Do you know WikiIslam ?

[R00tKiT]

That doesn't refute what I said.  For them, it's justified.  For you, it's not.

You remind me of a cartoon a math professor had on his door in college.  It showed a long line of people at the professors door.  It was captioned, "I can't solve the problem, but neither can these 1,000 people."

Your complaint is nothing but an ad populum argument.

That wasn't meant to be a complaint, or a formal argument in favor of my particular branch of Islam. If you're looking for an actual argument, you can look up standard references on Quran and hadith exegesis and see which branch most closely follows the sacred texts. I don't have enough time to give free lessons on Islam 101 in an atheist forum.

[Peebothuhlu]

At work.

Sooooo.... the followers under the banner of ISIS don't belive that Allah is the one, true diety and that Muhammad is his prophet, then?

Seems there's some awfully fake Scott's men about, hey?

[viocjit]

I said it is a good site. I didn't said it is an excellent one.

We can see it does lack resources about alternative interpretations of Islam.
Content is mainly based on traditional Sunni views (I know Sunni Islam isn't one united block but composed of many branches like Hanbalism , Hannafism , Malikism etc... with subbranches. I know you won't find two Muslims in the world with exactly the same beliefs like in all religions in which you won't find two believers with the same beliefs) but traditional is more common than alternatives visions.

We can regret the fact there are only few items about conceptions of Islam perceived as heterodox.

Traditional doesn't means you're extremist (Not forget a person can be an extremist even if not violent or / and in favor of violence) or moderate because we can find extremists and moderates in any traditional vision.
What is an extremist ? To define who is an extremist and who is not we must see the norms of the society in which the person live.
In country A the person can be perceived as an extremist. In country B the person can be perceived as a moderate.

Islam is yet another bovine superstition from antiquity that holds back human progress. Why on earth should I need some further biased interpretation of same?

In order to fight superstitions. We must to know many versions of these to contradict these.

Should I just go and pig out on the knowledge?

Pig out : Did you used this sentence because you know Muslims don't eat pork ?
This is not my role to say you what to do. Do what please to you. If you want to visit this website you can do it.
If you don't want you have the possibility not to do it.

Well isn't anything that criticizes Islam immediately seen as "anti-Islamic propaganda hate" by Muslims?

That depend of which people. My personal experience (I'm a French who lived his whole life in France and I did never had another citizenship than French. I'm an ethnic French in a family which family members who have a religion are Cafeteria Catholic) with some Muslims about religious debate is the fact it was impossible to debate with them.
This is like is criticizing Islam is like if I was insulting them. They said me they don't want to debate. They said me that in a stressed way. It was like if they were terrorized by a man with a gun.

PART SNIPPED BY VIOCJIT

ISIS's interpretation of Islam follows a specific branch known as kharijite

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

It's an extreme interpretation of sacred texts and is in no way justified.

I think they are Sunnis (I acknowledge Sunnis followers of terrorism are a minority) if I believe what I read and listened in medias like TV and press.
You should read this more in depth about the comparison between this terrorist group and this branch of Islam : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kharijites#Modern_times
They are not Kharijites even it does exist comparisons. It's non nonsensical to compare a branch that don't exist anymore and a branch that exist today.

---

Content is mainly based on traditional Sunni views (I know Sunni Islam isn't one united block but composed of many branches like Hanbalism , Hannafism , Malikism etc... with subbranches. I know you won't find two Muslims in the world with exactly the same beliefs like in all religions in which you won't find two believers with the same beliefs) but traditional is more common than alternatives visions.

Well, these branches don't disagree on fundamental aspects of faith like God's attributes (a unique supreme being, in contrast to the doctrine of trinity, for example)  or Muhammad's status as the last prophet to humanity.. they only differ on very technical aspects of fiqh' - how the Islamic law as revealed to Muhammad should be interpreted and applied -.

WikiIslam is a website that is an encyclopedia about Islam.
It is critical about this religion. Critics are based from Islamic texts and contemporary researches.
I think this site is an useful resource for those interested about Islam and want to access to a non Islamic point of view.

Link : https://wikiislam.net/wiki/Main_Page

This website is nothing more than a compilation of outdated anti-Islam themes, let me save you some time and present them all:

- The Islamic prophet's actions, biography, marriages, etc.
- The killing of the Banu Qurayza (a Jewish tribe), presented in an attempt to depict Muhammad PBUH and his companions as mass murderers.
- Attempts to find scientific errors in the Qur'an [News flash : there are none]
- Attempts to find linguistic errors in the Qur'an, this is the most stupid theme imaginable, as the Qur'an is actually regarded as a reference of Arabic grammar, and the finiest text in Classical Arabic.
- Belittling supernatural elements of Islamic faith: jinns, angels, the Buraq' creature, etc.
- Attempts to find logical inconsistencies in authentic hadiths.
- Islam's views on women.
- The concept of Jihad.
- Enforcing Sharia's law against homosexuals, fornicators, apostates, etc.

All of these themes have been discussed endlessly since the dawn of Islam some fourteen centuries ago. What should be kept in mind here is that it's all mostly christian polemics, and christians never succeeded in an argument involving any of these themes because of the extremely violent injunctions found in the Old Testament, whatever they bring from the Qur'an and try to present it as unfair/violent, all one has to do is to bring a similar(or more violent) statement from their own holy book to refute their point. An atheist or an agnostic should be more concerned with the issue of the existence of God than some internal aspect of some religion. It's critical that one accepts the premise of a just God existing before moving on to evaluate organized religions.

Update: the website IS NOT based on contemporary research NOR authentic islamic references. After searching several entries in the website I found many references to the famous biography of Ibn Hisham, which includes many weak and even fabricated hadiths.

---

Islam is yet another bovine superstition from antiquity that holds back human progress. Why on earth should I need some further biased interpretation of same?

If Islam inherently holds back progress, how do you explain this ?

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

Yes , traditional views is more common than alternatives. But alternatives does exist and therefore we cannot ignore these.
Fiqh' is central to interpret different visions of Islam and therefore even if difference of views seem minor they are important.

You declared than Wikiislam : "Attempts to find scientific errors in the Qur'an [News flash : there are none]"
My answer is the next. If we interpret literally Al-Qur'an evolution of species isn't mentioned and this is scientifically proven.
If we understand evolution theory we understand there was never a first human who was a man then a second who was a female.
Species evolved slowly and there were first groups of humans (Not our species but others species) and slowly our specie appeared.

Wikipedia about genus homo : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo
Wikipedia about our specie : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human

You made the statement than Wikiislam : "Attempts to find logical inconsistencies in authentic hadiths."
I answer you. Who considered at first than ahadith contain in Sahih al-Bukhari and Sahih Muslim are authentic ? Authenticity or not is a thing we can't prove. It is a matter of faith.

[R00tKiT]

You declared than Wikiislam : "Attempts to find scientific errors in the Qur'an [News flash : there are none]"
My answer is the next. If we interpret literally Al-Qur'an evolution of species isn't mentioned and this is scientifically proven.

The Qur'an not mentioning something doesn't mean it's against it. The Qur'an also doesn't mention that there are five daily prayers, a central tenet of Islam, which all Muslims (are supposed to) apply rigorously.

If we understand evolution theory we understand there was never a first human who was a man then a second who was a female.
Species evolved slowly and there were first groups of humans (Not our species but others species) and slowly our specie appeared.

Non sequitur. Our species appearing "slowly" doesn't mean there is no first human. The first member of our species to ever appear can be the first human, what's the problem with that?

You made the statement than Wikiislam : "Attempts to find logical inconsistencies in authentic hadiths."
I answer you. Who considered at first than ahadith contain in Sahih al-Bukhari and Sahih Muslim are authentic ? Authenticity or not is a thing we can't prove. It is a matter of faith.

Authenticity can be established by evaluating the chain of narrators of a hadith, if the narrators are deemed reliable, and some additional conditions are met, the hadith can be said to be authentic. This is not an exact science, OFC. But we can have a pretty accurate idea of whether a hadith really came from Muhammad PBUH or was later fabricated.

[viocjit]

You declared than Wikiislam : "Attempts to find scientific errors in the Qur'an [News flash : there are none]"
My answer is the next. If we interpret literally Al-Qur'an evolution of species isn't mentioned and this is scientifically proven.

The Qur'an not mentioning something doesn't mean it's against it. The Qur'an also doesn't mention that there are five daily prayers, a central tenet of Islam, which all Muslims (are supposed to) apply rigorously.

If we understand evolution theory we understand there was never a first human who was a man then a second who was a female.
Species evolved slowly and there were first groups of humans (Not our species but others species) and slowly our specie appeared.

Non sequitur. Our species appearing "slowly" doesn't mean there is no first human. The first member of our species to ever appear can be the first human, what's the problem with that?

You made the statement than Wikiislam : "Attempts to find logical inconsistencies in authentic hadiths."
I answer you. Who considered at first than ahadith contain in Sahih al-Bukhari and Sahih Muslim are authentic ? Authenticity or not is a thing we can't prove. It is a matter of faith.

Authenticity can be established by evaluating the chain of narrators of a hadith, if the narrators are deemed reliable, and some additional conditions are met, the hadith can be said to be authentic. This is not an exact science, OFC. But we can have a pretty accurate idea of whether a hadith really came from Muhammad PBUH or was later fabricated.

"The Qur'an not mentioning something doesn't mean it's against it"

If we interpret it literally. It said Adam was made with clay.
Evolution theory prove there was not a first human because they were first humans of both sex appearing at the same time.

"Authenticity can be established by evaluating the chain of narrators of a hadith, if the narrators are deemed reliable, and some additional conditions are met, the hadith can be said to be authentic."

How can we be sure chain of narrators wasn't forged ?
How can we be sure not any hadith was forged ?
Do we have a book of ahadith dating back from Muhammad era ?

[no one]

god is make believe.

[R00tKiT]

If we interpret it literally. It said Adam was made with clay.

And there is nothing wrong with this interpretation. Look up 'clay minerals and the origin of life' and you will get extensive literature related to this subject.

Evolution theory prove there was not a first human because they were first humans of both sex appearing at the same time.

There obviously was a first homo sapien since homo sapiens didn't exist forever. You have this famous axiom in mathematics called the well-ordering principle : any finite set of natural numbers has a minimal element, and the axiom is shown to be equivalent to mathematical induction.

The set of homo sapiens can be assigned to natural numbers (say, by numbering their birthdays in chronological order) which means that there was, necessarily, mathematically, a first homo sapien.

How can we be sure chain of narrators wasn't forged ?
How can we be sure not any hadith was forged ?
Do we have a book of ahadith dating back from Muhammad era ?

The first known hadith compilation document was authored by 'Abd Allah ibn 'Amr ibn al-'As, who was born 60 years after the prophet PBUH's death. Before that, oral tradition was the most widespread means of preserving the prophet's sayings.

There is an entire discipline called hadith studies that specializes in evaluating the chain of narrators and the authenticity of hadiths.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hadith_studies

It's a very broad subject and it's difficult to summarize it in a short post.

[The Grand Nudger]

No it isn't. Bill told Amy who overhead Jims cousin Nick tell Jen that Becky and Gerald were making out under the bleachers after class.

[The Architect Of Fate]

No it isn't.  Bill told Amy who overhead Jims cousin Nick tell Jen that Becky and Gerald were making out under the bleachers after class.

All according to Bob who heard it from Cindy who read it on Twitter

[The Valkyrie]

Wikislam?

Is that another Space Jam movie?