The most stupid misconceptions about Islam

[R00tKiT]

OFC muslims represent islam.  Who else would?

No, pal. They don't. Only the Qur'an and the prophet do. Nobody represents Islam today because Islam is not a centralized religion. We have no pope, in case you didn't notice.

[The Grand Nudger]

Christians are also schismatics. The existence of a pope doesn't change that, no more than the existence of schisms means that said schismatics don't represent their religion.

Yet another example of how you're so far out of your aoe that you could only expect to fail.

Let me help you help yourself. You don't intend to demonstrate or argue that any of these things that you're "clearing up" are misconceptions - they aren't. You want to argue that the misconception is, essentially, how anyone else thinks about anything. Yes, ofc I'm a non person according to magic book. Yes, ofc everyone else is going to hell. Yes, ofc islam uses terror to silence critics. It's not a misconception of ours that it does all of that, it's a misconception of ours, as you see it - if anyone is against it.

[Abaddon_ire]

The actual text of the fatwa reads...

"We are from Allah and to Allah we shall return. I am informing all brave Muslims of the world that the author of The Satanic Verses, a text written, edited, and published against Islam, the Prophet of Islam, and the Qur'an, along with all the editors and publishers aware of its contents, are condemned to death. I call on all valiant Muslims wherever they may be in the world to kill them without delay, so that no one will dare insult the sacred beliefs of Muslims henceforth. And whoever is killed in this cause will be a martyr, Allah Willing. Meanwhile if someone has access to the author of the book but is incapable of carrying out the execution, he should inform the people so that [Rushdie] is punished for his actions."

Nice religion of peace.

Why do you think these Shia fools represent Islam ?

Because they claim to represent islam, duh. Don't like that? Then tell them to STFU, not me. You need to deal with your own internal nutters before attempting to have a grown up conversation. That would normally be an internal matter, except for the fact that your fellow nutters want to make it external. Set your own house in order. Then we might talk. Until you fix that we have nothing to talk about.

I don't think you read anything about the history of Islam to be able to give any nuanced opinion regarding these fatwas.

Wrong. It seems to be your MO, but whatever. It isn't my fault that you believe in a spooky sky fairy with no evidence, is it? Or some magic book of fairy stories.

I don't believe in any of that crap. I couldn't bring myself to removing my brain.

Now, if you had evidence, you would have presented it. But you have presented none. Because you have none.

So last chance for you. Present your best evidence for allah. Note that I said your best.

You will fail because you have none.

But go ahead.

[R00tKiT]

Let me help you help yourself.  You don't intend to demonstrate or argue that any of these things that you're "clearing up" are misconceptions - they aren't.  You want to argue that the misconception is, essentially, how anyone else thinks about anything.  Yes, ofc I'm a non person according to magic book.  Yes, ofc everyone else is going to hell.  Yes, ofc islam uses terror to silence critics.  It's not a misconception of ours that it does all of that, it's a misconception of ours, as you see it - if anyone is against it.

I think I laid out my case in enough detail for all the things you cited really being misconceptions. Besides, if Islam truly does say that everyone else goes to hell, then Islam is promoting for an unjust god, that is, a deity who will punish people for not believing in something they never even knew what it was. Muslim theology is sophisticated enough not to advocate for such a naive doctrine.

Speaking of terror to silence critics, if this were the case, Muhammad could've eradicated all the Jewish tribes in Arabia and spared himself a lot of trouble afterwards. The Banu Qurayza tribe was sentenced to death as a result of their war crime. So the prophet was definitely capable of perpetrating genocides of non Muslim civilians and, actually, spread terror.

---

Because they claim to represent islam, duh. Don't like that? Then tell them to STFU, not me. 

We already told them to STFU, repeatedly, they just don't listen, duh. Meanwhile, you should STFU too.

You need to deal with your own internal nutters before attempting to have a grown up conversation.

And you should understand the internal nutters you're alluding to into before attempting to have a grown up conversation.

That would normally be an internal matter, except for the fact that your fellow nutters  want to make it external. Set your own house in order. Then we might talk. Until you fix that we have nothing to talk about.

Yes, it is an internal matter. And as a result, you shouldn't stick your nose where it doesn't belong. That's why I'm telling you, again, to STFU.

Wrong. It seems to be your MO, but whatever. It isn't my fault that you believe in a spooky sky fairy with no evidence, is it? Or some magic book of fairy stories.

I don't believe in any of that crap. I couldn't bring myself to removing my brain.

Now, if you had evidence, you would have presented it. But you have presented none. Because you have none.

So last chance for you. Present your best evidence for allah. Note that I said your best.

You will fail because you have none.

But go ahead.

All teleological arguments for God, or Allah, are valid. Appearance of design alone warrants belief in a deity.

[Nay_Sayer]

All teleological arguments for FSM are valid. Appearance of design alone warrants belief in his holy noodles.

FIFY
RAmen

[The Grand Nudger]

I think I laid out my case in enough detail for all the things you cited really being misconceptions. Besides, if Islam truly does say that everyone else goes to hell, then Islam is promoting for an unjust god, that is, a deity who will punish people for not believing in something they never even knew what it was. Muslim theology is sophisticated enough not to advocate for such a naive doctrine.

-and there it is.  So what?  So what if islam did in fact advocate for naive doctines and an unjust god?  

It would be bad if it did, therefore it doesn't?  If that's the case you're going with, have at it.

Speaking of terror to silence critics, if this were the case, Muhammad could've eradicated all the Jewish tribes in Arabia and spared himself a lot of trouble afterwards. The Banu Qurayza tribe was sentenced to death as a result of their war crime. So the prophet was definitely capable of perpetrating genocides of non Muslim civilians and, actually, spread terror.

Always with the jews.  

Yes, both big mo and the umma were capable of spreading terror and attempting genocide...and that's exactly what they did. We find the underlying justifications for these acts in magic book, and we're right back round to the kafir bit again.

Is this going to be another one of those if they did that, it would be bad, therefore they didn't cases? Personally, I'm satisfied when any cultist agrees with the basic premise that some act would be bad - even if that means that they have to find a way to memory hole that thing. It shows that they (and you, as our case example) are better than their religion. That you have a more well developed view of the world than the people who came centuries before you.

Or, you know..it would be bad if you didn't, therefore I prefer to believe that you do.

[Peebothuhlu]

At work.

All teleological arguments for diety are valid. Appearance of design alone warrants belief in his holy presence.

So.....

We should worship the diety of earthquakes. Of volcanoes. Of cancer. Of death by lightning strike. Of the myriad other life destroying natural causes such as diseases or predation?



I'll que in the "Fallen man" as the excuse for the above locked in for $100, Alex.

[The Grand Nudger]

I wonder whether any human being hasn't been presented with compelling evidence for god, to deny and be kafir, if the mere appearance of design warrants belief?

Wouldn't it be so very silly if a person believed both of those things and referred to those beliefs in their justifications for terrorism? They'd have to be nuts.

[R00tKiT]

-and there it is.  So what?  So what if islam did in fact advocate for naive doctines and an unjust god?  

It would be bad if it did, therefore it doesn't?  If that's the case you're going with, have at it.

I thought I didn't need to spell out the obvious. But there you go, the Qur'an denies, verbatim, such naive doctrines :

Whoever chooses to be guided, it is only for their own good. And whoever chooses to stray, it is only to their own loss. No soul burdened with sin will bear the burden of another. And We would never punish [a people] until We have sent a messenger [to warn them] (17:15)

Notice the use of the word choose, together with the two sentences in bold.

Kindergarten Islam says that people choose, willingly, to stray, after hearing warnings from messengers, whoever they are.
Satisfied ?

Yes, both big mo and the umma were capable of spreading terror and attempting genocide...and that's exactly what they did.  We find the underlying justifications for these acts in magic book, and we're right back round to the kafir bit again.  

What genocide are you talking about? Can you be a bit more specific and cite something people can refer to in the literature, instead of throwing empty charges?

I already said that the Banu Qurayza tribe commited a war crime. If their treason went unpunished, Muhammad's new-found state would have certainly been wiped out, entirely. Besides, the penalty applied was the one prescribed by the Jews' own holy book.

---

I wonder whether any human being hasn't been presented with compelling evidence for god, to deny and be kafir, if the mere appearance of design warrants belief?

Being 'kafir' includes being presented with evidence of Muhammad's prophecy, then rejecting it unreasonably. I think you should review a book or two about the six pillars of belief in Islam.

[The Grand Nudger]

-and there it is.  So what?  So what if islam did in fact advocate for naive doctines and an unjust god?  

It would be bad if it did, therefore it doesn't?  If that's the case you're going with, have at it.

I thought I didn't need to spell out the obvious. But there you go, the Qur'an denies, verbatim, such naive doctrines :

Whoever chooses to be guided, it is only for their own good. And whoever chooses to stray, it is only to their own loss. No soul burdened with sin will bear the burden of another. And We would never punish [a people] until We have sent a messenger [to warn them] (17:15)

Notice the use of the word choose, together with the two sentences in bold.

Kindergarten Islam says that people choose, willingly, to stray, after hearing warnings from messengers, whoever they are.
Satisfied ?

Imagine that, a magic book that advocates for and strongly decries things, sometimes the same things.  

What genocide are you talking about? Can you be a bit more specific and cite something people can refer to in the literature, instead of throwing empty charges?

I already said that the Banu Qurayza tribe commited a war crime. If their treason went unpunished, Muhammad's new-found state would have certainly been wiped out, entirely. Besides, the penalty applied was the one prescribed by the Jews' own holy book.

Yes, we know..we know.  Your religion doesn't do or contain any terrible shit, and if it did, the jews deserved it.

Being 'kafir' includes being presented with evidence of Muhammad's prophecy, then rejecting it unreasonably. I think you should review a book or two about the six pillars of belief in Islam.

Now why on earth would I need that when I have you, noted islamic expert, here to explain how everyone gets it all wrong? By all means, continue stepping on rakes. Maybe you'll realize that it isn't people's stupid misconceptions that cause them to reject islam. It's believers like yourself describing their own beliefs.

If you wanted to change peoples minds about this, you would have to understand them, and their objections - not your own objections to whatever parts of islam you think are nuts. There, at least, we agree - but that doesn't help your case. If you tell us, for example, that teh jews warcrimed your carpet salesman, so he had to warcrime them right back - then we can only say "Yes, exactly...and we don't think that's the way to act anymore, because we aren't seventh century warlords." That's not clearing up a misconception, it's affirming the validity and asserting the truth of the objection. You don't feel that way, I presume.. .because that would be bad...but it is in point of fact what you've been doing all thread long.