AtlasS33 Wrote:

Edwardo Piet Wrote:Atlas... you're sounding like a Truther.....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11_Truth_movement

In other words you're a conspiracy theorist.

The point is that Islamic extremists hijacked an American plane and flew it into a building and they claimed on multiple occasions that they were driven by their beliefs. They died for their beliefs.

My post wasn't speaking about "who is really responsible for 9/11 ? "
It was speaking about "the origins of the attackers".

You said that you hate Muslims because of 9/11, I replied to you with that "people who did the attacks" were trained and armed by the U.S in the first place; in other words "The White House reaped what it sowed", and you didn't know that because you were "too drunk on propaganda".

In other words; read real history.

You have a point about reaping what we sow, but the hijackers were grown-ups with full agency who chose to use their training to attack the USA. In other words, who trained someone does not excuse them from responsibility for their actions.

(May 29, 2018 at 1:16 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote:

MysticKnight Wrote:If there is any contradictions in Quran, I will stop believing in it.

No, you'll just find an ad hoc explanation for any apparent contradictions.

If there is a good explanation as to why it's not a contradiction, then, I would accept that explanation.

I don't know how an ad hoc explanation is possible in an explanation - I would look up what ad hoc fallacy is and see if it can even apply here.

I've seen people use ad hoc fallacy, I just don't think it's applicable in this situation as even possible.

It would either be a good explanation or not. If it's not a good explanation and against all norms of language, I would refuse to believe in it.

Catholic_Lady Wrote:I understand that, and like I said, I have no problem with Islam that is practiced peacefully. But regardless of what the Quran does or does not say, it is still true that for whatever reason, there exists an exorbitant amount of very violent radicalism within Islam. You asked what my problem is with Islam, and that is my problem: the fact that 20% of Muslims believe it is good to kill people who are not Muslim, for the fact of not being Muslim. Any normal person should have a problem with that. Including you. Especially you. These people are doing horrible things and claiming it to be in the name of your faith. That should infuriate you. You should have a major problem with that, but instead you are upset at us. That makes no sense.

The current level of violence of Muslims and Christians is not that different. Whatever some percentage of Muslims answer in polls, they are not special in their degree of violence. We have a tendency in the West to not make an issue of the religion of terrorists unless they're Muslim, even if religion is cited by terrorists as a reason for attacking. The number of terrorist acts by Muslims is not out of proportion to their percentage of the global population.

Muslims are experiencing more than their share of war, however, mostly between Muslims.

(May 27, 2018 at 9:27 pm)TAstreja Wrote: I'm just not into worship, and feeling an obligation to pray five times a day would stress me out.  When I belonged to a Buddhist group back in my 30s, it was recommended that we chant twice a day.  After a while it just turned into a mechanical, emotionless exercise being done solely for the sake of getting in the requisite two sessions, and I finally quit the group and dropped the practice altogether.

Just for the record; the difficulty in keeping up the routine of prayer is mentioned in this verse:

Quote:Sura 2, The Quran:
( 45 )   And seek help through patience and prayer, and indeed, it is difficult except for the obedient [to Allah]
( 46 )   Who are certain that they will meet their Lord and that they will return to Him.

(May 29, 2018 at 1:20 pm)MysticKnight Wrote:

(May 29, 2018 at 1:16 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote: No, you'll just find an ad hoc explanation for any apparent contradictions.

If there is a good explanation as to why it's not a contradiction, then, I would accept that explanation.

And there is your problem exposed. If there is an explanation why it is NOT a contradiction, you will gullibly lap it up. If there is an exposition why it IS a contradiction, you will reject it out of hand. Heads I win, tails you lose.

(May 29, 2018 at 1:20 pm)MysticKnight Wrote: I don't know how an ad hoc explanation is possible in an explanation - I would look up what ad hoc fallacy is and see if it can even apply here.

Don't bother. We know that you are clueless when it comes to logical fallacies.

(May 29, 2018 at 1:20 pm)MysticKnight Wrote: I've seen people use ad hoc fallacy, I just don't think it's applicable in this situation as even possible.

No, you haven't.

(May 29, 2018 at 1:20 pm)MysticKnight Wrote: It would either be a good explanation or not. If it's not a good explanation and against all norms of language, I would refuse to believe in it.

Wait, what? You have yet to fathom basic language, let alone any "norms". You are barking up a dead tree here. It so happens that I am a graduate engineer. This of course does not qualify me to speak to linguistics. But my nearest sister is a graduate linguist. Guess what, she actually is a subject matter expert in this area. So no, I am not allowing you away with such baloney.

(May 27, 2018 at 11:32 pm)yragnitup Wrote:

(May 27, 2018 at 9:26 pm)AtlasS33 Wrote: You have two main sources that Muslims use to draw the religion:
1-The Quran
2- The Hadith books

The Quran is believed to be the word of God that was written when Prophet Mohammed was alive, while the Hadiths are written about 250 after the death of the prophet. They are documents of rumors about his era.

Sharia law is derived from the Hadith. Lots of negative laws exist only in the Hadith (like stoning and killing homosexuals).
Eliminate the Hadith; and the religion becomes very different from the negative picture sharia law presents.

You partially answered your own OP question. Why don't you go fix the >90% of 1.6 billion Muslims who accept & adhere to the hadiths. You can start with AL-Azhar and Medina University folks. In my place, if anyone publicly quote this or criticise   the hadiths will be arrested on charges of blasphemy/sedition etc.

As for phobias you accused earlier, now lets look at your Al-Fatihah prayer which you & 1.6 billion Musllims utter 5 time a day during salat.

In the Name of Allah, the Most Beneficent, the Most Merciful.
All the praises and thanks be to Allah, the Lord of the 'Alamin (mankind, jinns and all that exists).
The Most Gracious, the Most Merciful.
The Only Owner (and the Only Ruling Judge) of the Day of Recompense (i.e. the Day of Resurrection)
You (Alone) we worship, and You (Alone) we ask for help (for each and everything).
Guide us to the Straight Way
The Way of those on whom You have bestowed Your Grace, not (the way) of those who earned Your Anger (the Jews), nor of those who went astray (the Christians) (Quran 1:1-7)

Muslims can't even pray without dissing the infidel!!? and you talk about phobias?

And another beautiful verse;

Indeed, they who disbelieved among the People of the Scripture and the polytheists will be in the fire of Hell, abiding eternally therein. Those are the worst of creatures (Quran 98 6)

Now try swapping the words;

Indeed, they who disbelieved among the Muslims will be in the fire of Hell, abiding eternally therein. They are the worst of creatures (Quran 98 6)

Sounds good to you?

No; I don't think so.

I didn't ask about a "certain sect". I asked about Islam as a whole. When I specify the sect; then your post is valid.
Otherwise; it's a very cheap attempt to begin arguing..

---

(May 28, 2018 at 1:18 am)robvalue Wrote: All religions are stupid and potentially harmful. Islam is a religion. It's a current one, with millions of children being indoctrinated into it. It promotes the Quran as "the word of God"; one of the vilest books ever written. This is always a dangerous idea, but the particular book here is especially bad.

Yes, other religions are awful too, especially the other two Abrahamic religions. It could just as easily have been them causing the problems in the East.

"The vilest book ever ?"

---

(May 28, 2018 at 4:41 am)downbeatplumb Wrote: My problems with Islam.
Are:

A: It purports to be truth while being rather silly and wrong.
B: Its oppressive nature.
C: Its misogynistic tendencies making women cover up and stay inside, not drive, etc etc.
D: Its draconian laws.
E: All the terrorism.
F: wherever it reigns there are oppressive regimes.
G: Kebabs

C and E sound more like The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and less like Islam.
The atomic bomb is a non-Muslim invention, is there a terrorism bigger than the extinction of all of humanity?

World War 1 and 2 are non-Muslim wars.

Kebab is not a Muslim invention. I realize that its main problem is the huge amounts of garlic + onions used in it; but the solution is to never eat it before you sleep, and to brush the hell out of your teeth.

(May 28, 2018 at 7:36 am)Fake Messiah Wrote:

(May 27, 2018 at 8:13 pm)AtlasS33 Wrote: Yes. That's true. Taking non-believers as allies is a disaster, they rarely take Muslims seriously, and frankly they use the weaknesses of Islamic populations in a very obvious ways. If you want historical examples I can list them to you; but the last of them was what the British Empire did to its Muslim allies after WW1, which led to the nightmare of Israel.

The examples are many. Trump and his raids on Arab oil money is another. Taking non-believers as allies ends up with a knife in the back and a nuclear missile aimed to your head, and evil dictators from your own kin taking support from non-believers to shoot you down and rob your cash.

The examples are also many: Assad attacks Muslim children with chemo but get Russia to cover for him, the Sauds butchering their people but get American support -and their crown prince gets to meet the queen of England-, and so on.

Oh well so they are allies with Muslims but "wrong" kind of Muslims - fundies. But if you want examples there is a Muslim country  like Bosnia where they are sort of liberal Muslims who are allies with Christians that live around and it's not a disaster.

But of course there is a question are fundie bloodthirsty Muslims more representative of Quranic Islam than liberal Muslims? You say that fundies are "butchering their people" but in many places Quran commands that same thing, like corporal punishment is promoted in the Quran. Sura 5:38 says, "As to the thief, male or female, cut off his or her hands."
Or Sura 24:2-4 says, "The woman and the man guilty of adultery or fornication are to be flogged with a hundred stripes: let not compassion move you in their case."

The problem is; I quoted the verses from the Quran that advocate the treating of non-Muslims with just and righteousness:

Quote:Sura 60, The Quran:
( 7 )   Perhaps Allah will put, between you and those to whom you have been enemies among them, affection. And Allah is competent, and Allah is Forgiving and Merciful.
( 8 )   Allah does not forbid you from those who do not fight you because of religion and do not expel you from your homes - from being righteous toward them and acting justly toward them. Indeed, Allah loves those who act justly.

And I've been quoting this verse for months now -or even years-. If you don't fight me, I have no problem with you as a Muslim.
The Muslims who attack you without reason are crazy psychos, but still it's an insult to put me and the terrorist in the same shoes.
As for cutting the hand of the thieve; yes; we Muslims believe in the cutting of the hand -without prison-, but you non-Muslims believe in this hell for the thieve:




As for adultery, think about all the bastard children born without fathers, all the single-mothers, and that it is actually "flogging" not "stoning" like the Jewish law.

Quote:Yeah, only if disbelievers accept Allah because sura 4:91 says, "You will find others who wish to obtain security from you and [to] obtain security from their people. Every time they are returned to [the influence of] disbelief, they fall back into it. So if they do not withdraw from you or offer you peace or restrain their hands, then seize them and kill them wherever you overtake them. And those - We have made for you against them a clear authorization."
It's very paranoid toward unbelievers sura 4:101, which says, "For the Unbelievers are unto you open enemies ... The unbelievers wish ... to assault you in a single rush."

How could a "disbeliever" accepts Allah? if they accept God already; then they are believers or people of the book.

+ 4:91 with its all context is down below:

Quote:Sura 4, The Quran:
( 88 )   What is [the matter] with you [that you are] two groups concerning the hypocrites, while Allah has made them fall back [into error and disbelief] for what they earned. Do you wish to guide those whom Allah has sent astray? And he whom Allah sends astray - never will you find for him a way [of guidance].
( 89 )   They wish you would disbelieve as they disbelieved so you would be alike. So do not take from among them allies until they emigrate for the cause of Allah. But if they turn away, then seize them and kill them wherever you find them and take not from among them any ally or helper.
( 90 )   Except for those who take refuge with a people between yourselves and whom is a treaty or those who come to you, their hearts strained at [the prospect of] fighting you or fighting their own people. And if Allah had willed, He could have given them power over you, and they would have fought you. So if they remove themselves from you and do not fight you and offer you peace, then Allah has not made for you a cause [for fighting] against them.
( 91 )   You will find others who wish to obtain security from you and [to] obtain security from their people. Every time they are returned to [the influence of] disbelief, they fall back into it. So if they do not withdraw from you or offer you peace or restrain their hands, then seize them and kill them wherever you overtake them. And those - We have made for you against them a clear authorization.

? I don't understand what you mean to be honest; the verse is speaking about "hypocrites" and "two faces", or in other words what secular people call "traitors"; and these are non-believers. They claim belief with Muslims; but claim disbelief with others.

As for verse 102 of the same Sura (not 101); again cherry picking is seen because the context is speaking -yet again- about a battle with the Heathens:

Quote:Sura 4, The Quran:
( 102 )   And when you are among them and lead them in prayer, let a group of them stand [in prayer] with you and let them carry their arms. And when they have prostrated, let them be [in position] behind you and have the other group come forward which has not [yet] prayed and let them pray with you, taking precaution and carrying their arms. Those who disbelieve wish that you would neglect your weapons and your baggage so they could come down upon you in one [single] attack. But there is no blame upon you, if you are troubled by rain or are ill, for putting down your arms, but take precaution. Indeed, Allah has prepared for the disbelievers a humiliating punishment.
( 103 )   And when you have completed the prayer, remember Allah standing, sitting, or [lying] on your sides. But when you become secure, re-establish [regular] prayer. Indeed, prayer has been decreed upon the believers a decree of specified times.
( 104 )   And do not weaken in pursuit of the enemy. If you should be suffering - so are they suffering as you are suffering, but you expect from Allah that which they expect not. And Allah is ever Knowing and Wise.

? So you actually suggest, that Muslim soldiers leave their weapons behind during prayer like it is pictured in Indiana Jones?
You know; the image of the "careful western soldier compared to the stinky Muslim soldier; one speaks with flowers and the other speaks like alalaloaoo khh".

It doesn't seem that Quran is telling Muslims to stop because in many places it tell them to kill, kill, kill

Quote:Sura 9:36 says, "Fight the pagans";
sura, 33:61 says, "Wherever they are found, they shall be seized and slain without mercy";
sura 9:5 says, "Fight and slay the Pagans wherever you find them and seize them."
sura 4:89, "They but wish you would reject Faith, as they do, and thus be on the same footing as they .... But if they turn renegades, seize them and slay them wherever you find them."

Do you really expect me to buy what you say, without supplying the context behind your claims?
But if you didn't; I will:

Quote:Sura 9:36 says, "Fight the pagans";

?Weren't there a war already between the two sides?

Quote:sura, 33:61 says, "Wherever they are found, they shall be seized and slain without mercy";

? again you cherry pick? allow me to quote:

Quote:Sura 33, The Quran:
( 60 )   If the hypocrites and those in whose hearts is disease and those who spread rumors in al-Madinah do not cease, We will surely incite you against them; then they will not remain your neighbors therein except for a little.
( 61 )   Accursed wherever they are found, [being] seized and massacred completely.

It is speaking about a consequence of their actions. A result.
It's me saying : "if you don't watch your weight; you'll get diabetes and die". I don't see that as a threat !

Quote:Or what about this Sura that tells Muslims not to take Jews and Christians as friends

5:51 "Take not the Jews and the Christians for your friends and protectors: They are but friends and protectors of each other."

"Friends" as a translation is beyond me, the original Arabic word is "ولي", and it's translated to ally.
Friend is "صديق".

Quote:I mean are you being good Quran abiding Muslims and not having Jews and Christians as your friends? Not only does this passage display a contempt for Jews and Christians but an appalling ignorance of historical events. All too often Jews and Christians have barely been able to stomach one another's presence.

But the verse does not even include the word "friend" !

---

(May 28, 2018 at 9:32 am)Darinda Wrote:

(May 27, 2018 at 9:26 pm)AtlasS33 Wrote: You have two main sources that Muslims use to draw the religion:
1-The Quran
2- The Hadith books

The Quran is believed to be the word of God that was written when Prophet Mohammed was alive, while the Hadiths are written about 250 after the death of the prophet. They are documents of rumors about his era.

Sharia law is derived from the Hadith. Lots of negative laws exist only in the Hadith (like stoning and killing homosexuals).
Eliminate the Hadith; and the religion becomes very different from the negative picture sharia law presents.

Stop with your lies already, both the quran and hadiths were written a long time after the passing of Mo.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quran

? Wikipedia says that you're the liar.

---

(May 29, 2018 at 12:42 pm)MysticKnight Wrote:

(May 29, 2018 at 2:52 am)Fake Messiah Wrote: Oh I see I woke up the dead. LOL

Regarding verse 5:51 do you know possible alternate meanings to "Awliya"?

For the record; the Arabic word for "Friend" (صديق) is used literally in:

Quote:Sura 24, The Quran:

( 61 )   There is not upon the blind [any] constraint nor upon the lame constraint nor upon the ill constraint nor upon yourselves when you eat from your [own] houses or the houses of your fathers or the houses of your mothers or the houses of your brothers or the houses of your sisters or the houses of your father's brothers or the houses of your father's sisters or the houses of your mother's brothers or the houses of your mother's sisters or [from houses] whose keys you possess or [from the house] of your friend. There is no blame upon you whether you eat together or separately. But when you enter houses, give greetings of peace upon each other - a greeting from Allah, blessed and good. Thus does Allah make clear to you the verses [of ordinance] that you may understand.

---

(May 29, 2018 at 1:04 pm)MysticKnight Wrote: Fake Messiah,

I explained why I believe Awliya is best translated as authorities pertaining to the religion and holy books and teachings of the Prophets (revealed to them).

(see other thread with edge cases)

Mainly it means don't take them as authorities of what is found in the Torah and Gospels, as some of them are authorities over others, and a verse clarifies later, they have made religion into a game and fun.

No; a ally has nothing to do with the shiite religion also.

Atlas, some Christians were allies of Muslims as they gave them refuge before Hijra (a lot of Muslims took refuge to a Christian country and there is a famous letter to the Christian King from the Prophet), and some of them being allies of each other is not a good reason for Muslims not to be allies of them.

It also makes sense here doesn't refer to political authority either, since, Mohammad, told his followers to abide by the Christian country laws they took refuge in.

The line "some of them are Awliya of others" is to show why "collectively", we shouldn't take them as that, and it makes sense as pertains as an authority pertaining to the revelations, how do you determine the true teachings of Moses and Jesus and the Prophets between. And the subject and context all shows that it's about judging by what God has revealed.

Aside from that, a friend is necessarily an ally but an ally is not necessarily a friend.  A friend is an ally but more. An ally can be a political ally but not a friend.

And aside from that, is Angels are both friends and allies of believers, and in Suratal Tahreem, in context of helping type alliance, and helping type friend, Angels are included with Mohammad and other verses show Angels will say to believers they were their allies in this world and the next.

Angels help and love believers and support them, and are definitely allies.

The verse 5:55 which also clarifies the verses before and after, is definitely pertaining to Authority as far as guidance and religion goes...

(May 29, 2018 at 1:14 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote:

Edwardo Piet Wrote:I think there's two types of religious people: honest extremist nutjobs and hypocritical cherrypicking moderates.

Both fundamentalists and moderates cherry pick. It's unavoidable given a text with contradictions as source material. Between the ones who cherry pick the worst parts and the ones who cherry pick the best parts, I prefer the latter, and they're no more hypocritical than the former.

Honesty is quoting the whole thing. That's why I focus on the importance of the context.

Maybe we should give you fellas another 1300 years or so to figure this all out?