why do people bash islam but love christianity??

Post Reply New Topic

Yeap. True muslims are not obliged by Mohammad's precepts neither Q'uran nor Hadith. Sure.



Then how about turning off internet and going to the street? Muslims that have blogs in english are probably not very representative of the majority.



Seriously? Because they hid it very well.

[img][800:849]http://i.huffpost.com/gadgets/slideshows/269440/slide_269440_1879606_free.jpg[/img]

Last edited by Greb on 05 Aug 2013, 9:04 pm, edited 1 time in total.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RT8WATQ6vWY[/youtube]

Not conspiratorial. Read it. There's nothing there that prevents you from being sentenced by religious reasons.

The third one is just not muslim but bahaist. The Amman Message was issued by the King of Jordan, who is a very westernized dude. He's not exactly a model for the muslim world. Yeap, they're interesting, but they're not exactly majoritary.

The problem with islam is that Mohammad's precepts promove violence. So the moment you start to moderate the message and to consider human rights, you're betraying his precepts. And that's a big handicup for any moderate islamic trend to become majoritary.

You referred to the small print. That implies that the writers of the document were attempting to deceive readers or to hide something from them. In other other words, you are displaying the fallacy of prejudice.



More fallacy of prejudice. Jordan is an example of a modern Muslim country. The fact that King Abdullah II is not an Isāmist does not mean he is not a Muslim.



Still more fallacy of prejudice. The same argument could be made about hā-TaNaḤ. If you want to talk ancient history, find an ancient historian. I am a sociologist. I am interested in studying modern societies.

When it comes to the law, I have prejudices against everybody. If the law has a clause that allows the government to sentence you by religious reasons, it means that they can use it.

You have rights or you don't. Your rights can't depend on the government's goodwill.



I didn't said that he's not muslim. I said that his view is not majoritary. Let's make an example: a poll between palestinians, that are basically the same culture that Jordan.

60% don't accept peace. More than 50% favour teaching children to hate jews. 60% support killing civil people.

Well, it doesn't look like the Amman Message is hightly listened. Even in the nearby of Jordan.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/rig ... _blog.html



This is not ancient history. Islam is based in Mohammad precepts. Of course, you can create a new modern syncretic religion that picks elements from islam and from other religions. But this is not Islam. As the Baha'ism. You're baha'ist, but I'm sorry. You're not muslim. This is a different thing.

You can't be muslim and dismiss Mohammad. Either you're muslim, either you're heretic. You have to choose, can't have it all.

In that case, I can't help you. Logically, I can't respond to the fallacy of prejudice.



And the relation of that comment to the present discussion remains mysterious.



When you can show me such a poll, I will look at it.



Yes, there is considerable anti-Zionism throughout the Middle East and North Africa. Not much news there.



The dominant tendencies within Judaism, Christianity, and Islām have all been influenced by syncretism. Modern rabbinical Judaism was created in the Diaspora. Maimonides was influenced by Muslim philosophers. Modern Christianity, including the celebration of Christmas and Easter, was created by syncretizing the teachings of Jesus with Rome. Islāmic philosophy was, to a considerable degree, shaped by Neoplatonism. Religions cannot be separated from their histories.



And when did King Abdullah II dismiss the Prophet Muḥammad? Most Christian churches allow women to speak, and they do not dismiss Paul either. In fact, many of those churches claim that the Bible is verbally inerrant.

Congratulations for completely ignoring what Sahih Bukhari actually said on the matter (it was executions).




Why is *your* religion relevant to this topic? You started a discussion about the life of Muhammad, the Founder of Islam, with the following statement, remember?


And when I actually provided authoritative sources from Islamic Scripture which prove you wrong, you conveniently back-pedal, first by dismissing the Hadith entirely (thus relying on a concept of Islam alien to all but a small minority of the world's Muslims) and then by proclaiming that you only accept the Hadith endorsed by Bahá'í scripture.

Or to put it in another way: You make a bunch of unsubstantiated one-liner statements about the Founder of Islam...

- The Holy Prophet defended his ummā (community) against attacks. He then made very generous treaties with the attackers.
- He conquered his aggressors, killed them when necessary, and treated the survivors respectfully.
- The tribes of Arabia were uncivilized. The Prophet dealt with them justly.

... and when you are confronted by the numerous authoritative Islamic sources which contradict these claims you simply move the goal-posts to suit your ends. Basically, you are making your claims non-falsifiable in the face of criticism, which is a hallmark of intellectual dishonesty. How the bloody hell is anyone going to have a meaningful discussion about Islam with you when your arguments lack any type of rigour whatsoever?



To quote myself, from page 1 in this thread:




*sigh*. From the *very first* page of the Pew study I linked to...



In plain English: Most Muslims *are* Islamists.



I apologize for not accepting your rebuttal at face value without an explanation. Please elaborate on why my statement was incorrect.



Yes, we have both seen the rigour and attention to detail you exhibit when making claims about what "most" Muslims think. After careful consideration, I have decided to stand by my previous statement on this subject.



Well, at least we have moved past your weasel words into the context of justification.

The Arab Charter on Human Rights
This is actually not so bad (notwithstanding it basically considered the existence of Israel a threat to humanity, but hey)

Problem, though (numbers may be slightly out-dated, but the difference is pronounced, nonetheless)

- Arab League: 22 member states (10 of which are signatories to the Arab Charter).
- OIC: 57 member states (57 of which are signatories to the Cairo Declaration).

The Amman Message
I agree that this is a step forward. But what status does this document have? Last time I checked, it has only been officially endorsed by the countries of Jordan and Iran.

Well, not so bad, so far. Look's like I might have to... WTF?

Human Rights in Islam
Seriously? This is a book by Abul A'la Maududi. He's the guy who was instrumental in inciting the 1953 Lahore Riots which ended with 200 Ahmadiyya Muslims dead.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Lahore_riots

Another work from this *fine* Human Rights advocate (page 5 - "What Jihad really is?" is very informative)
http://www.muhammadanism.org/Terrorism/ ... _islam.pdf

The Rights of God
So, what we have here is an account of 3 random Muslim scholars: The previously mentioned Maududi, Qutb, the intellectual founder of Al-Qaeda, and Soroush, who is more or less being hunted in his homeland of Iran, all neatly viewed through the Westerned lens of Gadamer, Habermas, Marx and the like. Seriously, most of the bibliography of the book has nothing to do with Islam at all. And why *these* 3 scholars? None of them hold offices of real authority in Islam.

Might I suggest a more serious source from a *much* more esteemed author (yes, he does address the concept of human rights in his book)?:
http://www.amazon.com/Shariah-Law-Moham ... 1851685650

Universal Declaration of Human Rights in Islam

Two things:

1. What is the status of this document? It was drafted by Islamic councils in Paris and London. Still a long way from the 57 IOC Member States.
2. It is essentially the same thing as the Cairo Declaration. Behold (from your link):




As always, the Devil is in the details.



I added some bold sections to discourage cherry-picking. Perhaps you should consider *reading* the study before commenting on it any further, as I have already caught you in being completely ignorant about one of its major conclusions (see the graph above).



I - and ONLY I - have made the majority of Muslims speak for themselves in this thread by linking to a study surveying their *actual* opinions (and yes, I checked. The countries in the Pew study *do* represent the majority of the Muslim population in the world).

YOU, on the other hand, have made a plethora of undocumented - and sometimes blatantly false - claims about the doctrines of Islam and the views and the views of Muslims.

And I am not imposing any "ancient or medieval hermeneutic" upon Muslims. Leave that to the proponents of Sharia.

I'd rather say taqiya/guarding instead of saying being afraid. But they are used interchangable. ... And being God fearing means that you gaurd against the evil. Doing Karate blocks.

They say that the church (religion and judaism) and the government should be separated. How did you manage to get the support of the government to realie some fairytales? If we are going to talk about fairytales, then I am sure that Islam is the last religion and we are more entitled for a land.

You cant just come to me and tell me get of you computer it is mine? You did that to the palestinians. We are defintly painting targets on your faces.

I doubt ruveyn did anything to the Palestinians. Just because he's Jewish is no reason to accuse him of actions undertaken by the state of Israel.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

I operate the largest Ṣūfī Muslim resource on the web. My "concept of what is Islam is compared to ... the vast majority of Muslims" is better than fair.



The Prophet Muḥammad is not owned by Islām. People in several other religions, including my own, accept His authority.



Incorrect. You are confusing two separate issues. When I have have been speaking about my own approach to the Prophet of Islām, I pointed out my personal views on al-aḥādīṯ. When I have been speaking about Islām, including al-aḥādīṯ, I said that the Prophets should not be judged by human standards (including his marriage to a ʿĀ'ishah). By the way, the account of child marriage is from al-aḥādīṯ, not al-Qurʾān.



Is that what you think I have been doing? Interesting. I guess I need to be more careful.

Seriously, no, I have dismissed statements made without evidence - especially when their source is right-wing anti-Muslim websites.



Because, as I have said, I do not want to get into moral debates. You and some others have been saying that Muḥammad did supposedly "bad" things. There is no way to argue against a person's moral code - except by providing one's own moral code, namely, that I do not believe that the Prophets should be judged by human standards.



As I said, the Islāmists, who seem to get a lot of press, do not represent the views of most Muslims.



This conversation is going in circles. Support for al-Šarīʿa does not mean support for the far-right caricature of al-Šarīʿa.



You mean, in spite of the fact that most Muslims are not Islāmists? lol.



Opposition to innovation is a Salāfī idea (a minority position).



Fascinating. I also like the way you simply dismiss anything which does not conform to your preconceptions (like the documents I posted).



You can suggest anything you like. However, you are simply supporting my point that al-Šarīʿa hermeneutics are being actively debated by Muslims



And what is the status of the sources you posted? There is no central Muslim authority.



So I guess that your own cherry picking is okay?



Another baseless accusation. If I seem to be tired of this circular discussion, I am, Move on.

It doesn't prove that your concept of Islam is better than fair. It only proves that you if you are exceptionally self-centred. You are just one person, and your views stand in stark contrast to the views of the majority of Muslims in the world. I have provided evidence for this. You have not.

Oh, and simply boasting about your personal credentials does not qualify as evidence. You still have to provide... evidence.



You fail to get the point: You are making claims about Islam while simultaneously being completely obscure and opportunistic about what Islamic sources can be admitted or not. I at least have the common decency to investigate Islam on the basis of its *own* central tenets.



You are being intellectually dishonest... *again*. I presented several of *your* statements - all of which were unsubstantiated. And they are still unsubstantiated.


I am well aware that you do not believe that a Prophet endorsing the rape of slaves (Q 4:24) should be judged by human standards.

However, last time I checked, some of the issues discussed are:made claims about:
- Did Muhammad kill his enemies during the Battle of The Trench or did he execute them afterwards?
- Does Sharia allow Muslims to rape their captives/slaves or not?
- Did Muhammad marry Aisha when she was 6-7 and consummate the marriage when she was 9, or not?
- Did Muhammad impose the death penalty for leaving Islam and Atheism?

People may have moral opinions about these issues, but these are *factual* questions.


Utter BS. See below.




Do you make it a habit of posting "lol" when someone just destroyed your entire argument? How quaint.

Let's look at some common definitions of Islamism:

- Wikipedia: Islam should guide social and political as well as personal life.

- Merriam Webster: The faith, doctrine, or cause of Islam/A popular reform movement advocating the reordering of government and society in accordance with laws prescribed by Islam.

- The Free Dictionary: An Islamic revivalist movement, often characterized by moral conservatism, literalism, and the attempt to implement Islamic values in all spheres of life/The religious faith, principles, or cause of Islam.

- Oxford English Dictionary: Islamic militancy or fundamentalism.

- Dictionary.com: The religion or culture of Islam/Support of or advocacy for Islamic fundamentalism .

- nominalist: Whatever opportunistic "No True Scotsman" definition I can think of when the evidence is against me.



Another unsubstantiated one-liner. You really like those, don't you?



Last time I checked, I made a specific separate reply for all the documents you posted (including the truly idiotic Maududi link), and I did not dismiss the Arab Charter nor the Amman Message. I simply questioned their validity compared to the Cairo declaration, a document signed by all OIC Member States.



I did not know you were clairvoyant. I never said anything about the conclusions in that book.



The status of my sources are the Qu'ran, Sahih Bukhari (the most authoritative of the Sunni hadith collections), an official document on human rights in Islam signed by all 57 OIC Member States, and the work of a highly internationally esteemed scholar on Islamic jurisprudence who has served as an official UN constitutional law expert on the constitution of Iraq and as Chairman of the Constitutional Review Commission of Afghanistan.



Another unsubstantiated one-liner. You really like those, don't you?



Oh, I'm not going anywhere. My accusations are not baseless. I have been diligent in providing sources for my claims - and unlike you - checking them for validity. If your unwillingness or incapability of actually paying attention to what I am writing makes you tired, then you only have yourself to blame.

All the same to me. Traditionalists support tradition. That's how they are wired. Tell them to worship Cthulhu riding an Ox and as long as it's traditional they'll go right along with it, They'll jump up and down and say it makes perfect sense.

The majority worship the majority religion of their birthplace. And just call it a day right there.

Ad hominem = discussion over. You lost by default (standard rules of argumentation).

King Abdullah II is a traditional Muslim. Traditionalism and Islamism are divergent schools of thought in Sunnī Islām.

When do I to pray to Cthulhu riding on an ox?

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer