Support NeoGAF

[Micerider]

The mere fact that a text can be 'interpreted' just places a religious text into question if not the entire religion itself. I mean, it's supposed to be the absolute truth, right? How is interpretation ever a thing in strict religions like the Abrahamic ones?

Interpretation is practically guaranteed to produce contradictory beliefs within the religion, making the whole thing suspect to many people like myself.

Easy : man is not perfect, so they can't understand the perfect text (which is, itself a human construct, but hey, that's not up for debate in some religions). The majority of religious dogma is based on the idea that the average man need to be explained what the truth is and how they should live by it, as they wouldn't understand it otherwise. So it's not only "interpretation" but litteral translation in "real-life" situation that causes most conflict of views.

 

[Azih]

They're not agreeing with bigots. They are bigots. This thread is gross.

And the thing that people fail to recognize is that it's a spectrum of gross. You have people like Chairman Yang, who I can give the benefit of the doubt too I guess, persist in being completely clumsy, vague, and imprecise in their arguments about 'Islam' and resist any calls to be appropriately specific rather than overly general. And in so doing make it acceptable for outright hateful people like Last Uchiha to take those reductively simple arguments to their logical conclusion.

After all if Chairman Yang, and respected Western pundits that are all over the media, keep trying to make the absurd point that there is something uniquely wrong with Islam than of course the end point of that discussion will be "Well then, how do we fight the Islam! Source of all the EVIL!".

And then the conversation devolves into a horrifying back and forth between people who say that Islam must be fought with harsh measures like outlawing it completely (and those get banned) and those who say "Oh no. We just need to educate those poor savages, maybe mock their current practices, until they realize that they're wrong and then they will become proper little atheists just like our enlightened selves!"

Well fuck that White Man's Burden level Bullshit.

And boiled goose, if you have concluded from wherever the hell you're sitting that I and most members of my family have "abandoned reason" and "are... fundamentalist extremists" then fuck that pejorative assumption you have made about me and mine without ever having met us.

Edit:

Believing the Quran is the literal and perfect word of god is exactly what makes this religon imune to reformation or critic

And this is absolute diarrhea of a thought. Islamic thought and practice is and has been completely different in different places and in different times. So where is this 'imune to reformation or critic' gem of a thought even coming from? There is no actual basis for it whatsoever.

 

[RustyNails]

Don´t focus on American gifs. I´m not even american. I know you don´t see the flaw, that what makes it so meaningful, sad and hilarious. You wrongly edited a random gif, i really don´t care about, to tell retell it´s joke only with an islamic punchline. But you missed the point. ^^ The original has equals. 1.000 studies versus a single one. And the moronic believer (the woman) chose the single one because it suits her personal beliefs ignoring all facts.

Your version has 1.000 anti vaccine studies but from within the anti vac movement. Or 1.000 homeopaths praying it works against one single study. You messed up the punchline. It´s like having 1.000 priests saying there was no abuse in the church versus an actual victim. That´s not how that gif worked. It was the exact opposite. You are becoming the one who choses whatever source that fits his needs (belief system).
But whatever. I need to sleep. Your holy book will be there tomorrow as well. Islam did nothing wrong and ISIS are all just confused children and victims of US interventions. ^^ The world is so easy.

Edit: There come the quotes again. xD



historical facts are time to stop posting? Hmm. Ok.

Nope, you are completely fucking wrong on everything you just said. Dont compare the original Vaccination gif. We are talking about two different things, but similar mentality of ignoring the evidence to suit your bias. You are ignoring the undeniable fact which I have repeated half a dozen times in this thread, which is the preponderance of evidence from scholars, jurists, muftis and institutions from the very apex of Sunni Orthodoxy in Al Azhar to Shia ayatollahs in Iran condemning terrorism and violence in no unequal terms. You reject this because they are biased and hilariously equate the Muslim condemnation of terrorism to Catholic priests hiding child abuse. The fuck is wrong with you? Its just a stupid gif with lighthearted attempt at humor and you bring up catholic priest child abuse to draw a false analogy. My god. I know you're not an American and by the way, I did not even create the goddamn gif.

 

[Chairman Yang]

And the thing that people fail to recognize is that it's a spectrum of gross. You have people like Chairman Yang, who I can give the benefit of the doubt too I guess, persist in being completely clumsy, vague, and imprecise in their arguments about 'Islam' and resist any calls to be appropriately specific rather than overly general. And in so doing make it acceptable for outright hateful people like Last Uchiha to take those reductively simple arguments to their logical conclusion.

I'm being honest here...I've read and reread your posts a few times, and I don't know how, precisely, you want me to be more specific. I get that referring to "Islam" is broad and lumps in many ideologies that are comparatively benign. But referring to "ISIS Islam" is overly specific to the point of uselessness. How should I refer to the connective tissue among fairly common Sunni Muslim beliefs in the Middle East and Asia? In my earlier example where I referred to Communism, how would you amend that paragraph?

After all if Chairman Yang, and respected Western pundits that are all over the media, keep trying to make the absurd point that there is something uniquely wrong with Islam than of course the end point of that discussion will be "Well then, how do we fight the Islam! Source of all the EVIL!".

Every ideology is unique and has different effects. I'm not sure I see the distinction between calling an ideology "harmful" or "uniquely harmful".

If you think that I think that Islam is somehow inherently unreformable, no, I don't. If Mutazilite or Ahmadi Islam were magically dominant nowadays, or if Saudi Arabia had been reshaped by an Ataturk-like figure and oil money was funding a civilized Islam instead of Wahhabism, or if any number of other historical accidents had taken place, then that would be great. It's very clear that trends in Islam CAN be changed. That's actually exactly what I'm arguing has to happen.

 

[Machina]

They are an organized group of thugs, criminals and rapists. They're who Trump should have been talking about. They're a walking humanitarian crisis, and the West created them. The UN has to do something to clean up the mess.

 

[Azih]

I'm being honest here...I've read and reread your posts a few times, and I don't know how, precisely, you want me to be more specific. I get that referring to "Islam" is broad and lumps in many ideologies that are comparatively benign. But referring to "ISIS Islam" is overly specific to the point of uselessness.

No it isn't. It's precisely identifying the people who are the problem which is ISIS and ISIS supporters. Not the Muslims who condemn them and fight against them.

How should I refer to the connective tissue among fairly common Sunni Muslim beliefs in the Middle East and Asia?

Like I said, link ISIS Islam to whatever you want. Is there an element in there that's like the Hanbali school of thought? Make that point. Something in there like Twelver Shism? Go wild. Is it related in some way to what Salafis believes? Have at it. If you want to make the point that there is something about praying five times a day or not eating pork that leads to ISIS condoning rape? Hell fine do that.

Unlike what you keep on doing, this way you'll be talking about the people who are actually acting like savages and not roping others into it AND you'll be able to draw whatever link to thought and practice within the wider sphere of conventional Islamic thought and practice you wish without lumping everything together.

Every ideology is unique and has different effects. I'm not sure I see the distinction between calling an ideology "harmful" or "uniquely harmful".

Islam is to damn broad to try and tie it down as a 'single ideology' and that's the source of the problem. There's a whole hell of a lot of difference between saying "The problem is with the ideology of 'Islam'" versus saying "The problem is with the ideology of the ISIS view of Islam"

Because in the first you're saying that the world view that my mom lives by is somehow implicated or related to this fuck who thinks rape is a good Islamic act. In the second you are, you know, not.

And the thing is when you go all scattershot and absurdly broad when speaking about 'Islam' as being the source of the problem then, not only are you being inaccurate, but OF COURSE your argument will enable others to focus, not on fighting against ISIS or their ideology, but on 'how to get rid of Islam'.

 

[Chairman Yang]

Like I said, link ISIS Islam to whatever you want. Is there an element in there that's like the Hanbali school of thought? Make that point. Something in there like Twelver Shism? Go wild. Is it related in some way to what Salafis believes? Have at it. If you want to make the point that there is something about praying five times a day or not eating pork that leads to ISIS condoning rape? Hell fine do that.

The Hanafi school of Sunni Islam has strong views against apostasy and blasphemy that, in certain circumstances, prescribe death. So does the Shafi'i school. So does the Maliki school. So does the Hanbali school (probably most of all, considering it's the closest precursor to Wahhabism).

I think most apostates would agree that those views are pretty comparable to the ISIS Islam view, if less extreme. Those four main schools cover the vast majority of Sunni Islam. In practice--as opposed to theory--apostates seem to have a precarious position in countries where any of these schools are prevalent.

 

[Azih]

The Hanafi school of Sunni Islam has strong views against apostasy and blasphemy that, in certain circumstances, prescribe death. So does the Shafi'i school. So does the Maliki school. So does the Hanbali school (probably most of all, considering it's the closest precursor to Wahhabism).

I think most apostates would agree that those views are pretty comparable to the ISIS Islam view, if less extreme. Those four main schools cover the vast majority of Sunni Islam. In practice--as opposed to theory--apostates seem to have a precarious position in countries where any of these schools are prevalent.

And that's a completely valid point to make. On this specific issue (apostasy) ISIS is linked to the main Sunni schools of thought agreeing with it. And I agree with you that it's horrible. And Muslims really shouldn't shy away from this sort of critique.

This is a far better and different way of discussing these kinds of issue than blanket IslamLOL or religionLOL bromides.

 

[Chairman Yang]

Ok...then I'm just not sure why you think referring to Islam or Sunni Islam is "absurdly broad" when the post I just made covers the vast majority of the Islamic world.

 

[Maninthemirror]

The Hanafi school of Sunni Islam has strong views against apostasy and blasphemy that, in certain circumstances, prescribe death. So does the Shafi'i school. So does the Maliki school. So does the Hanbali school (probably most of all, considering it's the closest precursor to Wahhabism).

I think most apostates would agree that those views are pretty comparable to the ISIS Islam view, if less extreme. Those four main schools cover the vast majority of Sunni Islam. In practice--as opposed to theory--apostates seem to have a precarious position in countries where any of these schools are prevalent.

if only people learn about history and context.

OPINIONS OF JURISTS

Our thesis that Islam imposes no secular penalty for simple apostacy having been conclusively established on the basis of the Holy Quran and the practice of the Holy Prophet, it is not necessary to have recourse to any juristic opinion on the subject. We are aware that a misunderstanding on this question arose in the midst of a certain section of the jurists on this subject. Yet it is of interest that the Hanafi jurists at the very start were firmly of the view that simple apostacy was not subject to any secular penalty.

The well known compilation Hedayah sets out: The Holy Prophet forbade the killing of women for apostacy, because the principle of punitive regulations is that in such cases the penalty should be left for the hereafter, as a penalty imposed in this life would contravene the purpose of apostacy being a trial the calling to account for which pertains to God alone. This can be departed from only when the object in view is to restrain the person concerned from continuing hostilities. As women, by their very nature, are not capable of fighting, a woman apostate cannot be punished in any case.

Another well known authority on Hanafi jurisprudence sets out: The execution of an apostate is permissible only when it is designed to restrain the apostate from continuing his aggression; it is not permissible merely on account of his reversion to disbelief, for the punishment of disbelief is severer than execution and can be imposed only by God Almighty (Fatehal Kadeer, Val. IV, p.389).

Another authority states: There is no penalty for disbelief, because the penalty for it is severer than execution and can be imposed only by God Almighty (Chalpi's Commentary on Fatehal Kadeer, p.388).

Again, it is said: There is no execution except in the case of fighting, for it is not permissible to execute anyone merely on the ground of disbelief (Inayah, p.390).

The direction attributed to the Holy Prophet: Execute him who changes his faith; has been interpreted as meaning the execution of a combatant disbeliever (Fatehal Kadeer, Vol. II, p.580).

The advocates of the death penalty for apostacy claim that their thesis is supported by a unanimous consensus of the believers and that no one has ever questioned it. Their claim is utterly untrue. We have just shown that leading jurists of the Hanafi school held to the position to which we adhere, that simple apostacy is not punishable with death. It is only a fighting apostate who is subject to that penalty on account of his rebellion or treason and not on account of his apostacy. In addition there have been outstanding scholars in Islam who have upheld the view that we maintain, among them are the great figures of Hafiz Ibn Qayyam, Ibrahim Nakhai and Sufyan Thauri, the last one a great Imam of hadees.

CAUSE OF ERROR

It is asked that if we are right in our thinking, what led some of the past divines to proclaim that mere apostacy was punishable with death? This mistake arose in the same way as the mistaken view that Islam directs the assassination of every pagan and idol-worshipper. As some people misconstrued some verse of the Holy Quran, without regard to its context, and assumed that it had reference to all pagans, and in consequence declared as many as four hundred verses of the Holy Quran as abrogated; in the same way, some divines were misled by such narratives as mentioned the execution of an apostate or some apostates, and applied them erroneously to the case of every apostate and ignored the fact that the narratives relied upon by them related to apostates who had taken up arms against the Muslims. They also ignored the fact that in earlier times an apostate immediately went and joined the enemies of the Muslims and fought along with them against the Muslims. Such a person spelt even greater danger to the Muslims than their declared enemies as he was aware of the condition and circumstances of the Muslims and could prove of great assistance to the enemy. Whenever such divines read about the execution of an apostate, they immediately concluded therefrom that apostacy was punishable with death, without inquiring into the circumstances under which, and on account of which, the apostate had been executed.

They discovered that the apostates had been fought against in the time of Hazrat Abu Bakr and Hazrat Ali, may Allah be pleased with them, and without inquiring into the circumstances which had necessitated the fighting, erroneously concluded that every apostate was punishable with death. It is, however, fortunate that though some divines proclaimed that simple apostacy was punishable with death, several divines refused to subscribe to this view, and stated plainly that Islam had not appointed any punishment for simple apostacy or for simple disbelief and that both will be accounted for in the hereafter. In this life, according to them, an apostate is liable to execution only on account of fighting against the Muslims or of creating such disorder as is punishable with death.

To sum up: Apostacy means a plain and clear repudiation of Islam by a professing Muslim. It is only the profession or clear conduct of a person himself that makes him an apostate. Doctrinal differences, however grave, cannot be declared by anyone as constituting apostacy.

Simple apostacy, which is not aggravated by rebellion, treason or grave disorderliness, is not punishable in any manner in this life. Islam guarantees complete freedom of conscience and of belief. A disbeliever and a simple apostate stand in the same category; neither of them is liable to any penalty in this life. Were it otherwise, Islam would be accounted a faith that seeks to compel conscience, a vain and futile purpose which is impossible of achievement. Compulsion and force might make people hypocrites, but cannot make them believers.

Islam possesses the great distinction and the high merit that its scripture plainly, clearly and emphatically affirms full freedom of conscience and belief. The writer recalls that a quarter of a century ago a very learned and highly intelligent Dutch professor who taught at the University of Amsterdam told him that he had been convinced of the truth of Islam on reading in the Holy Quran: There shall be no compulsion in religion, for guidance and error have been clearly distinguished (2:257). Since then, he had continued a sincere professing and practicing Muslim.

Those who, on account of their own mistaken interpretation of certain situations in the early history of Islam, fly in the face of the clear and emphatic affirmations of the Holy Quran, and the practice of the Holy Prophet, peace be on him, in effect repel people from Islam and by their erroneous affirmations, quite unconsciously, hold Islam up to ridicule and invite the charge that Islam cannot be a true faith. By adhering to their preposterous view they render no service to Islam, but are guilty of grave disservice to the greatest of all faiths. May Allah, of His grace and mercy, enlighten their minds and rescue them from persisting in the support of a false and harmful fallacy.

https://www.alislam.org/books/apostacy/17.html

The biggest people make is that Apostates in large numbers fought against the Caliphs. It was the fighting against Muslims which resulted in Caliphs declaring the verses of the Quran on such apostastes where the Quran says "if they fight you then fight them and Kill them unless they stop fighting you or if they surrender". This has been misconstrued by some Hanafi scholars and majority orientalist critics of islam as "Death for Apostasy" is permissible whereas History proves that it is not the act of apostasy but only those apostates were put to death to fought Muslims (and didnt surrender) in the exact same manner Meccans fought muslims in the time of the Holy Prophet (saw)

 

[Azih]

Ok...then I'm just not sure why you think referring to Islam or Sunni Islam is "absurdly broad" when the post I just made covers the vast majority of the Islamic world.

Because in your last post you covered a specific issue. Unlike your other posts. I mean the issue of apostasy has nothing to do with the OP which deals with the ISIS view of rape.

Edit:Maninthemirror Chairman Yang's point remains. You're linking to an Ahmaddi Muslim website, which is not the same as the four main Sunni schools of thought.

 

[Maninthemirror]

Because in your last post you covered a specific issue. Unlike your other posts. I mean the issue of apostasy has nothing to do with the OP which deals with the ISIS view of rape.

Edit:Maninthemirror Chairman Yang's point remains. You're linking to an Ahmaddi Muslim website, which is not the same as the four main Sunni schools of thought.

except the Ahmadi view aligns itself to 99% of the old school Hanafi view. if you see the intricate details of rules of the road. they align themselves with hanafi view. the other 1% is what Ahmadi view portrays as needed to counter modern arguments against Islam

 

[Azih]

except the Ahmadi view aligns itself to 99% of the old school Hanafi view. if you see the intricate details of rules of the road. they align themselves with hanafi view. the other 1% is what Ahmadi view portrays as needed to counter modern arguments against Islam

I'm not Hanafi so I really don't care too much but it would be interesting to see why the old school Hanfi view is no longer the 'new school' Hanafi view (Hell I don't know what you mean by new school vs old school). Also why the other three schools of thought consider apostasy to be a capital punishment. But it's off topic other than restating why being specific is necessary as, even here, there are differences between the four Sunni schools of thought.

 

[PeteZaTheHutt]

What's so crazy about that winged-horse when every Muslim believes that a giant, invisible 600-winged arch-angel narrated the revelation to Prophet Muhammad personally?

Oh, nothing crazy here. Nothing crazy at all. BTW, I noticed that you didn't reveal whether you personally believe these "true histories".

how does interpretation work again.

Ambiguously. And I've noticed that you seem to fall back on the Hadiths and modern scholarly interpretations an awful lot. This further proves my point regarding ambiguity and the inherent fallacies of the Bible/Quran. Perfect texts should not require interpretation. The Hadiths are subjective interpretations by fallible human beings, not the perfect word of God. Falling back on the Hadiths so frequently actually weakens the impact and credibility of the Quran. They are a crutch.

I also find it somewhat hypocritical how you tell us all to defer to the Hadiths and modern scholars and how they trump what is in the Quran when it comes to issues such as killing non-believers. But when confronted with what the Quran says about how to treat apostates, you vigorously point to how killing apostates is not in the Quran, yet you completely ignore what the Hadiths and modern scholars have to say on the issue. There is an awful lot of picking and choosing going on here.

Fantastic contributions dude. Very insightful and well researched.

One shouldn't have to research this stuff. You're making it overly complicated.

The video in the post just before yours fits so perfectly to this its hilarious. It´s sooo strange to even discuss this in this time and age.
It´s like sitting in a christmas play, adoring the strange hats and the cute story while everyone around you starts praying to Santa Claus. It´s so unreal.

"What's so crazy about that winged-horse when every Muslim believes that a giant, invisible 600-winged arch-angel narrated the revelation to Prophet Muhammad personally?"

 

[RustyNails]

Oh, nothing crazy here. Nothing crazy at all. BTW, I noticed that you didn't reveal whether you personally believe these "true histories".

Ambiguously. And I've noticed that you seem to fall back on the Hadiths and modern scholarly interpretations an awful lot. This further proves my point regarding ambiguity and the inherent fallacies of the Bible/Quran. Perfect texts should not require interpretation. The Hadiths are subjective interpretations by fallible human beings, not the perfect word of God. Falling back on the Hadiths so frequently actually weakens the impact and credibility of the Quran. They are a crutch.

I also find it somewhat hypocritical how you tell us all to defer to the Hadiths and modern scholars and how they trump what is in the Quran when it comes to issues such as killing non-believers. But when confronted with what the Quran says about how to treat apostates, you vigorously point to how killing apostates is not in the Quran, yet you completely ignore what the Hadiths and modern scholars have to say on the issue. There is an awful lot of picking and choosing going on here.

One shouldn't have to research this stuff. You're making it overly complicated.

"What's so crazy about that winged-horse when every Muslim believes that a giant, invisible 600-winged arch-angel narrated the revelation to Prophet Muhammad personally?"

I dont see a point to your reasoning...? Muslims, Christians and Jews also believe Red Sea parted and the Israelites were saved. What exactly is it that you don't understand? That Religion requires faith and suspension of disbelief?

 

[Chaplain]

They deserve everything that's coming to them." Once we want to hate something, we'll look for even flimsy justifications to turn them in to something "other" so that it's okay to hurt them.

This is exactly what happened in Romania (starting in 1944) when the Russian communist party took over the country. Anyone who was a Christian and taught anything contrary to communist ideology was taken to prison and tortured until they would deny Jesus. Here are two examples of this:

"A pastor by the name of Florescu was tortured with red-hot iron pokers and with knives. He was beaten very badly. Then starving rats were driven into his cell through a large pipe. He could not sleep because he had to defend himself all the time. If he rested a moment, the rats would attack him. He was forced to stand for two weeks, day and night. The Communists wished to compel him to betray his brethren, but he resisted steadfastly. Eventually, they brought his fourteen-year-old son to the prison and began to whip the boy in front of his father, saying that they would continue to beat him until the pastor said what they wished him to say. The poor man was half mad. He bore it as long as he could, then he cried to his son, "Alexander, I must say what they want! I can't bear your beating anymore!" The son answered, "Father, don't do me the injustice of having a traitor as a parent. Withstand! If they kill me, I will die with the words, ‘Jesus and my fatherland.'" The Communists, enraged, fell upon the child and beat him to death, with blood spattered over the walls of the cell. He died praising God. Our dear brother Florescu was never the same after seeing this." (Rev. Richard Wurmbrand)

"One of our workers in the Underground Church was a young girl. The Communist police discovered that she secretly spread Gospels and taught children about Christ. They decided to arrest her. But to make the arrest as agonizing and painful as they could, they decided to delay her arrest a few weeks, until the day she was to be married. On her wedding day, the girl was dressed as a bride-the most wonderful, joyous day in a girl's life! Suddenly, the door burst open and the secret police rushed in. When the bride saw the secret police, she held out her arms toward them to be handcuffed. They roughly put the manacles on her wrists. She looked toward her beloved, then kissed the chains and said, "I thank my heavenly Bridegroom for this jewel He has presented to me on my marriage day. I thank Him that I am worthy to suffer for Him." She was dragged off, with weeping Christians and a weeping bridegroom left behind. They knew what happens to young Christian girls in the hands of Communist guards. Her bridegroom faithfully waited for her. After five years she was released-a destroyed, broken woman, looking thirty years older. She said it was the least she could do for her Christ. Such beautiful Christians are in the Underground Church." (Rev. Richard Wurmbrand)

 

[Maninthemirror]

Oh, nothing crazy here. Nothing crazy at all. BTW, I noticed that you didn't reveal whether you personally believe these "true histories".

Ambiguously. And I've noticed that you seem to fall back on the Hadiths and modern scholarly interpretations an awful lot. This further proves my point regarding ambiguity and the inherent fallacies of the Bible/Quran. Perfect texts should not require interpretation. The Hadiths are subjective interpretations by fallible human beings, not the perfect word of God. Falling back on the Hadiths so frequently actually weakens the impact and credibility of the Quran. They are a crutch.

I also find it somewhat hypocritical how you tell us all to defer to the Hadiths and modern scholars and how they trump what is in the Quran when it comes to issues such as killing non-believers. But when confronted with what the Quran says about how to treat apostates, you vigorously point to how killing apostates is not in the Quran, yet you completely ignore what the Hadiths and modern scholars have to say on the issue. There is an awful lot of picking and choosing going on here.

One shouldn't have to research this stuff. You're making it overly complicated.

"What's so crazy about that winged-horse when every Muslim believes that a giant, invisible 600-winged arch-angel narrated the revelation to Prophet Muhammad personally?"

fall back on Hadith ? Do you even know what a Hadith is ? 99% of my citation are Quran , look at all my previous posts in this thread. What are you even on about

The hanafi quotes are not even Hadith they are Islamic books after the fact. Shows your knowledge base

Look at my previous posts in this thread and then come back and tally how many verses vs Hadith vs book citations I have used

I have used 27 Quranic verses vs 5 Hadith quotes vs 4 Other books quotes in this entire thread

Read what I wrote 2 pages ago

http://m.neogaf.com/showpost.php?p=175772529

At this point the question you ask yourself, If Quran is this clear about how to treat apostates, where is the criticism coming from. The extremists who defy Allah, by choosing to follow suspect hadith over the word of God are the ones who set the example incorrectly. Ask yourself the question looking at it logically, from a Muslim perspective, Quran is the word of God and authentic Ahadith are a collection of words and actions of the Holy Prophet (saw), which takes precedent? what do you think? The primary source of the incorrect tradition from Ahadith is explained here by Hadhrat Mirza Tahir Ahmad Khalifatul Masih IV in his book "Murder in the name of Allah":

http://www.alislam.org/library/books/mna/chapter_7.html

An Authentic ahadith is that which does not contradict the Quran especially considering that Ahadith were compiled 200-300 after the death of the Holy Prophet (saw)

Here is a Powerpoint of how to distinguish between Authentic Ahadeeth and those which might be suspect

http://www.alislam.org/holyprophet/A...of-Hadith.pptx

So the only question which remains is, were you referring to me when you said the above or do you want me to keep digging a deeper hole for your argument

 

[Kama_1082]

There is Nothing in the Quran that I disagree with. Not from all the study I have done on it. To me after years of studying it, it is still the perfect book of God. The point is, if you study the Quran, Most will find it to the best faith there is if you are willing to believe. It wont convince you to believe if you are not willing to believe, that is already part of Islamic teaching that you have to objectively and actively be reaching out to be open to the possibility and have the goodness in your heart before you are guided to Islam as it is. Anything else is just fruitless. It is already part of faith that if you are sinful person, nomatter how much you believe, you will end up being an ISIS member rather than a Good muslim. An ISIS convert is like a man who sees Heaven on the other side and his inner conviction is so full of hate while accepting that he jumps towards heaven but falls into hell not knowing the gap is huge between what he thinks he is becoming and what is his

Perfect book of God. Huh.

 

[Azih]

Perfect book of God. Huh.

I really don't know what benefit there is to anyone in sneering at someone's faith.

 

[RoadHazard]

I dont see a point to your reasoning...? Muslims, Christians and Jews also believe Red Sea parted and the Israelites were saved. What exactly is it that you don't understand? That Religion requires faith and suspension of disbelief?

Oh, I think everyone understands that. Without stunning levels of unwavering blind faith in something for which there is zero evidence whatsoever, a breathtaking ability to completely reject rational thinking and scientific evidence even as it's staring you right in the face, and an utterly bewildering acceptance of the hilariously arbitrary picking and choosing that goes into deciding which of all the contradictory texts are currently convenient to include in "true" Islam/Christianity/whatever, there's no way anyone could be a devout believer in any of this. There just isn't.

I really don't know what benefit there is to anyone in sneering at someone's faith.

Religious belief can, and should, be questioned and ridiculed. How else can we ever move away from it as a society? I mean, here in Sweden the general population has luckily already done that to a great degree, but people in many other areas of the world have sadly not yet been so fortunate.

 

[Morrigan Stark]

This further proves my point regarding ambiguity and the inherent fallacies of the Bible/Quran. Perfect texts should not require interpretation.

I will forever be amazed that people fail to grasp this. It's the most basic of logic.

One shouldn't have to research this stuff. You're making it overly complicated.

It's a way to deflect criticism. "Oh, you haven't researched it", "Oh, you aren't a scholar in theology therefore what you say don't count".

I dont see a point to your reasoning...? Muslims, Christians and Jews also believe Red Sea parted and the Israelites were saved. What exactly is it that you don't understand? That Religion requires faith and suspension of disbelief?

I'm certain Pete understands that just fine, but is simply saying that this is not a good thing.
Suspension of disbelief is fine when you're consuming fiction. When you're using that to base your system of morality and way of life, and you do so in absolute terms, you have a big problem.

I really don't know what benefit there is to anyone in sneering at someone's faith.

Benefit or not, faith is not inherently deserving of respect. Sorry if that upsets you, but there it is. Pretty much everyone here laughs at Scientologists, and Satanists and Jehovah's Witnesses are often considered fair game too. I'm sure many here also sneer at those who still believe in the Greek pantheon. Guess what? None of these faiths are inherently more or less worthy of respect than mainstream religions such as Islam or Christianity, and every single one of them is fair game for scrutiny and criticism. And that form of scrutiny or criticism often involves humour and yes, sometimes, ridicule and sneering. If you're so unwavering in your faith, it shouldn't really upset you, to be honest.

Now that's a far, far cry from saying "Islam must be destroyed!!". This isn't what is being argued except by one single idiot who got banned anyway. Ridiculing or criticizing a religion is not the same thing as attacking the people that follow it, nor denying them any rights.

 

[RustyNails]

Oh, I think everyone understands that. Without stunning levels of unwavering blind faith in something for which there is zero evidence whatsoever, a breathtaking ability to completely reject rational thinking and scientific evidence even as it's staring you right in the face, and an utterly bewildering acceptance of the hilariously arbitrary picking and choosing that goes into deciding which of all the contradictory texts are currently convenient to include in "true" Islam/Christianity/whatever, there's no way anyone could be a devout believer in any of this. There just isn't.

Right, so he was just exclaiming religion is dumb? I mean we have grappled with that question for 2 thousand years, you really dont need to regurgitate the age old arguments. I was confused why a person who laughs at the notion of God would be confused about a religious person believing in something less plausible than God, in his own terms?

 

[Nesotenso]

Right, so he was just exclaiming religion is dumb? I mean we have grappled with that question for 2 thousand years, you really dont need to regurgitate the age old arguments. I was confused why a person who laughs at the notion of God would be confused about a religious person believing in something less plausible than God, in his own terms?

because winged horses and heaven dude.

 

[Kama_1082]

I really don't know what benefit there is to anyone in sneering at someone's faith.

So any kind of questioning and/or doubt is considered "sneering"?

 

[tfur]

The religion, not the people. Its also not like making fun of something you are born with. It´s making fun of something you chose to have. Thats the very important distinction here. Faith might be shoved into a kids brain, as a functioning adult you choose to have it.
If you choose to believe in the tooth fairy, yes, deal with the public reception of your belief.
If you choose to believe a guy who raped and married a 9-year old is the ideal role model for all of humanity - then yes, deal with the public reception of your self chosen faith.
Which brings us back to the topic of this thread.

Mohammed married a 6 year old and had sex with (raped) her at 9.

So how is this rationalized away?

There have been news stories of ISIS groups following in Mohammed's footsteps, and having sex with little girls. http://www.ibtimes.com/isis-news-9-year-old-girl-pregnant-after-being-raped-islamic-state-group-militants-1877291 .

 

[Azih]

Religious belief can, and should, be questioned and ridiculed. How else can we ever move away from it as a society?

Ah. White Man's Burden to a T.

Hope you do some stretches after you get done showing some idiot muslims the light RoadHazard. That looks like hard fucking work.

The problem with the sneers here is that first, you mockers are no longer talking about ISIS and how to effectively fight them and end their influence but instead ending all faith. And secondly you guys are attacking the VERY PEOPLE WHO ARE FIGHTING ISIS both actually on the ground and from a ideological/theological standpoint. But hey if you want to get on your righteous high horse and jeer and throw your oh so rational peanuts then go ahead but know that conflating what ISIS believes with 'real Islam'/'how religion actually is' is EXACTLY WHAT ISIS THEMSELVES WANT.

Sorry if that upsets you, but there it is.

People from the West agreeing with ISIS and undercutting moderates upsets me quite a lot actually.

Now that's a far, far cry from saying "Islam must be destroyed!!". This isn't what is being argued except by one single idiot who got banned anyway.

RoadHazard up there wants to laugh and make fun of people until they see the light and stop being Muslim right above you.

Ridiculing or criticizing a religion is not the same thing as attacking the people that follow it, nor denying them any rights.

Ah right, "I don't hate you I just hate how you think and act and behave when you're being all Muslimy. If you just didn't act Muslim at all in any way or believe at all in any Islamic principles then you would be one of the good ones!"

So any kind of questioning and/or doubt is considered "sneering"?

Depends on how it's done. "Perfect book of God. Huh." qualifies.

 

[Kama_1082]

Depends on how it's done. "Perfect book of God. Huh." qualifies.

How dare I question perfection. I'll continue to accept everything about that book blindly and quietly.

 

[Morrigan Stark]

Ah. White Man's Burden to a T.

RoadHazard up there wants to laugh and make fun of people until they see the light and stop being Muslim right above you.

Ah right, "I don't hate you I just hate how you think and act and behave when you're being all Muslimy. If you just didn't act Muslim at all in any way or believe at all in any Islamic principles then you would be one of the good ones!"

Oh please, lay off the persecution complex. You're really not contributing to the conversation by painting critics of Islam the same as racists. Also, that's honestly far more offensive than people criticizing a religion.

The problem with the sneers here is that first, you mockers are no longer talking about ISIS and how to effectively fight them and end their influence but instead ending all faith. And secondly you guys are attacking the VERY PEOPLE WHO ARE FIGHTING ISIS both actually on the ground and from a ideological/theological standpoint. But hey if you want to get on your righteous high horse and jeer and throw your oh so rationl peanuts then go ahead but know that conflating what ISIS believes with 'real Islam'/religion is EXACTLY WHAT ISIS THEMSELVES WANT.

People from the West agreeing with ISIS and undercutting moderates upsets me quite a lot actually.

The hell are you talking about? I've linked to a moderate, progressive Muslim group repeatedly in this thread, saying we need more people like this. People have been saying Islam needs a reform. The conversation sort of moved away from ISIS itself (or "how to fight ISIS", anyway) and was more about Islam in general and how it can be used to justify both good deeds and atrocities (like any religion), and how it's myopic and dangerous to handwave ISIS as "No True Muslims (tm)". It has nothing to do with "attacking the people fighting ISIS", that's just bullshit.

Depends on how it's done. "Perfect book of God. Huh." qualifies.

Seems like a rather easy line to cross for something to be considered sneering.

 

[Kama_1082]

Playing the persecution card when questioned is a cheap cop out.

 

[Duji]

Depends on how it's done. "Perfect book of God. Huh." qualifies.

If that's all it takes to crack your armour, then these discussions aren't really for you.

I was confused why a person who laughs at the notion of God would be confused about a religious person believing in something less plausible than God, in his own terms?

When I used to believe in these miracles I would rationalize them in this way: Well, God is omnipotent... therefore God can do anything... therefore God can perform miracles. Duh.

Eventually I realized the sheer laziness in this argument that "something that can do anything did it" and how it's basically unfalsifiable, and can lead one to believe anything.

If the Red Sea was actually parted by Moses and the Israelites passed through, there should be some sort of proof. As it turns out, most historians reject the whole Exodus happening at all -- there were no Israelites in Egypt during that time.

 

[Maninthemirror]

seems like there is a basic lack of understanding what a Tafsir or interpretation is


the Quran is divided into 2 sets of verses

The first type is Muhkamat. Fundamental and Explicit

E.g. this verse:

[4:151] Surely, those who disbelieve in Allah and His Messengers and desire to make a distinction between Allah and His Messengers, and say, ‘We believe in some and disbelieve in others,’ and desire to take a way in between,
[4:152] These indeed are veritable disbelievers, and We have prepared for the disbelievers an humiliating punishment.


The second type is Muhtashabihat. Allegorical. Metaphorical.Symbolic With subtle meanings

Their true meaning(s) are only revealed to those with understanding of the Quran

People with an agenda within Islam and outside it do NOT follow the first type of verses and often ignore them and only follow the 2nd type because they can make their own meaning out of them.

Because the first type are clear and concise words of God, if you interpret the 2nd type of verses with subtle meaning and they go against any single of the clear verses, that interpretation is automatically false.

Now we have a system of identifying FALSE interpretation.

e.g. Quran is CLEAR that sex can only exist inside a marriage and it is clear Marriage cannot be forced on any individual

if you interpret a verse into saying Rape is allowed in Islam, that contradicts the clear verses and thus that interpretation is invalid nomatter how hard ISIS or their orientalist supporters in the west want to push it to be valid.

Due to expansive nature of explaining all aspects of humanity for all ages to come, Muhtashabihat are required for every age that has past and we are in and is to come and it is fortified by the 1st set of verses which solidify its true interpretation.

As we know Quran is a Holistic book and all its verses are interconnected with each other, we have to study it deeply which is why the Quran says

[47:22] Obedience and a kind word is better for them. And when the matter is determined upon, it is good for them if they were true to Allah.
[47:23] Would you then, if you are placed in authority, create disorder in the land and sever your ties of kinship?
[47:24] It is these whom Allah curses so that He makes them deaf and makes their eyes blind.
[47:25] Will they not, then, ponder over the Qur’an, or is it that on the hearts are their locks?
[47:27] That is because they said to those who hate what Allah has revealed, ‘We will obey you in some matters;’ and Allah knows their secrets.

 

[PeteZaTheHutt]

fall back on Hadith ? Do you even know what a Hadith is ? 99% of my citation are Quran , look at all my previous posts in this thread. What are you even on about

The hanafi quotes are not even Hadith they are Islamic books after the fact. Shows your knowledge base

Look at my previous posts in this thread and then come back and tally how many verses vs Hadith vs book citations I have used

I have used 27 Quranic verses vs 5 Hadith quotes vs 4 Other books quotes in this entire thread

Read what I wrote 2 pages ago

http://m.neogaf.com/showpost.php?p=175772529



So the only question which remains is, were you referring to me when you said the above or do you want me to keep digging a deeper hole for your argument

All of the above is moot when the book that you relentlessly quote to prove its own authenticity was imparted upon Muhammed via conversations with a giant 600-winged archangel (who is conveniently invisible of course). It's no different than quoting Harry Potter at this point.

I will forever be amazed that people fail to grasp this. It's the most basic of logic.

I guess some people are just content to bury their heads in the sand.

 

[Tinfoilhatsron]

First, a fundamentalist by definition is someone who follows the fundamentals of something, a constitutionalist is a fundamentalist to the constitution but not an extremist, its often an oxymoron



secondly such illiiterate statements are abundant when faith is viewed with a prism of hate.

I have already written on this and you are ignored this before:

Critics and Extremists say Islam says women should be forced into doing Hijab and dress modestly and they often cite the following verse:
““Tell thy wives and thy daughters and the women of the believers to draw their cloaks close round them...””
— Al-Ahzab 60
If you notice, this is the typical behavior from such critics and extremists when you look at entire verse:
“O Prophet! tell thy wives and thy daughters and the women of the believers that they should draw close to them portions of their loose outer coverings. That is nearer that they may thus be distinguished and not molested. And Allah is Most Forgiving, Merciful.”
— Al-Ahzab 60
Thus it is a suggestion, not a command that women should dress modesty so as to not be looked at like objects of desire especially from men like to take advantage of women and hurt them sexually.

The next verse critics and extremists cite is
“And say to the believing women that they restrain their eyes and guard their private parts, and that they disclose not their natural and artificial beauty except that which is apparent thereof, and that they draw their head-coverings over their bosoms, and that they disclose not their beauty save to their husbands, or to their fathers, or the fathers of their husbands or their sons or the sons of their husbands or their brothers, or the sons of their brothers, or the sons of their sisters, or their women, or what their right hands possess, or such of male attendants as have no sexual appetite, or young children who have no knowledge of the hidden parts of women. And they strike not their feet so that what they hide of their ornaments may become known. And turn ye to Allah all together, O believers, that you may succeed.”
— Surah Al-Nur 32
This is a suggestion to women again that they may dress modestly which again is to not make men look at women like sexual objects. If anything this verse gives women a higher status than these critics who want women to be seen as sexual objects for their own desires. This verse gives women a higher level of respect than critics of moderate dressing can ever think of giving women. If you look at it objectively, this verse would be something that every women's rights group can support due to Islam's suggestions to treat women as equal in spiritually not as an object of desire.

The critics of Islam then say women are asked to restrain their eyes as if women are exclusively asked to dress modestly and restrain their eyes. This is the answer from God:
“Say to the believing men that they restrain their eyes and guard their private parts. That is purer for them. Surely, Allah is well aware of what they do.”
— Surah Al-Nur 31
This is just one verse before the verse critics cite. One has to wonder if this push to try and show women are held inferior is actual criticism or has malicious intent or are such critics and extremists so aloof that they cannot read the whole Quran before criticizing it?

Critics and extremists suggest women are only worth half a witness as compared to men and they cite verse 2:283. lets look at the verse:
“O ye who believe! when you borrow one from another for a fixed period, then write it down. And let a scribe write it in your presence faithfully; and no scribe should refuse to write, because Allah has taught him, so let him write and let him who incurs the liability dictate; and he should fear Allah, his Lord, and not diminish anything therefrom. But if the person incurring the liability be of low understanding or be weak or be unable himself to dictate, then let someone who can watch his interest dictate with justice. And call two witnesses from among your men; and if two men be not available, then a man and two women, of such as you like as witnesses, so that if either of two women should err in memory, then one may remind the other. And the witnesses should not refuse when they are called. And do not feel weary of writing it down, whether it be small or large, along with its appointed time of payment. This is more equitable in the sight of Allah and makes testimony surer and is more likely to keep you away from doubts; therefore omit not to write except that it be ready merchandise which you give or take from hand to hand, in which case it shall be no sin for you that you write it not. And have witnesses when you sell one to another; and let no harm be done to the scribe or the witness. And if you do that, then certainly it shall be disobedience on your part. And fear Allah. And Allah grants you knowledge and Allah knows all things well.”
— Surah Al-Baqarah 283
The part
“ ...And call two witnesses from among your men; and if two men be not available, then a man and two women, of such as you like as witnesses, so that if either of two women should err in memory, then one may remind the other. ....”
Is cited as saying Islam views women as half a witness. The question needs to be asked to these critics and extremists, What would happen if the first women does not err in memory? They will be dumbfounded and found out because of the hatred within their hearts they have stopped thinking rationally and logically. If a woman does not err in memory then the testimony of the 2nd woman is not even needed which then results in both and man and woman being equal in measures of testimony in court and being witnesses.

The question is raised why is the 2nd woman needed in the first place and the answer is to look at your own society, Since time immemorial business has been conducted mostly by men and it is still, in the most liberal of societies been conducted mostly by men. This verse suggests that in such a case where men are predominantly the businessmen and the business decision makers, they would know the intricate dealings of finances more than a woman would in such a case which is why the err in memory is suggested considering women deal with business less than men. its a suggestion which fits into a similar situation of a business which is predominantly women, would you have more women witnesses in the business or men? Its common sense.


Here is what the Quran actually says about equality between Man and a Woman

“Surely, men who submit themselves to God and women who submit themselves to Him, and believing men and believing women, and obedient men and obedient women and truthful men and truthful women, and men steadfast in their faith and steadfast women, and men who are humble and women who are humble, and men who give alms and women who give alms, and men who fast and women who fast, and men who guard their chastity and women who guard their chastity, and men who remember Allah much and women who remember Him — Allah has prepared for all of them forgiveness and a great reward.”
— Surah Al-Ahzab 36
“O ye people! fear your Lord, Who created you from a single soul and created therefrom its mate, and from them twain spread many men and women; and fear Allah, in Whose name you appeal to one another, and fear Him particularly respecting ties of relationship. Verily, Allah watches over you.”
— Surah Al-Nisa 2
“So their Lord answered their prayers, saying, ‘I will allow not the work of any worker from among you, whether male or female, to be lost. You are from one another. Those, therefore, who have emigrated, and have been driven out from their homes, and have been persecuted in My cause, and have fought and been killed, I will surely remove from them their evils and will cause them to enter Gardens through which streams flow — a reward from Allah, and with Allah is the best of rewards.’”
— Surah Aal-e-`Imran 196
“O mankind, We have created you from a male and a female; and We have made you into tribes and sub-tribes that you may recognize one another. Verily, the most honourable among you, in the sight of Allah, is he who is the most righteous among you. Surely, Allah is All-knowing, All-Aware.”
— Surah Al-Hujurat 14


See the Quran views Men and Women through their souls not their bodies. Gender is a thing for this life whereas God views and wants Man to view the afterlife as infinitely more important that this life, God only loves the soul of the man and women and they are equal in the eyes of God because God sees whats equally good within humans not outside them

Honestly doesn't sound like friendly advice for me, more like a command. Any woman not complying with this will be at best ridiculed and outed as an outcast.

The point of modern society is to move pass the "women must dress modestly" and just let them choose. Maybe in society the men should not be creepin on them?

Ah, the "men have to do it too" line is kinda werid. Men only have to avert their eyes and cover their privates. Sounds like a better deal to me. Unless there is a passage saying men need to pull a cloak around themselves.

According to this, the women have to hide their "beauty" and save it for their relatives and spouses only. Sounds kinda conservative to me.

So society itself is pretty sexist nothing to comment about there. It's fair in a way, but it's still patronizing that there has to be no men, then two women can testify even if one of those could be a business owner.

I don't know enough to comment on that last point.


Any response is welcome.

 

[Morrigan Stark]

I skim over all those scriptures-flooded posts because tl;dr, but now that I actually read a bit of it, it's pretty amusing to see someone defend the "women should dress modestly" stuff:

Thus it is a suggestion, not a command that women should dress modesty so as to not be looked at like objects of desire especially from men like to take advantage of women and hurt them sexually.

In other words, placing the burden on women not to be raped. Yeah, no thanks.

The part trying to justify women being half the witness of a man is even more hilarious, though. Like, holy shit. "Common sense!". lmao

 

[AlucardGV]

e.g. Quran is CLEAR that sex can only exist inside a marriage and it is clear Marriage cannot be forced on any individual

well google give me this

In May 629, the Muslims defeated several Jewish tribes (including the Banu Nadir) at the Battle of Khaybar. The Jews had surrendered, and were allowed to remain in Khaybar on the provision that they give half of their annual produce to the Muslims. The land itself became the property of the Muslim state.[6] This agreement, Stillman says, did not extend to the Banu Nadir tribe, who were given no quarter.[7] Safiyya's husband, Kenana ibn al-Rabi, was also killed.[8]

According to Muhammad al-Bukhari, Muhammad stayed for three days between Khaybar and Medina, where he consummated his marriage to Safiyya. His companions wondered if she was to be considered a captive (Arabic: ma malakat aymanukum&#8206 or a wife. The former speculated that they would consider Safiyya as Muhammad's wife, and thus "Mothers of the Believers", if Muhammad ordered her to veil herself, else she would be his servant-girl.[10]

Muhammad suggested that Safiyya convert to Islam, and she agreed, thus she become Muhammad's wife

i like the use of word "suggested"

actually, you said "if you read the quran you'll find that islam is ther best religion", how shoud i think it when islam prophet was a warmonger? jesus at best got angry at the merchants in the temple, lots of people actually got killed by muhammad mens

 

[Lamel]

The funniest thing about this thread is that regular old peaceful and progressive Muslims like maninthemirror et al, people arguing for progressive Islam, are exactly the kind of people we want more of in the middle east. Instead however, they are mocked/insulted more and more as if that's solving anything. Like I said before, people will invoke no true scotsman all day to validate ISIS, but then claim that their's is the valid and true interpretation, no exceptions.

This is so true it's funny.

 

[Maninthemirror]

well google give me this



i like the use of word "suggested"

actually, you said "if you read the quran you'll find that islam is ther best religion", how shoud i think it when islam prophet was a warmonger? jesus at best got angry at the merchants in the temple, lots of people actually got killed by muhammad mens

There is a difference between a war monger a defensive war. War happened when treaties were broken and war was waged against Muslims and treason was done against Muslims


Instead of half hearted wiki links why not get the full story

Hazrat Safiyyah bint Huyayy’sra lineage can be traced back to the son of Jacobas, from the Levi tribe, and Aaronas, the brother of Mosesas.1 Safiyyahra belonged to the wealthy and influential household of a Jewish chief; her father, Huyayy bin Akhtab, was the chief of the Jewish tribe Banu Nadir. Her mother’s name was Barra bint Shamoeel.2 She personally owned around a hundred female slaves who had been appointed to serve in the house.3 Safiyyahra was known as Zainab before marriage. After entering the house of the Messenger of Allah, she became known as “Safiyyah.” The meaning of “Safiyyah” is “a pure, holy and clean person who is also a sincere friend.”4 Hazrat Safiyyahra was undoubtedly an embodiment of this, because after having accepted Islam her heart was purified and saturated with Divine love and the love of the Prophet Muhammadsa. Her first marriage was to a renowned Jewish-Arab poet, Sallam bin Mishkam al Qurzi.5 This marriage ended when Sallam divorced Safiyyahra. Her second marriage was to the Jewish chief and poet, Kinanah bin Abi Al Haqiq. This marriage took place close to the time of the besiegement of Khaibar, during which Kinanah was killed in the battle.6 There were no offspring from either marriage.

After the conquest of Khaibar, Safiyyahra was taken as a prisoner of war and handed over to Bilalra. As he escorted them past the dead Jewish bodies, Safiyyahra and another female prisoner became extremely distressed. When this came to the notice of the Holy Prophetsa, he expressed his anger and instructed that women captives should not have been escorted past the dead bodies of their own people, and should be protected from having to witness such distressing scenes.sa A companion, Dihya Al Kalbira, requested that the Holy Prophet7 allow him to have a slave-girl from the prisoners of war. The Prophetsa stated that he could choose any slave, upon which Dihyara chose Safiyyahra for himself. Albeit slavery connotes the harsh reality of the deprivation of rights after wars, this incident took place at a time when slavery was not only prevalent among the greatest civilisations; it was also the foundation and fabric of economies and societies. Islam was the first religion which paved the way for the gradual emancipation of slavery. No other scripture contains any teaching comparable to the Qur’an regarding slavery. At the time, the punishment for the subjugated party was that their female prisoners were turned into slaves with no rights. This led to many moral lapses. The Prophetsa never kept any slaves in this context however did not prevent His Companions from doing so, because the Prophetsa ultimately aimed to eliminate slavery gradually. This situation needs to be understood in the context of it being times of war which were fought in self-defence, after the enemies of Islam had perpetrated untold atrocities towards Muslims, committing horrific and barbaric crimes against them. It should also be borne in mind that in Islam, slaves commanded great respect in Muslim society for their faith and righteousness. Hazrat Bilalra, Hazrat Salmanra and Hazrat Saleemra, all highly respected companions of the Holy Prophetsa, were all freed slaves.8

Marriage with the Prophet Muhammadsa

The Holy Prophet Muhammadsa later learnt that there was a noblewoman from the Jewish clan among the prisoners of war. According to the customs of the time, if such a woman was treated with due respect and regard it could serve as a means to reducing the enmity brewing among the Jews. As Dihya Al Kalbira had already chosen her for himself, the Holy Prophetsa sought advice from his companions as to what ought to be done with this Jewish noblewoman. The companions suggested that if the Prophetsa were to marry Safiyyahra himself, this decision may attract the Jewish people towards Islam. The Holy Prophetsa decided to accept this suggestion, and with Safiyyah’sra consent and choice, the Holy Prophetsa brought her into the home. Although Safiyyahra was free to leave, she had observed the Holy Prophet’ssa impeccable character and had become greatly impressed by it. Since Dihya Al Kalbira had taken Safiyyahra into his custody with the permission of the Holy Prophetsa, the Holy Prophetsa gave him seven servants in exchange for her. He readily accepted this. The Holy Prophetsa had freed Safiyyahra from slavery, which was understood as a dowry9

In this sense, this marriage was necessitated by the requirements of the nation just as it was in the case of marrying Umme Habibahra, the daughter of the chief of Makkah Abu Sufyan; Juwairiyahra, the daughter of Haarith, the chief of Banu Mustaliq; and Mariah Qibtiyyahra, the Egyptian Coptic Christian. As per tradition, marriages were the age-old custom for building bridges between tribes. According to the Bible, it was with a similar motive, that Solomonas married the daughter of the Pharaoh of Egypt which resulted in Egypt not posing a threat to Israel.10 Seen from this context, the Prophet Muhammad’ssa marriage with Safiyyahra cannot be objected to as has been the case with some orientalists. Indeed it was a favour and mark of respect for the enemy, and thus an act of compassion and mercy.

Hazrat Maulana Hakeem Maulawi Nur-Ud-Din, Khalifatul Masih Ira, the first Successor to the Promised Messiahas, in response to a criticism made by William Muir with regards to the wedding of Hazrat Safiyyahra stated:

“Mr. Muir raised an objection. However little did he realise that in Arabia it was a custom to marry the daughter or wife of the chiefs in areas which had been conquered, in order for peace and order to be established and love nurtured for the influential people of its country. All subjects and the royal family would feel content that now there would be no threat. Therefore, after the conquest of Khaibar, all Jews wished to live there.”11

Before the wedding, the Holy Prophetsa entrusted Safiyyahra to the care of Umme-Sulaimra, a woman who belonged to a sincere Ansari household, so that when her menstrual period of waiting came to an end, she may prepare Safiyyahra for her marriage with the Prophet Muhammadsa.12 Upon returning from Khaibar, the Holy Prophetsa stopped at a place called Sadul Sahbaa’ and stayed there for three nights. It was here that Umme-Sulaimra prepared Safiyyahra, with her consent and happiness, for her marriage to the Holy Prophetsa.13 According to the customs of the time, the veiling of slave-women was not very strictly observed; whereas the standard of veiling observed by the wives of the Prophetsa was much stricter. As Safiyyahra was a prisoner of war, a separate Nikah (marriage announcement) was not required in order to include her in the harem. Thus, when the Holy Prophetsa asked Safiyyahra to wear the veil in the same way as his other wives did, this very action was considered to be sufficient as an announcement of Nikah.14

Walima [Marriage] Ceremony

The Holy Prophet’ssa companions enjoyed a degree of openness with him, which was a mark of their love and affection. Upon the occasion of marrying Hazrat Safiyyahra, a companion asked the Prophet Muhammadsa, “O Messenger of Allah! When will you invite us to the Walima?” The Holy Prophetsa replied, “A Walima is a [due] right and this will definitely take place.” The Holy Prophetsa then arranged for the Walima during their journey. The companions state that upon returning from the conquest of Khaibar, they stopped at a place called Saddul Sahbaa’a and after the marriage with Safiyyahra, the Holy Prophetsa arranged a Walima.15This was a simple but dignified function, despite it having occurred during a journey. The Holy Prophetsa said for the companions to collect whatever provisions they had. The Holy Prophetsa brought wheat and dates, carried in a loose robe. The food was laid out on a mat, and the Holy Prophetsa said to the companions, “Eat the food from your spiritual mother.”16 Hazrat Safiyyahra soaked some dates in a stone dish. In the morning, this nabeez (i.e., the sherbet of dates) was given to the guests to drink.17 According to some narrations, on his return to Madinah the Holy Prophetsa arranged for a second Walima after this party.18

Good Morals Win Over Safiyyahra

Many of Safiyyah’sra friends and family were killed during the battle of Khaibar, including her father and husband. Hazrat Safiyyahra spoke of the previous hatred she once had for the Holy Prophetsa. However, the kindness and affection that he showed her won her heart over. She states herself:

“When the Holy Prophetsa was about to depart for Khaibar and it was time for me to mount upon the camel, the Prophetsa first prepared the howdah and he folded the [cloak] that he was wearing and laid it down on the howdah where I was to sit so that it softened even more.”

In order for her to mount upon her camel, the Holy Prophetsa lowered his knee in front of her, and said, “Place your foot on this and mount upon the horse.”19 These small acts of kindness left an indelible mark upon Safiyyahra. She states:

“During a journey, an unlimited degree of affection was shown by the Holy Prophetsa towards me. At the time I was a young woman and many a time, after sitting in the howdah for a long time, I would be overcome by slumber and my head would hit against the wooden howdah. The Holy Prophetsa would support my head with much love and affection and make me go to sleep. He would say: ‘O daughter of Huyayy! Take care of yourself, lest in the state of sleep or slumber you get hurt.’”20

The Family of Safiyyah’sra Enmity for Islam

Winning over Safiyyah’sra affections was indeed a great triumph for the Holy Prophetsa. The Jews harboured a great enmity for the Muslims and this was especially so in Hazrat Safiyyah’sra household. In fact, Jewish scriptures prophesised a prophet appearing from the mountains of Faraan, in Arabia, through which they would be granted kingdom and conquest.21 Various Jewish tribes were in search of this prophet and came and settled in the orchard of Madinah. In the hope that the Prophet Muhammadsa was this promised Prophet, some started naming their children Muhammad. As many signs had come in support of the Holy Prophetsa, some of them accepted Islam. However, most of them rejected the Prophethood of Muhammedsa on the basis that he was not from among the progeny of Isaacas, son of Abrahamas and instead was from the progeny of the other son of Abrahamas, Ishmailas. The Jewish elders resolved to oppose the Prophet Muhammadsa. Safiyyah’sra father, Huyyay, was the leader of his tribe. Hazrat Safiyyahra narrated:

“My father and uncle loved me the most from among the children in the house. They would attend to me first, leaving the rest of the children aside. One day after the Prophetsa had migrated to Madinah and was staying in Quba, my father Huyyay bin Akhtab, and my uncle Abu Yasir bin Akhtab, went to Madinah early in the morning to learn a few things about him.

“In the evening, they returned crestfallen. They were walking back slowly. As was my habit, I ran towards them but on this day, they did not pay any attention to me. I thought that their hearts were weighed down by some sorrow; they seemed extremely weak. Then I heard Uncle Abu Yasir say to my father, ‘Brother, is he that (promised prophet)? My father replied, ‘Yes. By God! It is him!’ Uncle said, ‘Have you really recognised him through his signs that all the signs are fulfilled in him?’ He said, ‘Yes.’ My uncle asked, ‘Then what did you think about it?’ Father replied, ‘By God! Until our last breath, we must oppose Muhammad.’”22

This incident was clearly etched in her memory. While the Jewish family’s enmity for Islam is apparent, there is also an important lesson to be derived from this about the dangerousness of rejecting and opposing the one who is appointed by God. Such an act is synonymous to waging war against God and such prejudice and haste results in nothing but destruction and ruin. How clear was the verdict of the Holy Prophetsa concerning these prejudiced Jewish chiefs who stopped their people from accepting the truth! He said, “If ten Jewish (chiefs) believed in me, then all the Jews would have believed.”23 However, the Jews who had transgressed caused their people to drown as well as themselves. This incident certainly is a means of admonishment for today’s world. The other testimony regarding her family’s enmity for Islam is as follows:

“Right above my eye,” Hazrat Safiyyahra narrated, “There was a very deep yellow- or green-coloured mark. The Holy Prophetsa noticed it and asked, ‘What happened to you?’ I related the whole incident to him:

“When the Holy Prophetsa had besieged Khaibar, I saw in a dream that the moon of the fourteenth night fell into my lap. When I related the dream to my husband, he slapped me and asked, ‘Do you wish to marry the king of Yathrib [Madinah was called Yathrib before the advent of Islam]?’”24

In another narration it is mentioned that Safiyyahra related the same dream to her father. However, in this version, the sun is mentioned as having fallen onto her chest. Her father became angry and admonished her, “Do you desire the king who has come and besieged us?”25

It is possible that Safiyyara related the dream to both her husband and father in these narrations. In any case, Hazrat Safiyyahra witnessed the fulfilment of this dream during the besiegement at Khaibar and the incidents that transpired later, proving that the Holy Prophetsa was in fact the “moon of the fourteenth night” and “the sun” as the king of Madinah. The flames of revenge must have been raging in the hearts of those Jews who had been conquered in Khaibar. Zainab, the sister of the chief of Khaibar and Marhab, and the wife of Sallaam bin Mishkam, invited the Holy Prophetsa for dinner after the conquest of Khaibar, and mixed poison into the goat meat that she served him with. A companion of the Prophetsa, Hazrat Bishrra, ate some of the meat and died. The Prophetsa himself, up until his demise, experienced discomfort in his throat as a result of the poison. The Holy Prophetsa asked Zainab why she had committed this treachery to which she replied, “I thought that if you were really a prophet, you would be saved from the effects of the poison and if you were not a prophet, then we would be saved from you [forever].” In spite of this the Holy Prophetsa forgave her.

- See more at: http://reviewofreligions.org/9733/t...oly-prophetsa-hazrat-safiyyahra-part-1/#.dpuf

All of the above is moot when the book that you relentlessly quote to prove its own authenticity was imparted upon Muhammed via conversations with a giant 600-winged archangel (who is conveniently invisible of course). It's no different than quoting Harry Potter at this point.

I guess some people are just content to bury their heads in the sand.

How is it irrelevant, first your misinformation that I am qouting Hadith and when I set the pants on fire you go back and attack Quran which you said I wasn't qouting enough. What's going on?

You can keep on hating doesn't change a thing, your view of what Islam is which is a carbon copy of Isis's view of Islam is going to end to the point where it was before 'nearly non existent' and you cannot stop moderate Islam from spreading and invalidating it

Honestly doesn't sound like friendly advice for me, more like a command. Any woman not complying with this will be at best ridiculed and outed as an outcast.

The point of modern society is to move pass the "women must dress modestly" and just let them choose. Maybe in society the men should not be creepin on them?

Ah, the "men have to do it too" line is kinda werid. Men only have to avert their eyes and cover their privates. Sounds like a better deal to me. Unless there is a passage saying men need to pull a cloak around themselves.

According to this, the women have to hide their "beauty" and save it for their relatives and spouses only. Sounds kinda conservative to me.

So society itself is pretty sexist nothing to comment about there. It's fair in a way, but it's still patronizing that there has to be no men, then two women can testify even if one of those could be a business owner.

I don't know enough to comment on that last point.


Any response is welcome.

Except Muslims are not told to ridicule women in the Quran itself. The Quran repeatedly says, Muslims are only to spread the word of God and that's it, the reckoning for anyone be it good or bad is with God. Quran does instruct men to stop seeing women as sexual objects if that is not quoted enough it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Men covering their privates is what dressing in moderation is as well. Women are said to have much more accesses to beauty than men which can catch the attention of men. Islam suggestions men and women don't experiment to find a partner and find out by prayer and common sense instead and stay with one. Beauty in the Quran is the physical beauty and if that is conservative to you then that's fine not everyone has to showcase their body in a showcase of liberalism, you can be moderate without it too.

Oh the old tale of women as half witnesses... Facepalm


Critics and extremists suggest women are only worth half a witness as compared to men and they cite verse 2:283. lets look at the verse:

“O ye who believe! when you borrow one from another for a fixed period, then write it down. And let a scribe write it in your presence faithfully; and no scribe should refuse to write, because Allah has taught him, so let him write and let him who incurs the liability dictate; and he should fear Allah, his Lord, and not diminish anything therefrom. But if the person incurring the liability be of low understanding or be weak or be unable himself to dictate, then let someone who can watch his interest dictate with justice. And call two witnesses from among your men; and if two men be not available, then a man and two women, of such as you like as witnesses, so that if either of two women should err in memory, then one may remind the other. And the witnesses should not refuse when they are called. And do not feel weary of writing it down, whether it be small or large, along with its appointed time of payment. This is more equitable in the sight of Allah and makes testimony surer and is more likely to keep you away from doubts; therefore omit not to write except that it be ready merchandise which you give or take from hand to hand, in which case it shall be no sin for you that you write it not. And have witnesses when you sell one to another; and let no harm be done to the scribe or the witness. And if you do that, then certainly it shall be disobedience on your part. And fear Allah. And Allah grants you knowledge and Allah knows all things well.”
— Surah Al-Baqarah 283
The part

“ ...And call two witnesses from among your men; and if two men be not available, then a man and two women, of such as you like as witnesses, so that if either of two women should err in memory, then one may remind the other. ....”

Is cited as saying Islam views women as half a witness. The question needs to be asked to these critics and extremists, What would happen if the first women does not err in memory? They will be dumbfounded and found out because of the hatred within their hearts they have stopped thinking rationally and logically. If a woman does not err in memory then the help of the 2nd woman is not even needed which then results in both and man and woman being equal in measures of testimony in court and being witnesses.
The question is raised why is the 2nd woman needed in the first place and the answer is to look at your own society, Since time immemorial business has been conducted mostly by men and it is still, in the most liberal of societies been conducted mostly by men. This verse suggests that in such a case where men are predominantly the businessmen and the business decision makers, they would know the intricate dealings of finances more than a woman would in such a case which is why the err in memory is suggested considering women deal with business less than men in most cases and Islam suggests this is likely the case especially in the 7th century to even now in the 21st century. its a suggestion which fits into a similar situation of a business which is predominantly women, would you have more women witnesses in the business or men? Its common sense.

So women are not considered half a witness, Islam just wants business dealings to be the most accurate even if you have a witness who is not involved in the business on that level. If and when a case arises, then as Quran suggests in many other verses, use common sense.

So to reiterate: Islam does not say 2 both women should testify, the role of the second woman is clearly stated as an assistant IF needed, If the 2nd witness sees something amiss by the first woman, she advises the first woman on something amiss, a 2nd set of eyes on a matter they are less a part of in most cases, it is entirely up to the first woman to accept the 2nd woman's suggestion because that first woman's testimony remains her own, no one elses and not 2 women. The verse proves the 2nd woman is not someone who gives testimony but someone who serves as a reminder to the first woman in these cases.

So where does this medievalist stance that Islam says women are half a witness to men come from? It comes from people not even reading the verse, not understanding, not thinking with rational thoughts and not applying a simple case of logic. If such critics actually READ and understood these verses, half of their issues with islam regarding specific verses would be removed immediately and we would end up having constructive discussion on disagreements.

 

[ElFly]

How is it not a formal system when it has set of beliefs, rules, laws, codex, etc? It is a belief system. It's not science, if that's what you mean but just because it's not science does not mean everything is valid.

A set of rules, laws and codex that sometimes allow for, say, slavery, and sometimes do not. Depending on interpretation, historical context, economic pressures blah blah blah.

If its formalism was true, there'd be a single unified islam, because the scholars would just discuss, follow a formal reasoning and eventually agree. But this is not what we see. Diverging interpretations of islam coexist in the world and have done so for centuries. If ISIS's one doesn't last for long it won't be due to its "erroneous reasoning", but because other countries just crush it.

 

[Maninthemirror]

A set of rules, laws and codex that sometimes allow for, say, slavery, and sometimes do not. Depending on interpretation, historical context, economic pressures blah blah blah.

If its formalism was true, there'd be a single unified islam, because the scholars would just discuss, follow a formal reasoning and eventually agree. But this is not what we see. Diverging interpretations of islam coexist in the world and have done so for centuries. If ISIS's one doesn't last for long it won't be due to its "erroneous reasoning", but because other countries just crush it.

All things considered would you have the moderate interpretation which doesn't contradict all verses or the extremist interpretation which contradicts certain verses

Common sense says you would give the focus to moderate view and not give validity to the extremist view. If people try and attempt to validate the hypocritical extremist view they are enablers of that view , plain and simple. No one here validates view of racists in america as how America should be run so why should anyone validate view of extremists in a religion especially if text contradicts the extremists

 

[RustyNails]

A set of rules, laws and codex that sometimes allow for, say, slavery, and sometimes do not. Depending on interpretation, historical context, economic pressures blah blah blah.

If its formalism was true, there'd be a single unified islam, because the scholars would just discuss, follow a formal reasoning and eventually agree. But this is not what we see. Diverging interpretations of islam coexist in the world and have done so for centuries. If ISIS's one doesn't last for long it won't be due to its "erroneous reasoning", but because other countries just crush it.

Something like this then:

 

[Azih]

Oh please, lay off the persecution complex.

Considering the kind of shit that's thrown towards Muslims in this very thread and how often Muslims of any kind are lumped together with ISIS and how much of what's being said in this thread would fit right in in a freaking Farmersville town hall meeting I'm pretty secure in my conviction that it is not a complex.

Also, that's honestly far more offensive than people criticizing a religion.

Huh. RoadHazard wanting to mock my faith out of existence is LESS offensive than me calling him out on that arrogant stance? By what standard?

The hell are you talking about? I've linked to a moderate, progressive Muslim group repeatedly in this thread, saying we need more people like this.

And yet when you're speaking to those kinds of muslims on this very thread it's all back to "It's just fine to mock your faith until we get it through your thick head that your faith is shit". This is some "We should fuck them until they love us" kind of Mike Tyson logic. There's a whole hell of a lot of difference between critique through constructive dialog and mockery.

It has nothing to do with "attacking the people fighting ISIS", that's just bullshit.

No? ManIntheMirror explains his interpretation of Islam and a whole hell of a lot of people, instead of doing the obvious and maybe asking 'Huh, how do we get that through to the people that ISIS recruit', instead pile on him with "LOL MUHAMMAD WOULD LOVE ISIS AND WOULD BE RAPER IN CHIEF YOU STUPID THEIST!" (slightly paraphrased) and you're really arguing that he isn't being undercut? That moderate Muslims like the ones you so nicely linked to don't have to spend most of their energy explaining that "We're muslim but we're really not like ISIS honest!" to people like yourself and AlucardGV and RoadHazard and Interceptor instead of focusing on ISIS and ISIS supporters?

Edit:

If that's all it takes to crack your armour, then these discussions aren't really for you.

It's hardly cracked armour to point out that that was a flippant and dismissive one liner retort (AKA sneer) or to point out that that kind of self satisfied scoff undercut a moderate muslim and the only group that benefits from that is extremists who WANT moderates to be dismissed and jeered at.

 

[PeteZaTheHutt]

How is it irrelevant, first your misinformation that I am qouting Hadith and when I set the pants on fire you go back and attack Quran which you said I wasn't qouting enough. What's going on?

Come on now. No need to be obtuse. One text was written by a guy who wrote down what a 600-winged invisible archangel told him to and the other collection of texts supposedly recounts what this same guy said (yes, the guy who "saw" an invisible 600-winged archangel). Based solely upon the claim of the 600-winged invisible archangel alone, most reasonable people would rightly dismiss whatever subsequently came out of this guy's mouth. And the 600-winged invisible archangel is just the tip of the iceberg.

You can keep on hating doesn't change a thing, your view of what Islam is which is a carbon copy of Isis's view of Islam is going to end to the point where it was before 'nearly non existent' and you cannot stop moderate Islam from spreading and invalidating it

There is no hate from me. There is plenty of befuddlement, disbelief and even some sadness and worry that there is a significant portion of the world's population that wants to not only impede scientific progress, but actually wants to step back to a more barbaric time in our history.

Regarding my view of Islam being a carbon copy of ISIS's view, all I can say is that you are wrong. My view of ALL of the subsects of Islam, of which there are many (you know, interpretations and all that), is that they are based upon the manipulative rantings of an opportunistic warlord who saw 600-winged invisible archangels. Coincidentally, this view is the exact same view that I hold of ALL religions where the supernatural is invoked.

Once magic enters the picture, that's all she wrote. Magic is make-believe. Magic is not real. You can argue all you want about what Islam is about, what morals Islam teaches and what the Quran says about this or that. At the end of the day, it's all based upon what a guy said a 600-winged invisible archangel told him to write down. Don't be surprised and feign indignation when some people here don't take your views seriously, considering that they are the views of a 600-winged-invisble-archangel-seeing warlord.

 

[RustyNails]

Come on now. No need to be obtuse. One text was written by a guy who wrote down what a 600-winged invisible archangel told him to and the other collection of texts supposedly recounts what this same guy said (yes, the guy who "saw" an invisible 600-winged archangel). Based solely upon the claim of the 600-winged invisible archangel alone, most reasonable people would rightly dismiss whatever subsequently came out of this guy's mouth. And the 600-winged invisible archangel is just the tip of the iceberg.

There is no hate from me. There is plenty of befuddlement, disbelief and even some sadness and worry that there is a significant portion of the world's population that wants to not only impede scientific progress, but actually wants to step back to a more barbaric time in our history.

Your views are warped. You are at a point in time where the Islamic world is in a turmoil and feeling the effects of various factors. It's easy to point and say the Islam is impeding scientific progress, but you will be proven wrong especially when it comes to scientific advancements and discoveries in the past.

Secondly, if you dismiss the hadiths that easily, you're gonna end up with an egg on your face.

Thirdly, you sound like a highly immature person who just found out about all the angels, demons, heavens, winged horses and all the fantastical stuff in religion. Is your angle just to point to these images and laugh? If so, magnificent contribution.

 

[PeteZaTheHutt]

Your views are warped. You are at a point in time where the Islamic world is in a turmoil and feeling the effects of various factors. It's easy to point and say the Islam is impeding scientific progress, but you will be proven wrong especially when it comes to scientific advancements and discoveries in the past.

Except we're talking about the present. Islam has fallen far and it has fallen hard. There is no disputing that.

Secondly, if you dismiss the hadiths that easily, you're gonna end up with an egg on your face.

Since I don't base my life upon the rantings of a 600-winged-invisible-archangel-seeing ancient warlord, I'm pretty sure that I'll be okay.

Thirdly, you sound like a highly immature person who just found out about all the angels, demons, heavens, winged horses and all the fantastical stuff in religion. Is your angle just to point to these images and laugh? If so, magnificent contribution.

No need for personal attacks. Please keep it civil. I've known about the magic for quite a while. And regarding all the angels, demons, heavens, winged horses and all the fantastical stuff in religion, more people need to "find out" about that stuff. And it's not my angle just to point to these images and laugh. It's my angle to show people the futility of analyzing, interpreting and debating scripture written by a guy who transcribed it from a giant 600-winged invisible archangel. Muhammed was a real guy, but everything else beyond that fact is a magical fairy tale. The guy saw a giant 600-winged invisible archangel and you are taking him seriously. And you don't see this?

 

[RustyNails]

Except we're talking about the present. Islam has fallen far and it has fallen hard. There is no disputing that.

You're being selective in your reasoning then, showing a clear bias (shocking news). If you want to put Islam on blast for impeding scientific progress, you're selectively choosing the examples that suit you.

Since I don't base my life upon the rantings of a 600-winged-invisible-archangel-seeing ancient warlord, I'm pretty sure that I'll be okay.

Way to deflect my question.

That is just the beginning of study of Hadiths.. Maybe watch this lecture on the introduction to Hadiths?

No need for personal attacks. Please keep it civil. I've known about the magic for quite a while. And regarding all the angels, demons, heavens, winged horses and all the fantastical stuff in religion, more people need to "find out" about that stuff. And it's not my angle just to point to these images and laugh. It's my angle to show people the futility of analyzing, interpreting and debating scripture written by a guy who transcribed it from a giant 600-winged invisible archangel. Muhammed was a real guy, but everything else beyond that fact is a magical fairy tale. The guy saw a giant 600-winged invisible archangel and you are taking him seriously. And you don't see this?

"Keep it civil" is mighty freaking amusing coming from a guy who since the start of his contribution treating religion with derision and mocking the faith and beliefs of people. Keep it civil? The irony. People know about all of the stuff in every major religion. It's just a fucking wikipedia link away! These are not secret scientology cults. I am not saying anything new here mate. The whole point about the fantastical stuff about demons, angels and other funky business to you is called faith. I don't mean to talk-down or patronize, but that's all it really is.

 

[PeteZaTheHutt]

You're being selective in your reasoning then, showing a clear bias (shocking news). If you want to put Islam on blast for impeding scientific progress, you're selectively choosing the examples that suit you.

I really don't care either way. It ultimately doesn't matter what you or I think about this particular point. It doesn't take a genius to see that the rest of the civilized world is moving on while the Islamic world is fighting among itself and languishing in the past. This is what happens when the Islamic world is based upon the "teachings" of a giant-600-winged-invisible-word-of-god-imparting-archangel-seeing warlord. Magic is not real.

Way to deflect my question.

There was no question to deflect. Not sure where the feigned indignation is coming from either.

"Keep it civil" is mighty freaking amusing coming from a guy who since the start of his contribution treating religion with derision and mocking the faith and beliefs of people. Keep it civil? The irony. People know about all of the stuff in every major religion. It's just a fucking wikipedia link away! These are not secret scientology cults. I am not saying anything new here mate. The whole point about the fantastical stuff about demons, angels and other funky business to you is called faith. I don't mean to talk-down or patronize, but that's all it really is.

Seriously, please calm down and keep it civil. No need for the feigned indignation. Islam is based upon the rantings of a giant-600-winged-invisible-word-of-god-imparting-archangel-seeing warlord. Not once have you actually disputed this, instead choosing to feign indignation and throw around ad hominen attacks. Do you dispute that Islam is based upon magic? Yes or no?

And you mentioned Scientology cults. How hypocritical is it of you to treat Scientologists with "derision and mocking the faith and beliefs of" Scientologists? Nuking volcanoes and thetans entering our bodies versus giant 600-winged invisible word-of-god-imparting archangels. Do you actually see a difference? Now who's being selective in their reasoning? It's all magic in the end.

And "People know about all of the stuff in every major religion. It's just a fucking wikipedia link away!" It's also just a coherent logical thought away. And I'd trust wikipedia before I'd trust the "teachings" of a giant-600-winged-invisible-word-of-god-imparting-archangel-seeing-opportunistic warlord.

 

[m_shortpants]

I really don't care either way. It ultimately doesn't matter what you or I think about this particular point. It doesn't take a genius to see that the rest of the civilized world is moving on while the Islamic world is fighting among itself and languishing in the past. This is what happens when the Islamic world is based upon the "teachings" of a giant-600-winged-invisible-word-of-god-imparting-archangel-seeing warlord. Magic is not real.

Please. Stating that the middle east is the way it is exclusively because of Islam is very ignorant.

 

[PeteZaTheHutt]

Please. Stating that the middle east is the way it is exclusively because of Islam is very ignorant.

I never actually said this, but please continue to make things up if it helps your argument.

 

[PeteZaTheHutt]

I've also noticed how everyone is carefully avoiding the magic issue. A giant 600-winged invisible word-of-god-imparting archangel? The only response is feigned indignity, ad hominen attacks and walls of scripture (said walls of scripture being transcribed from the aforementioned giant 600-winged invisible word-of-god-imparting fire-and-brimstone archangel). It's like they are embarrassed. Those walls of scripture mean NOTHING when they are revealed to be the rantings of a giant-600-winged-invisible-word-of-god-imparting-archangel-seeing opportunistic warlord. Magic is make-believe.

 

[Duji]

Please. Stating that the middle east is the way it is exclusively because of Islam is very ignorant.

It's definitely not the only issue, but it's a big one.

There's so much hatred in the ME because of sectarianism. Sunnis/Shias/Alawites/ISIS, etc. Everyone hates each other because of the arbitrary/imaginary borders that are lined out by religion. No one there can agree on the correct form of "Islam" and it's led to catastrophic consequences. It's nothing new either; Islam has been in conflict with itself since the death of Muhammad 1400 years ago.

I really see no end to the sectarian conflict so long as people maintain the convictions they have in their beliefs and so long as they have the power to carry out those convictions. And sadly it doesn't take much to rig a car with bombs and drive it into a Shia mosque.