(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.

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?