence they never perceive.
[Quran 77:50] Which HADITH other than this do they uphold?
I have seen some put "statement" or "word" iunstead of Hadith in the above verses. Implies the same thing. There are countless examples in the Quran where God keeps saying ONLY the Quran and nothing else.
And of course, how could I leave out the verse where the Quran couldn't be any more clear when people say it isn't complete and God left things out, and also the fact that people Idolize the Prophet;
[Quran 18:109-110] Say (O Muhammad), 'If the ocean were ink for the words of my Lord, the ocean would have run out before my Lord runs out of words, even if we supplied twice as much ink.' Say (O Muhammad), 'I am no more than a human being like you. It has been revealed to me that your God is ONE God. Thus, anyone who looks forward to meeting his Lord shall lead a righteous life, and NEVER SET UP ANY IDOLS beside his Lord.'
- Status