Genuine Discussions

Author: Yassine

Posts

Total: 104
#61
ResurgetExFavilla
ResurgetExFavilla's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 627
3
2
7
ResurgetExFavilla's avatar
ResurgetExFavilla
3
2
7
-->
@Yassine
Considering our answer to this has been 'let girls going through an awkward puberty saw their tits off and castrate any young boy who looks sideways at a Barbie', tbh I could go for some more cultural chauvinism and a refusal to 'improve'.
- Hahahaha... this made me laugh more than it should. Any topic you wish to discuss openly?
Thoughts on Turkey's regional geopolitical ambitions and relationships with other major regional Islamic powers?
#62
Lemming
Lemming's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,358
4
4
10
Lemming's avatar
Lemming
4
4
10
-->
@Yassine
If you don't mind a personal question,
What brought Islam to such truth and value, in your life?
#63
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
Women's rights and animal rights and Sharia culture don't go well together.

Not from the start during the entire Hadith nor now.

Have fun rewriting the Hadith and cherrypicking the Qur'an. If it says 'equal' in one part but completely and utterly contradicts that in others and how to treat women in action, there's a real issue.

As for the west and colonialism, I know. How much do you know about Islamic colonialism and how Islam spread in the first place?

I won't argue back, I just ask, you want genuine conversation right?

Topic's author
#64
Yassine
Yassine's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 1,085
3
2
6
Yassine's avatar
Yassine
3
2
6
-->
@Wylted
This is the problem with Islam. No amount of self reflection. The West and christians can look at themselves and say "how can we be better", so saying the west and christianity is wrong, is what we do all the time, so we can improve.
- This is irrelevant to the point made in my post, which was more about refuting claims against Islam from incoherence, than it is about Islam per se. That said, let us unpack your statement:
  • One must define self-reflection & one must know what Islam does, to know whether Islam does any of it. Based on the context, I assume you mean by self-reflection the ability to admit wrong & improve. Wrong assumes an objective reference, & improvement implies a direction towards an objective standard, else all is equal. Indeed, one may improve given the standards they adhere to. However, if one were to undermine their moral standards, improvement is absurd, for lack of reference or direction.
  • Does the Islamic Tradition have the ability of self-reflection? In truth, self-reflection is obligatory in Sharia. In fact, it is the third dimension (spirituality) of the faith: Ihsan (to do best, to be excellent). On the level of the individual, one must strive (jihad nafs) to improve through mujahada (constant struggle), muraqaba (self-awareness), & muhasaba (self-accountability) - the three pillars of Tarbia (self-discipline), as mandated by the beloved Prophet (pbuh). On the level of the tradition, the savant (jurist, judge, theologian...) is obligated to always admit & rectify what is wrong, from the hadith: "let not yesterday's conviction prevent you from admitting truth from today's reflection, for truth is timeless".
  • "How we can do better" as christians (or secularists) only makes sense given a Christian (or Secular resp.) moral reference. This, however, is not actually the case. On one hand, there is a dissonance between the moral adherence of the individual & the normative practice in society, imposed by law or policy, or customs, which most often than not do not conform to the individual's source of morality. On the other, Christians -especially in the West- have been undermining the foundations of their morality & faith in the process, hence a deterioration not an "improvement".
- My honest take: In essence, what you're saying stems from the belief that 'newer is better', which is a self-negating stance, for every newer is thereafter older. Your moral "improved" standards of today are, in effect, deteriorations to your predecessors. By the same token, tomorrow's moral standards -when incest, zoophilia, pedophilia & such become norm (naturally from sexual liberalism)- are not seen as improvements to today's standards either, for if that were the case, these future standards would've already been adopted today. This makes the Western system akin to a tribal system, where laws are effectively customary & morality is constantly changing in accordance to social norms & whims - Except, these changes are made to be universal at each turn, & constantly expected from other societies. A system that constantly undermines itself & constantly legitimizes itself with universalist power is a fragile system bound to collapse once that power dwindles.


Muslims are generally unable to self reflect and try to improve the general community.
- I don't know how to address this, as it is too vague. Though, this could mean two things: Muslims do not believe in (or adhere to) self-reflection & improving the general community; Or: Muslims are unable to improve like us by keeping up with our values. Which is it?


I saw this one instance of a guy saying Muslims are violent. The Muslim response was too get angry and say "This guy said muslims are violent, lets get him", and there was indeed threats on his life from muslims, mad that he said muslims were violent.
- First, I don't have to tell you that 'example, therefore general statement' is nonsense. Second, 'Muslim' is not a valid qualifier for the given response just because the responders happen to be Muslim. 'A christian did this, therefore this is Christian practice' is also nonsense. 


This is really a huge lack of introspection.
- I don't know the particulars of the incident, therefore I can not comment. Maybe there were prior grievances between the guy & those muslims, maybe his accusations had other undesirable consequences...etc. Regardless, this does not inform anything about Islam or Muslims, or otherwise.


A lot of that stuff is metaphorical or in some very specific instances.
- That might be the case, or not. Point was, the texts are there, & were often foundational in the Christian conquest of the Globe. Also, you will not find such texts in the Quran or the Hadith, nor do we believe they are divinely inspired. We believe the Bible is altered. 


The koran speaks of constant war.
- That is obviously not true... There are a little over 200 verses -from 6136- in the Quran that speak of War, most are either stories or about Peace & Justice, only 70 are actually about fighting, all of which in self-defense. 


You don't hear about forgiveness of your enemy. 
- This is not surprising, there is a huge lack of understanding in the West about Islam & the beloved Prophet (pbuh), for a variety of reasons. Forgiveness & Compassion are, of course, paramount in the Islamic faith. The Quran opens with: In the name of Allah, the All-Merciful the All-Compassionate. All praise be to Allah, the All-Merciful the All-Compassionate. I've seen some here share some references in regards to this already, such as: "Hold to forgiveness; command what is right; But turn away from the ignorant"..

- The Islamic take on forgiveness & enemies follows the 4 pillars of Sharia, Mercy, Justice, Wisdom & Good:
  • In Justice, that self-defense & alleviating oppression is a right, & that transgression & treachery are forbidden: "Fight in the way of Allah those who fight against you but do not transgress. Indeed, Allah does not like transgressors." (2:190) "And fight them on until there is no more oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in Allah; but if they cease, Let there be no hostility except to against the oppressors" (2:193)...
  • In Mercy, that patience, forgiveness & compassion is paramount. "And if you punish [an enemy, O believers], punish with an equivalent of that with which you were harmed. But if you are patient - it is better for those who are patient" (16:126) "Those who defend themselves when they are oppressed. Let harm be requited by an equal harm, but whoever forgives and makes reconciliation – his reward is due from Allah, He does not like the wrongdoers" (42:39-40)...
  • In Wisdom, that freedom to faith & dialogue are prescribed. "There is no compulsion in religion" (2:256) "The truth is from your Lord, so whoever wills - let him believe; and whoever wills - let him disbelieve." (18:29) "Invite (all) to the Way of thy Lord with wisdom and beautiful preaching; and argue with them in ways that are best and most gracious" (16:125)...
  • In Good, that peace & benefit are the objective. "And if they incline to peace, then incline to it [also] and rely upon Allah." (8:61) "O mankind, indeed We have created you from male and female and made you peoples and tribes that you may know one another. Indeed, the most noble of you in the sight of Allah is the most righteous" (49:13)...

Or turning the other cheek, like Jesus promotes. Instead it is "kill your enemy"
- In Islam, the prophets' teachings are seen as equivalent & harmonious. Thus, the beloved Jesus (pbuh)'s teachings are similar to those of the beloved Muhammed (pbuh). In fact, in more than 400 instances in our tradition, Prophet Muhammed (pbuh) quotes Jesus (pbuh):
  • For instance, Muhammed (pbuh) is reported to have said: "Jesus son of Mary said: 'Virtuous action does not consist in doing good to someone who has done good to you—that is merely returning a favor. Virtuous action consists in doing good to those who have wronged you'" & also said: "Jesus son of Mary said: "Do not, like lords, look at the faults of others. Rather, like servants, look at your own faults. In truth, humanity is comprised of only two types, the afflicted and the sound. So show mercy to the afflicted, and praise God for well-being'". & also said: "Jesus son of Mary blessings of Allah be upon him stood among the Jews and said: 'O! People of Israel, do not speak wisdom to the ignoble so that you wrong it, and do not deny it those to whom it is due so that you wrong them. Do not oppress nor reward an oppressor lest your deeds become futile'"...
  • Equivalent teachings from the Prophet (pbuh): "Forgive those who transgress against you, keep ties of kinship with those who severe them, be good to those who wrong you and speak the truth even against yourself", "He will enter Paradise only he who possesses Mercy. It is not the mercy that one has for his friend, but the Mercy for all mankind", "The merciful are shown mercy by The Most Merciful. Be merciful on the earth, and you will be shown mercy from Who is above the heavens"...
- As to "turn the other cheek". If meant in the sense of patience & forbearance, then it's in agreement with the prophetic teachings. The Prophet (pbuh) said: "who is deprived forbearance is deprived of all good", "with forbearance things are adorned, and without it things are blemished"...etc. However, if meant in the sense of pacifism & facilitating oppression, then it would be at odds with Islamic teachings, that harm & oppression must be alleviated.
  • My honest take: "turn the other cheek" -& the rest of the speech- can only be a prophetic statement, calling for forbearance & humility. I believe the beloved Jesus (pbuh) did indeed say those words. An ordinary persecuted jew from the 1st century would be expected to speak of vengeance & justify it instead. Nevertheless, the Bible contains a lot of extremely violent passages, of massacres, killing of innocents, vengeance, slaughter of women & children & even babies, rape, mass scale injustice & so on. Christians bringing up "turn the other cheek" & "love thy enemy" every time does not impress the non-Christian. It sounds more like an excuse to wash off the anger & hate they hold or the violence they practice, to boost their self-righteousness even greater. In effect, this was the modus operandi of Christian conquests, from the Crusades, through the Age of "Discovery" & the Colonial Period, to today. Mass scale genocides & injustice followed by 'look at these violent barbaric people, we are saviors and the people of turn the other cheek'.
  • What to do? It is natural & a given for one to seek to establish one's own convictions & deny others'. This, however, should not prevent one -be it Christian or Muslim or otherwise- to seek Truth in life, in sincerity & humility. Christians must come to terms with their scriptures & history, sans whims or denial. It is the only way to build a strong tradition. – Europe has been the bastion of Christianity in the 19th century, the US took that role in the 20th century. Christians elsewhere -especially in Africa or Asia- are very recent & bitter adopters, i.e. they adopted the faith under domination to emulate the dominator. Once the US either loses its domination or its Christianness, the fate of Christianity in these places would solely depends on the strength & soundness of the religious tradition itself, without a polity to support it.

Topic's author
#65
Yassine
Yassine's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 1,085
3
2
6
Yassine's avatar
Yassine
3
2
6
-->
@Wylted

You can walk into any christian church, even wearing muslim garb, and you will be welcomed like a brother.
- I know for a fact if I walk into a particular church there is a good chance I will be shot, or at least beaten. I personally have terrible experiences with some racist Jesus loving right wingers. I don't generalize though, I know most christians are peaceful & hospitable people.


I very much doubt, I could enter one of your temples and leave alive.
- I can't tell if you're being serious here. Go to your local mosque, you will be most welcomed.


RM was brave enough to admit his fears, so I will admit mine. I'm sure it will make you happy that people fear you,
- FEAR ME YOU PEASANTS! For real though... No, but I am sure it will make the CIA, IDF, & the US Military happy though. I reckon this is for two reasons:
  • The first, there is an immemorial anti-Islam collective memory in Western Christendom, & its legacy is still alive today. That is to be expected, for the main opponent of Western Christendom the past 1000 years was the Islamic World. There was a 50 year break where Islam retired to the background with the rise of Nazis & then Communism, but immediately after the collapse of the USSR the old enemy came back to find its place. Hence, the first Iraq War, & the several other invasions & attacks on Muslim countries & Muslims since.
  • The second relates to Power, especially state power through fear-mongering. During the Cold War, in their fight against Communism, the US instigated many invasions, assassinations & military coups against other peoples, which led to the death of millions & the exodus of dozens of millions of people. As shocking as it is, these received huge popular support (until they didn't). Even against citizens, close to a majority of the American population in the 50s supported the government's heavy handed crack down on communist advocates, in systematic persecution, large scale incarcerations & punishments going up to death penalty. It would be hard for the US government to carry out an invasion of a foreign nation, such as Iraq, without popular support, which can only be gained through fear-mongering. Hence, all the anti-Islam & terrorism propaganda. In fact, the political scientist Mearsheimer argues that the most common state lies internationally are in western democracies against foreign enemies, through fear-mongering, cover-ups & nationalistic myths. [from Why Leaders Lie, John Mearshwimer]

because as Muslims say "We love death, like you love life".
- No they don't, & they shouldn't. The Prophet (pbuh) said: "let none of you wish for death, or pray for it before its time. If virtuous, he may do more good. If a sinner, he may be able to repent". A Muslim may say that in war though, to instill fear in enemy combatants.


I too worry. Any critcism of islam might result in some muslim attempting to kill you. They'll murder you, probably to shut you up, because they fear the truth.
- Yet, criticism of Islam is the norm in the West. It's a multi-billion dollar industry. Thousands of channels & websites & books wholly dedicated to this purpose. Money & time well spent I suppose. As to "they'll murder you", that's honestly a childish thing to say. There are TWO BILLION Muslims in the world... 


I have probably watched maybe a dozen videos of muslims beheading soldiers and journalists.
- I assume you're referring to the ISIS videos. I've already commented on ISIS & co. in another post. These people have nothing to do with Islam, & their main target are Muslims themselves, as they consider any Muslim who doesn't adhere to their ideas a greater kafir than non-Muslims, & their blood permissible. As a matter of fact, they will decidedly kill me if they know my beliefs. – This pours again into the 'a christian did this, therefore Christians' nonsense, & the targeted fear-mongering campaign against Muslims in the West. This begs the question though, what are these foreign soldiers & journalists doing in such distant lands? Giving out flowers? Of course not, rather death & cruelty. The War on Terror caused the death of some 1.2 million people & the displacement of over 35 million -given that 90% of US veteran soldiers are Christian. Imagine what the people of the Middle East think when they see so much cruelty & misery caused by Christian soldiers to their own children, spouses, parents, kin & friends... How do you explain to them this isn't Christianity? Or how do you tell them to not be fearful of Christians?

- My take: holding such a callous attitude is destructive & unsustainable. Grievances die hard & injustice is never forgotten, but power withers. Each person is responsible within their ability to alleviate oppression & remedy grievances, in action, words, or at the very least in realization. If you hold grievances about aggression done against individual co-nationals by Muslims, imagine what terrible grievances those the US & allies invaded, bombed & pillaged hold. "How many 9/11s the US committed after WWII? 10000 9/11s"... Your government may be able to overpower any retaliation from all that oppression today with sheer military might or economic pressure, but this will not always be the case. Inciting such an averse collective memory into so many peoples on a global scale is a recipe for self-destruction. The average young Chinese who may otherwise be sympathetic to the West & the US is today antagonist to them; this will naturally translate to the nation as whole as it grows & gains its superpower status. – This is even truer for the Muslim world. - at the hight of the Colonial Period, the Christian West had twice the population of the Muslim world, today the ratio has reversed, by 2060 the Muslim world will become 4 times more populous than the Western world. Last year, the Muslim world surpassed the West in real industrial output -behind China, while closing in 60% of the West's real total GDP, though expanding at a 5 times the growth rate. Point being, without the strength to overpower retaliations, the West is as good as done. There is great need in the West to rectify these transgressions & seek reconciliation in anticipation for a future where they won't be the dominators, just like they weren't before 2 or 3 centuries ago. This is true for all nations just the same. The atrocities & injustices ISIS or the Wahhabis in general have committed (& still) around the Muslim world are not forgotten. They may have had the support of the West for the past century & an exhaustible oil wealth to spread their virus & destabilize nations, but this will not always be the case. One that dominion or wealth dwindles, all their past becomes a due debt. 


I have seen Muslims cheer when a speaker mentions stoning a homo to death.
- Examples of American Christian pastors & preachers doing the same thing:
...


I don't agree with their lifestyle, but your response is to murder fags, while we try to help them turn away from their sin.
- I remember addressing this in a prior post. 


Most religions are about peace and love, Islam is the only main religion that is the opposite.
- This brings us back again to the previously mentioned points: legacy of antagonistic memory of Islam, systematic fear-mongering, & insincerity in seeking truth. Is Judaism truly about peace & love? Is Christianity? Hinduism? Buddhism? Islam? The answer is no. These religions are about the Submission to & the Love of God. As such, they all enjoin virtue, such as compassion, patience, justice, love, forgiveness..etc, & condemn sin. 

- The Islamic view is that all God's religions share a divine origin, but have been altered with the passing of time to incorporate human whims & vices: "Verily, the religion in the sight of Allah is surrender [Islam]" (3:19), Islam here is in the general sense, which means submission to Allah, not particularly the Islamic faith.
All prophets brought the same universal message, that is "Islam is submission to the Creator and mercy to the creation". Noah, Abraham, Moses & Jesus (pbut) are the most important prophets in the Quran. The beloved Prophet (pbuh) also spoke of Zoroaster as a true prophet with a revelation, whose book has been burned & lost; & about Krishna in the same way. Some Muslim scholars (like Isfarayini & Shahrastani) equates Buddha with Khadir that Muhammed (pbuh) spoke of, for both share a lot of similarities in their origin story (being a prince, renouncing life, preaching, reaching enlightenment, gaining immortality...etc). That said, the original teachings of all these prophets have not been faithfully preserved, & what we have today are altered versions. Therefore, what conforms to "submission to the Creator and mercy to the creation" is probably divine, what doesn't is definitely manmade.


The earlier books are like that. The book itself says later verses when contradicting the earlier ones, supercede the earlier ones.
- If it's too good to be true, it probably is. I love the effort though. You're an intelligent man, don't you think this trick is just too convenient for the anti-Islam advocates to convince their audience to ignore the nice verses!... Abrogation is a vast topic to discuss in this short post, it's a science in itself; but I'll try to share the idea at least. Abrogation is the supersession of a prior established legal precedent by an isolated analogous later injunction [that is, abrogation does not extend to non-injuctional, non-legal, non-analogous & non-isolated statements in the Quran]. Meaning: utterances which relate to customs, past laws, beliefs, events, doctrines, facts, conventions, universals, or moral values, are not subject to Abrogation. For instance, "Fight in the way of Allah those who fight against you but do not transgress. Indeed, Allah does not like transgressors." can not be abrogated, for it relates to a the moral value of non-transgression (which is justice) & also the doctrine of God's disapproval of transgressors. God can not dislike transgressors today then love them tomorrow, for God can not change! Hence, non abrogation.

Topic's author
#66
Yassine
Yassine's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 1,085
3
2
6
Yassine's avatar
Yassine
3
2
6
-->
@Wylted
The late verses are all about war.
- Of course that's nonsense. Why don't you read the Quran yourself & save yourself the wonder... It's a short book, about a sixth of the Bible. – Now, why do Islamophobes always bring this up then? The answer relates to the chapter revealed third before last, that is Surat Tawba (chapter 9: Repentance); particularly, Ayat Sayt (the verses of the sword), verses 1-15 from said chapter. Maybe you've heard of this before: "kill the polytheist/pagans wherever you find them" (from chapter 9:5), a most favorite of Islamophobes, although always conveniently without any context. I'm sure if they put the whole passage, their agendas will be exposed. – Anyhow, chapter 9 is revealed in response to the Quraysh coalition violating their treaty with the Muslims by attacking the tribe of Khuzaa & killing many among them, only 2 years into the 10-year truce established between the two parties. It reads:
  1. [This is a declaration of] disassociation, from Allah and His Messenger, to those with whom you had made a treaty among the polytheists. [who violated their treaty]
  2. So travel freely, [O disbelievers], throughout the land [during] four months [...]
  3. [...] So if you repent, that is best for you; but if you turn away - then know that you will not cause failure to Allah.
  4. Excepted are those with whom you made a treaty among the polytheists and then they have not been deficient toward you in anything or supported anyone against you; so complete for them their treaty until their term. Indeed, Allah loves the righteous.
  5. And when the inviolable months have passed, then –kill the polytheists wherever you find them– and capture them and besiege them and sit in wait for them at every place of ambush. But if they should repent, establish prayer, and give zakāh, let them [go] on their way. Indeed, Allah is Forgiving and Merciful.
  6. And if any one of the polytheists seeks your protection, then grant him protection so that he may hear the words of Allah. Then deliver him to his place of safety. [...]
  7. [...] So as long as they are upright toward you, be upright toward them. Indeed, Allah loves the righteous.
  8. How [can there be a treaty] while, if they gain dominance over you, they do not observe concerning you any pact of kinship or covenant of protection? [...]
  9. [...]
  10. They do not observe toward a believer any pact of kinship or covenant of protection. And it is they who are the transgressors.
  11. [...]
  12. And if they break their oaths after their treaty and defame your religion, then combat the leaders of disbelief, for indeed, there are no oaths [sacred] to them; [fight them that] they might cease.
  13. Would you not fight against a people who broke their oaths and determined to expel the Messenger, and they had begun [the attack upon] you the first time?
- Anyone who reads this passage should immediately understand the folly of Islamophobes in this matter. The first half of this passage dictates the steps that should be taken to deal with the peace violators, following the 4 pillars of Sharia, Mercy, Justice, Wisdom & Good. – The second half is an emphatic affirmation that fighting is indeed done in self-defense (as underlined). Over & over again, the emphasis is put on these violators, that they broke the treaty, that they are the aggressors, that they attacked first, that they planed to expel the Prophet (pbuh), that they defamed the faith, that they discarded kinship... Should 

- This is an honest question to all Islamophobes out there, should the US abide by the instructions prescribed in these verses (9:1-8)? – Such that, if the US is attacked (for instance, by al-Qaeda or the Japanese Navy), it should respond according to chapter 9 of the Quran in the following steps:
Declare disassociation with these attackers, [from verse 1]
Offer them a 4 months grace period for repentance, [from verse 2]
Forgive them if they repent, [from verse 3]
Keep peace with those who have not attacked its people or helped the attackers, [from verse 4]
Fight & kill those who have not repented by the end of the grace period, & forgive them once they repent, [from verse 5]
Grant asylum to anyone among the attackers who seeks protection, [from verse 6]
Release them back safely if they change their mind. [from verse 6]

Nuff said...


Even peace treaties in the book are just meant to be temporary, so they have time to rebuild strength before going to war again.
- I said I will be open-minded & genuine. But honestly man, the amount of BS I had to deal with in this post is just monumentous.
  • First of all, no such thing is mentioned, whatever your source is, they are trying too hard. Generally, the party with the bigger leverage with seek longer terms to maintain favorable conditions; & the party with the weaker power will also seek longer terms for better readiness.
  • Second of all, Christians (in most denominations) do not even have that to begin with, for treaties with non-Christians are non-binding to them. Hence, their incessant treaty violations since the Crusades. This is also true for western countries, which adopt offensive realism as foreign policy & international relations. 
  • Third of all, Treaty or War is the de facto international political dichotomy. A state is either in Treaty or at War with another, there is no in between.
  • Finally, building strength & being prepared for war is a paramount Islamic obligation, for how else would one defend oneself without the preparedness or capacity to do so. "Against them make ready your strength to the utmost of your power, including steeds of war, to strike terror into (the hearts of) the enemies" (8:60).

You don't really see Jews flying planes into buildings,
- They just fly rockets into babies.


or Christians actually beheading muslim reporters and soldiers on camera for fun.
- Because you're not looking for them. You should be warned though, the sights are hard vomit inducing. The truth is, sadly, most times Christians don't care about Muslims to even bother. Just bomb them & burn them to crisp.


There is just one religion that creates these sorts of extremists, who feel they have a duty to kill as many non muslims as humanly possible.
- Honestly, this is why I said that such attitude is very dangerous. Dehumanizing & demonizing others makes the person numb to injustice against them. In actual fact, no Muslims are actually invading or bombing or pillaging any western country, millions of people in the West are not being killed by Muslims, & several dozens of millions are not losing their homes & livelihood in Europe or America. This is happening to Muslims though. – On the surface, American humane awareness seems to have developed greatly since the civil rights movement, especially in regards to life & dignity. Yet in turn, the remaining latent supremacy & disdain appears to have instead been directed against "enemies", be it communists, Muslims, or now potentially Chinese. 


read the politically incorrect guide to islam, by robert spencer
- Robert Spencer is an Islam critique & an Islamophobe, devoted to smear Islam. Reading him may give you an idea of what Islamophobes think of Islam, but decidedly not what Muslims actually believe or what Islam actually is. If you wish to know what Muslims believe, ask Muslims. If you wish to know  what Islam actually is, read Muslim ulama. What Spencer or co. says about Islam is a figment of his imagination posing as Islam. There are countless American authors & academics who have written on Islam, or the beloved Prophet (pbuh) without Spencer's dripping hate.


Topic's author
#67
Yassine
Yassine's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 1,085
3
2
6
Yassine's avatar
Yassine
3
2
6
-->
@Wylted
Lemming, If you have a country that is predominantly muslim like Iran, and you have a predominantly christian country like America, why is it always the mostly muslim countries, where terrorists come from. Even the terrorists in the united states largely come from muslim countries or descended from them.
- I hear what you're saying, but follow me here. It is estimated that the US has caused the deaths of 20 to 30 million people since WWII, & the displacement of several times more. So, my question is, what is it to be expected from Americans, if say Muslims attacked the US in turn & killed 30 million of its people & displaced half its population? 


Hell, even tolerant liberals acknowledge that Muslims have a problem with violence.
- I feel the enthusiasm, but this is factually false. According to Gallup, close to 80% in MENA (Middle East North Africa) see violence against civilians as never justified, while almost half in North America see it as sometimes justified -in contrast to only 13% in MENA. Even among Americans, Muslims are the least to say violence against civilians is sometimes justified: 21%, compared to 58% of Christians, and 43% non-religious. This may not be very flattering for Christians, but it does put things into perspective, between state fear-mongering & reality.


When trump announced he would use statistics to determine where the most foreign terrorists come from and make it harder to travel from there, every muslim and liberal in the country, automatically assumed the statistics would show that mostly muslims would be effected.  They called it anti muslim, when he merely mentioned using statistics to shut down travel from countries where statistically the most terrorists come from.
- I'm afraid if he used statistics he'd have to ban America from coming to America, with all those mass shootings every other day. Ask yourself, why does this issue seem so big when in reality it isn't. Statistically, Muslim immigrants to the US have a much lower crime rate than the American average. Between 75% & 80% of S&E researchers & engineers in the US are foreign, of which a fifth to a quarter are Muslim. The whole issue is moot. If the US truly wishes to stop people  disturbing its soil, it should cease laying waste to their homelands.


If even Muslims can admit they are violent and be upset at that measure, why can't you?
- Can you admit Christians are violent? 


That's pretty much what muslims were like back when Salidan was murdering thousands of christians.
- It's Saladin (or Salahdeen). I'm honestly curious though, where do you get your information from? Seems these people are taking you for a ride... Contrary to what you believe, after retaking Jerusalem, Saladin offered amnesty to all Christians -who just priorly spent decades massacring millions of Muslims. He offered them food, ships & even allowed them to take their families & belongings back home. Saladin is considered by many prominent church patriarchs a saint, despite being a Muslim, for the amazing compassion & forgiveness he showed the defeated christians. – Contrastingly, the Christian crusaders massacred entire towns, men, women & children, in the most cruel ways, from genocide to impalement to cannibalism. I know this isn't what you wanted to hear, but for the sake of full disclosure.


They legit have not changed in tactics.
- That's accurate indeed. Saladin was an adherent to Shafi'i Law, Ash'ari Theology (like myself), & Qadiri Mysticism. 


They wish to slowly hunt down and kill all non muslims. They probably feel guilty if they are on their death beds and have not managed to kill one.
- I'm starting to think you're trolling... 


Not every belief system is good lemming. I think we start from an assumption that all religions are like judaism and christianity and buddhism, where we are ultimately taught to love one another and be peaceful. Islam is a very unique religion.
- You make good points, not every belief system is good. Indeed, Islam is a unique religion. Whichever is good or better is the very point of contention, it must be proven before it's granted. One must make a comparison between Christianity & Islam, or Western Secular Liberalism & Islam, to know wether what you said is true. 


They even have verses in the quran that allow them to lie to non muslims, if it helps them advance islam in it's global conquest.
- This is actually hilarious, LOL! Wow! These fantasies would've never occurred to me if you didn't share them... Joking aside, what Quran is this? It's not in ours for sure...


look up takiyya
- Taqiyyah is a Shi'a concept. In fact, it's one of their tenets of belief. You should talk to a Shi'a about that. There is no Taqiyyah in Sunni Islam. But I agree with you, Taqiyyah is a huge issue, albeit historically. Today the issue is irrelevant. 


The entire sequence of Quranic revelations are a testimony to taqiyya and, since Allah is believed to be the revealer of these verses, he ultimately is seen as the perpetrator of deceit. This is not surprising since Allah himself is often described in the Quran as the "best deceiver" or "schemer." (see 3:54, 8:30, 10:21). This phenomenon revolves around the fact that the Quran contains both peaceful and tolerant verses, as well as violent and intolerant ones.
The ulema were uncertain which verses to codify into sharia's worldview. For instance, should they use the one that states there is no coercion in religion (2:256), or the ones that command believers to fight all non-Muslims until they either convert or at least submit to Islam (9:5, 9:29)? To solve this quandary, they developed the doctrine of abrogation – naskh, supported by Quran 2:105. This essentially states that verses "revealed" later in Muhammad's career take precedence over those revealed earlier whenever there is a discrepancy.
Why the contradiction in the first place? The standard answer has been that, because Muhammad and his community were far outnumbered by the infidels in the early years of Islam, a message of peace and co-existence was in order. However, after Muhammad migrated to Medina and grew in military strength and numbers, the militant or intolerant verses were revealed, urging Muslims to go on the offensive.
- This is nicely put. Simple & safe. For the uninitiated it sounds almost scholarly, albeit entirely fake news. In case of doubt, they made sure to include Taqiyyah in the beginning, trapping the reader into perpetually believing the author, by readily mistrusting Muslims 'who will use taqiyya to conceal their true beliefs'. – So, what if, in fact, the author is lying & the Muslim is telling the truth, how do you get out of this trap? – You must believe that billions of Muslims for 1400 years conspired on a systematic global level to conceal their beliefs in the millions of books they wrote down... This isn't funny anymore, it's just pitiful. Sad for the lengths these haters go to to smear Islam, & even sadder for poor souls who actually believe this asininity.


Who do you believe when it comes to Muslims Lemming. CNN reporters calling it a religion of peace, and never studying it, or the people who base their life on the koran and believe so much in it, they are willing to sacrifice their lifes. Is don lemon more educated on islam or the members of ISIS?
- I'm pretty sure Lemming is more educated on Islam than ISIS. The problem with Islamophobes is that they conflate everything & confuse different beliefs, which makes them fall into these awkward situations. For instance, don't bring up Taqiyyah to a Sunni. It means nothing to him. Or ISIS - Don't mention ISIS to a Sunni like myself (They are a deviant sect, who consider virtually all Muslims kafir); Or even Wahhabi/Salafi doctrine & practices to a traditional Muslim. – If you wish to criticize Islam to a Sunni Muslim, refer to the Four Mathhabs if your objection is moral or legal, & to the Ash'ari/Maturidi schools if your objection is theological or doctrinal. To us, everything outside the traditional schools is simply not Islam. – If you wish to use ISIS as a basis for criticism, find a sympathizing opponent, maybe a Wahhabi from the Sururi faction. 


I have much more respect for Yassine, who by morning I assume will take the time to teach me a few things, even if he is to bullheaded to learn from me.
- A backhanded compliment is better than an insult I guess. If you have things to teach me which I'm unaware of, please be my guest. 


Topic's author
#68
Yassine
Yassine's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 1,085
3
2
6
Yassine's avatar
Yassine
3
2
6
Women's rights and animal rights and Sharia culture don't go well together.
- This does not address what I said at all, & it strictly contradicts reality. You have to actually show that the rights of women in Sharia are not rights, idem for animal rights. I have shown illustrated some the rights of women, & enemies, & animals... You have to show how these are not rights, or not good, or immortal, or whatever you need to do to negate what I said. 

- On that note, women's rights & animal rights in the modern West are, of course, inspired from Islam & the Islamic World. There were virtually no animal rights in Europe since ancient Greeks. Aristotle thought animals were soulless tools, Church fathers thought them property, Descartes thought them simple automata. The first proponents of animal rights in Europe who spoke against the consensus of their time, like Locke & especially Rousseau, were heavily influenced by Muslim thought. Locke's professor in Oxford Pococke studied in Syria & brought back more than 400 Islamic works to Oxford. Rousseau's father was a watchmaker in Istanbul, his cousin an ambassador to the Turks. His novel Emily –a journey to Algeria– got him into trouble with the French authorities for its unacceptable –"Islamic"– content, he had to flee to Switzerland pretending he was Persian. There he met his patron, Lord Keith, who was fond of Islam, & Ematulah, a Turkish Muslim. Their ideas thus born from influence in thought & enchantment with the Islamic world & Islamic knowledge. Rousseau would then grow to become the foremost proponent of animal rights in the continent....etc.


Not from the start during the entire Hadith nor now.
- This is just a bare assertion. You can't persuade anybody with that. You have to show that your claim is indeed the case.


Have fun rewriting the Hadith and cherrypicking the Qur'an.
- I'm sure some do. I follow the Four Mathhabds, we don't cheerypick anything.


If it says 'equal' in one part but completely and utterly contradicts that in others and how to treat women in action, there's a real issue.
- Sure thing, which part with what? You have to be more specific. 'I said there is, therefore there is' is not a valid argument. 


As for the west and colonialism, I know. How much do you know about Islamic colonialism and how Islam spread in the first place?
- Yes, I know Islamic History almost in its entirety. Greatest thing that ever happened, especially the early conquests. Justice galore.


I won't argue back, I just ask, you want genuine conversation right?
- Yes, you gotta be more specific about your objections or your claims. Very vague & very general statements or bare assertions can not advance this conversation.


- This didn't happen, & all the quotes are grossly mistranslated. I suppose to fit the author's agenda. If you wish to talk about a specific hadith or hadiths, or verse, do mention them. I can't respond to links.


- This is hilarious coming from a Christian website. I can't take this seriously, it's all emotional nonsense – Christians telling us what Islam teaches about women...  – Not that the Bible has a positive view of wives to begin with, for marriage itself is not desirable & women are seen as impure "Those are those (men) who did not defile themselves with women, for they kept themselves pure. They follow the Lamb wherever he goes.". In another place: "A man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man." "the head of the woman is man". Besides all the other places that calls for the slaughter of women, I found this one particularly shocking: "And the daughter of any priest, if she profane herself by playing the whore, she profanes her father: she shall be burnt with fire.". DAMN! I reckon Christians who attack the Quran in all devious manners must do it to appease their hearts a little about the atrocities in their book, maybe to feel a little better about their faith.


- This is from David Wood, Really?! Nah man, I'm good. – Let us start over. First of all, the opinions of Christians about what Islam teaches or doesn't is factually obsolete & irrelevant to what Islam actually teaches. The same way my opinions about what Catholicism teaches are irrelevant to Catholicism. I'd ask the Pope if I want to know. Second of all, I provided a number of Islamic teachings & practices by the Prophet (pbuh) already. You have two choices, either show that the Prophet (pbuh) did not do these things or say those things (which you can't because he indeed did), or that these things that he said or did are actually wrong/bad/immoral/evil/irrelevant...etc. You can also show that these things he said or did are inferior to western practices. 

#69
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,081
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Yassine
So as you have declined to respond, on several occasions.

Your avoidance compels me to conclude that the answer is your Brother.

If this is in fact correct.

And given your supposed devoutness.

Then why do you feel the need to avoid the question.

Are you not proud of your particular style of Islamic conditioning?


#70
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,619
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Yassine
This is what is known as the abrogation. i.e Muhammed says he was deceived and that these earlier verses were given to him in revelation by the Satan . The book then turns intolerant of,  and violent towards, the unbeliever - the kuffar  
- Honestly though, where do you get all this stuff? I must know. 

Yassine. You are no better than the Christian that goes into full denial concerning what their Bible actually says and I won't be going around in circles with you as I have done in the past . And neither will I play your tit for tat game of who committed more atrocities in  the name of their respective  so called ` religions` or god  because attempting to contextualise 7th Century Islam with 21st century Christianity is a none starter.






Sir William Muir (1819-1905) said; “the sword of Muhammad and the Quran are the most fatal enemies of civilisation, liberty and truth which the world has ever known... an unmitigated cultural disaster parading as God's will".
Winston Churchill 1874 - 1965: "Islam is as dangerous in a man as rabies in a dog".
William Gladstone 1809_ 1898  Quran, an accursed book, so long as there is this book there will be no peace in the world.
Winston Churchill 1874 – 1965 The religion of blood and war is face to face with that of peace. Luckily the religion of peace is usually the better armed. The Mahommedan religion increases, instead of lessening, the fury of intolerance. Propagated by the sword, and a form of madness.
Winston Churchill 1899: “Individual Muslims may show splendid qualities, but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world.”
- You shouldn't be quoting Colonial war criminals responsible for millions of deaths as if some authority on mercy & tolerance.

Yes , well we all know who it was that went around the globe, colonising  and converting by the sword and well before the USA and a British Empire were even on the map. How many Muslim Empires were there 4? 5? quite large too weren't they.   Yes, I am sure the indigenous Spaniards, French, German, Yugoslavs and Indians just welcomed Islam with open arms.

And don't waste yours or my time by giving me that "in self defence" BS unless you can explain what Muslims were defending when invading the above mentioned countries.

 We in the west only have a brave Polish King to thank that we are not speaking Arabic and kissing carpet 3 times a day.

The Quran is a vile book that preaches intolerance and death to anyone not Muslim. This is a stone cold fact. And please note, it is the book that I have a problem with and not  Muslims. Muslims to my mind are just as much a victim to Islam as anyone slaughtered and butchered and blown to pieces  in its name.






#71
rosends
rosends's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 806
3
2
6
rosends's avatar
rosends
3
2
6
-->
@Yassine
They just fly rockets into babies

Thank you for showing your true colors. Have a nice day. 
#72
Wylted
Wylted's avatar
Debates: 34
Posts: 5,754
3
4
11
Wylted's avatar
Wylted
3
4
11
-->
@Yassine
None of those people advocated murdering fags, they just talked about how they were sinners. We condemn homosexuality also, we just don't think they deserve to be murdered. 
#73
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,263
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
This is a debate website. I come here to debate & argue.
So do I. There is nothing about that which suggests one should be close minded and not try to understand.

Topic's author
#74
Yassine
Yassine's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 1,085
3
2
6
Yassine's avatar
Yassine
3
2
6
-->
@Wylted
None of those people advocated murdering fags, they just talked about how they were sinners.
- I suspect you keep going back to this just to say that word again... You could've at least watched the videos before commenting! Let's see, the first guy says gays should be tried & put to death, the second says the solution to AIDS is to kill all gays, the third says put gays in electric fence, & the last dude says good riddance for the gay massacre. Point being, these are the true teachings of the Bible, at least it's the letter of the text & what these christians believe.


We condemn homosexuality also, we just don't think they deserve to be murdered. 
- Sure! In Sharia, there is no punishment for homosexuality, rather for public sodomy, which can range from house arrest, lashing, & up to the death penalty -according to the Four Madhhabs. – I'm curious as to your take on the Bible verses which sanction death for gays. Obviously, you disagree with those who call for death of homos, on what ground do you disagree?


- I'm also keen on knowing your answer to the question: should the US abide by the instructions prescribed in these verses (9:1-8)? – Such that, if the US is attacked (for instance, by al-Qaeda or the Japanese Navy), it should respond according to chapter 9 of the Quran in the following steps:
Declare disassociation with these attackers, [from verse 1]
Offer them a 4 months grace period for repentance, [from verse 2]
Forgive them if they repent, [from verse 3]
Keep peace with those who have not attacked its people or helped the attackers, [from verse 4]
Fight & kill those who have not repented by the end of the grace period, & forgive them once they repent, [from verse 5]
Grant asylum to anyone among the attackers who seeks protection, [from verse 6]
Release them back safely if they change their mind. [from verse 6]
Topic's author
#75
Yassine
Yassine's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 1,085
3
2
6
Yassine's avatar
Yassine
3
2
6
-->
@Double_R
So do I. There is nothing about that which suggests one should be close minded and not try to understand.
- Sure, this time I wish to be even more understanding. Do you wish to discuss something?

Topic's author
#76
Yassine
Yassine's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 1,085
3
2
6
Yassine's avatar
Yassine
3
2
6
-->
@Sum1hugme
What convinced you that Islam is true?
- That is a packed question. The short answer is the truth of the Prophet (pbuh) & of the Quran, & the love for the Prophet (pbuh) & for Allah. I don't wish to go into a complex theological discourse on the subject, but I can summarize the outlook as follows:
  • Reason leads us to seek an ultimate explanation to this world, which we recognize as God. This God must be All-Knowing, therefore All-Wise. It's not sensible for an All-Wise being to bestow us with Reason to seek Him yet not give us a path to know Him. Therefore, there must a way to know God thereafter seeking Him; that is guidance, hence a guide as well. The guide is the messenger from God (prophet), & the guidance is the message (revelation). – Indeed, such is God's message, in the all various religions. All great religions start with a messenger -the man- & a message -the book-.
  • The truth of Islam, thus, rests on the truth of the man & the book: Muhammed (pbuh) & the Quran. Particularly, someone who claims to come from God, must show us power only God can grant sans humans -that is miracles, & knowledge only God can bestow a human He sent -that is prophecies. Similarly, a book claimed to be of divine origin must contain divine knowledge a human may not invent, & divine power a human may not impose. – Miracles, if true, are extraordinary events. Prophecies, if true, are records about the future. Therefore, to know the truth of a miracle is to know that the event of said miracle has, in fact, occurred. Respectively, to know the truth of a prophecy is to know that the records of predicted events, in fact, came before the actual events.
  • Also, a divine messenger must exemplify the divine message he is promoting, else loses credibility. Muhammed (pbuh) must therefore be the best example of his own teachings, to show the epitome of virtue & piety; in compassion, patience, forgiveness, justice, forbearance, bravery, manners, generosity, humility...etc. If anyone reads the honest biography of this man, he can only be filled with love for him (pbuh). Although I'm more inclined to the rational, without this emotional component -of love for the Prophet (pbuh) & his noble character, I doubt I would be Muslim.
- In the Islamic tradition, miracles are verified by the condition of Tawatur, i.e. congruence of sensory testimonies by a great number of witnesses, such that it is inconceivable they could have all conspired to tell the same lie, at each level throughout the chain of transmission. – Although there are hundreds of reported miracles related to the Prophet (pbuh), only about 20 of them do fulfill the condition of Tawatur.
  • Example: The story of water gushing out between the Prophet's (pbuh) fingers in the desert when his army run out of water, that hundreds of people drank, washed & filled their containers with it. – The miraculous nature of this event is evident, but how do we know it actually happened? – According to Gawami Kalim (encyclopedia software containing 1400 Hadith collections), this story is reported in 427 chains of transmissions, by 125 independent sources (i.e. compilers like Bukhari, Muslim, Tarmithi...), who report it from 106 independent earlier sources (i.e. narrators or scholars of Hadith), who report it from 52 independent earlier sources (i.e. later successors / followers), who report it from another 36 independent earlier sources (i.e. successors), who report it from 17 companions to the Prophet (pbuh) who witnessed the event. – Independent here meaning these sources are from different places, times, backgrounds, circumstances, ethnicities... spanning then Islamic world, which stretched from Spain to China. The number of such sources is also sufficiently great that it is strictly inconceivable that they could've all conspired to tell the same lie. This is true for each level of the transmission, from the companions, to their successors, to their followers, to the narrators after, up to the compilers. Thus, the condition of Tawatur is fulfilled. Therefore, certainty of faithful transmission from every level to the next, all the way up to the compilers (whose collections we have today). Hence, the story is, in fact, true.
- As to prophecies, it is harder to establish the truth of prophecies predicting events which occurred before these predictions were positively recorded. Because, these could just be after-the-fact accounts made to look like predictions. – Thankfully, a lot of the Prophet's (pbuh) predictions are about events which came centuries after the compilations of Hadith were codified.
  • Examples: "My Ummah will be chased three times by a people with flat faces like shields and small eyes, until they push you [my Ummah] back to the Arabian peninsula" some said: 'O! Apostle of Allah, who are they?' He said: "They are the Turks. By Him in Whose Hand my soul is! They will tie their horses by the pillars of the mosques of muslims”. predicting the mongol invasion in specific details. – "There will come a time when there will be no one left who does not consume usury (interest), and whoever does not consume it will nevertheless be affected by it”, predicting the unique & unprecedented state of today's world. – “if you see the ground of Mecca cleft open and through it dug out river-like passages [i.e. wide tunnels] and the buildings of Mecca rise higher than its mountain tops, then the Hour has cast its shadow”, predicting modern infrastructure & skyscrapers in today's Mecca.

What would convince you that it is false?
- That would be hard to conceive of at this point, especially after the spiritual experiences I've been through in Islam, which can only be described as overwhelming truth. But, the only thing that may cast doubt on my faith is a serious doubt about the Quran's truth, such as in finding a factual error in one of its statements.




#77
Wylted
Wylted's avatar
Debates: 34
Posts: 5,754
3
4
11
Wylted's avatar
Wylted
3
4
11
-->
@Yassine
- I'm also keen on knowing your answer to the question: should the US abide by the instructions prescribed in these verses (9:1-8)? – Such that, if the US is attacked (for instance, by al-Qaeda or the Japanese Navy), it should respond according to chapter 9 of the Quran in the following steps:
Declare disassociation with these attackers, [from verse 1]
Offer them a 4 months grace period for repentance, [from verse 2]
Forgive them if they repent, [from verse 3]
Keep peace with those who have not attacked its people or helped the attackers, [from verse 4]
Fight & kill those who have not repented by the end of the grace period, & forgive them once they repent, [from verse 5]
Grant asylum to anyone among the attackers who seeks protection, [from verse 6]
Release them back safely if they change their mind. [from verse 6]
I would disagree with them. My preferred national security strategy is to bring all the troops, home and stop playing world police. I want all wars to be defensive strictly. If attacked I would advocate a quick and very bloody retaliation, as I think quick and bloody is more ethical than long and drawn out war.

if it is not a sanctioned attack, but accidental or something than we would have to lean towards what you suggested, but intentional military intervention is a different story.

- I suspect you keep going back to this just to say that word again... You could've at least watched the videos before commenting! Let's see, the first guy says gays should be tried & put to death, the second says the solution to AIDS is to kill all gays, the third says put gays in electric fence, & the last dude says good riddance for the gay massacre. Point being, these are the true teachings of the Bible, at least it's the letter of the text & what these christians believe.
I did watch the videos. I think there is a difference between not giving a shit of somebody kills fruits and actually advocating for the murder of them. I'd also say advocating for their death is unacceptable and that we should be completely intolerant of their sinning, while still helping them by leading them to a celibate or heterosexual lifestyle.

As far as the old testament laws that Moses encouraged the stoning of Homos, it was understandable for their situation. You are looking at a group of slaves that need to be hardened with these strict punishments, while also being a small group, so people being okay with gay shit, would prevent them from being fruitful and having lots of children.

There are 13 muslim countries where you will be killed for being a fruit cake. There are zero christian countries like that. Why is that? https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2019/06/14/countries-where-being-gay-is-legally-punishable-by-death/39574685/




#78
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
Okay, Yassine, not only due to being cautious what to criticise in the faith but genuinely as you seem to be here for actual discussion despite being very opinionated (arguably biased) I will ask you this and it's a genuine question, it isn't loaded:

Is Islam (the real Islam) the holy scriptures, the past actions of Islamic regimes, Sharia law itself or what Muslims choose to redefine it as, to adapt to modern (more liberal and egalitarian) times?

I ask this genuinely, you are allowed to say it's a mixture and elaborate, I have always been curious about this.
Topic's author
#79
Yassine
Yassine's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 1,085
3
2
6
Yassine's avatar
Yassine
3
2
6
-->
@Wylted
- I'm also keen on knowing your answer to the question: should the US abide by the instructions prescribed in these verses (9:1-8)? – Such that, if the US is attacked (for instance, by al-Qaeda or the Japanese Navy), it should respond according to chapter 9 of the Quran in the following steps:
Declare disassociation with these attackers, [from verse 1]
Offer them a 4 months grace period for repentance, [from verse 2]
Forgive them if they repent, [from verse 3]
Keep peace with those who have not attacked its people or helped the attackers, [from verse 4]
Fight & kill those who have not repented by the end of the grace period, & forgive them once they repent, [from verse 5]
Grant asylum to anyone among the attackers who seeks protection, [from verse 6]
Release them back safely if they change their mind. [from verse 6]
I would disagree with them.
- Why?


My preferred national security strategy is to bring all the troops, home and stop playing world police. I want all wars to be defensive strictly. If attacked I would advocate a quick and very bloody retaliation, as I think quick and bloody is more ethical than long and drawn out war.
- On what ground? What do you mean by bloody?


if it is not a sanctioned attack, but accidental or something than we would have to lean towards what you suggested, but intentional military intervention is a different story.
- Then is your criticism of the Quran regarding those verses that they are not violent enough? Or is it that they are too peaceful? Or what?


I did watch the videos. I think there is a difference between not giving a shit of somebody kills fruits and actually advocating for the murder of them.
- Which they did, "try them, if found guilty, put them to death" "solve AIDS by Christmas, kill all gays"... these are in the West. Of course, elsewhere, in Latin America or Africa, this rhetoric is the norm.


I'd also say advocating for their death is unacceptable and that we should be completely intolerant of their sinning, while still helping them by leading them to a celibate or heterosexual lifestyle.
- What of those who refuse & promote the normalization of the practice in your society?


As far as the old testament laws that Moses encouraged the stoning of Homos, it was understandable for their situation. You are looking at a group of slaves that need to be hardened with these strict punishments, while also being a small group, so people being okay with gay shit, would prevent them from being fruitful and having lots of children.
- Why have the Jews & Christians always understood the letter to mean death for homosexuals? What makes your opinion more credible than theirs?


There are 13 muslim countries where you will be killed for being a fruit cake. There are zero christian countries like that. Why is that? https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2019/06/14/countries-where-being-gay-is-legally-punishable-by-death/39574685/
- First of all, these laws are either for homosexual rape or public sodomy, there are no laws in these countries against people for just being fruit cakes... that's a blatant lie. Also, I think there is some miscommunication between us. Homosexuality outside the West is a HUGE no-no, especially in the Muslim world & Africa.
- The West has been through a succession of phases that made LGBT normalization possible, to which the rest of the world is stranger. First, the collapse of religious cohesion in favor of individual liberalism, that led to the sexual revolution, accompanied by the second wave feminism, which sought to eliminate gender & chastity rationale from legal consideration, extramarital sexual crimes were ditched, adultery became norm & promiscuity celebrated, chastity laws replaced with statutory rape laws, which effectively made martial relations taboo among teens at the height of their sexual desire, in favor of open relationships & casual sex culture, greatly exacerbated with the diffusion of abortion & adoption & contraception rights. In such a sexualized & liberalized society, systematic exposure to the LGBT cause in media & academia for more than two decades (since the 90s) is surely expected to bear fruit, especially when done under the umbrella of civil rights & sexual liberty & "free love" & such... This whole thing started with long periods of prosperity & wealth generation after generation the West had enjoyed, that they stopped thinking about food & education, into entertainment & self-gratification. 

- Contrastingly, -with the exception of Latin America who are seeing the onset of a sexual revolution, NONE of this happened in the rest of the world. The Muslim world has just started gaining back its prosperity, & religious cohesion is still totally predominant -& it is not going away either, & . To expect sodomy decriminalization or LGBT normalization in Muslim countries, is to assume that long periods of prosperity will cause Islamic adherence to be abandoned in society, that religious cohesion will be replaced by other things to allow for a sexual revolution to take place....etc. All of it is virtually impossible to take place.

#80
Wylted
Wylted's avatar
Debates: 34
Posts: 5,754
3
4
11
Wylted's avatar
Wylted
3
4
11
-->
@Yassine
Are you one of these liberal muslims who think it's okay for dudes to fuck each other?

some of what you are asking is getting tedious. I'll try to be patient.

- I'm also keen on knowing your answer to the question: should the US abide by the instructions prescribed in these verses (9:1-8)? – Such that, if the US is attacked (for instance, by al-Qaeda or the Japanese Navy), it should respond according to chapter 9 of the Quran in the following steps:
Declare disassociation with these attackers, [from verse 1]
Offer them a 4 months grace period for repentance, [from verse 2]
Forgive them if they repent, [from verse 3]
Keep peace with those who have not attacked its people or helped the attackers, [from verse 4]
Fight & kill those who have not repented by the end of the grace period, & forgive them once they repent, [from verse 5]
Grant asylum to anyone among the attackers who seeks protection, [from verse 6]
Release them back safely if they change their mind. [from verse 6]
I would disagree with them.
- Why?

this can get a bit complex as a philosophy, but unlike humans, nation states are not punished in the afterlife. For individuals, we can be more forgiving. If somebody punches me in the face, God may give them their punishment. For nations, it is up to other nations to punish them. I would say the verse you shared is too peaceful, which is in contradiction to my beliefs about Muslims, so I'm not sure if that is cherry picked or a genuine belief, but I am curious as to why you ISIS would operate differently than the above, if it is a genuine belief that is common.


- On what ground? What do you mean by bloody?
There is a theory about war. That when war takes place, you have 2 options. Very quick and ruthless, like peeling a bandaid or very slow, like how the Iraq war happened. Before the era of and ease of mass propagandist was a thing, most preferred the quick and bloody approach, because it looked ugly, but resulted in less death and suffering than a drawn out affair. Now that cameras can catch every despicable aspect of war, and propaganda is so important to winning, most feel compelled to do the slow approach, so they don't look like monsters. It results in more suffering, but they save face.


- Then is your criticism of the Quran regarding those verses that they are not violent enough? Or is it that they are too peaceful? Or what?
I didn't criticize those verses. It seems like a very honorable way to conduct yourself with other nations, I just don't think it is the approach that we should take.

What of those who refuse & promote the normalization of the practice in your society?
If they refuse, than that is between them and God/Allah. The people who promote it, should be stopped in non violent ways though.

- Why have the Jews & Christians always understood the letter to mean death for homosexuals? What makes your opinion more credible than theirs?
I didn't say they were wrong. God gave certain directions to ancient Israelites. I told you the reason for those directions, which were to harden them and to make sure they were multiplying, so they could be a more powerful nation. Nothing hardens somebody, like having them lose their compulsion to kill, by stoning a homo to death.

Those laws were for Jews in the times of Moses, they aren't for me or anybody living today.
#81
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,081
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Yassine
As for ultimate explanations,

The science exceeds religion by 2000 years or so.

Still no GOD as such.

GOD principle reasonable choice, from 2 reasonable options.

Can also be referred to as BIG BOOM if you like.

Scriptural non-sense is just conditioned data transfer,

Of out dated hypotheses.

Teach your kids non-sense,

And they will grow up believing in non-sense,

And worshipping non-sense.

Such are imposed limitations I suppose.

If only one could say.

Well it's harmless enough.
#82
Polytheist-Witch
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 4,188
3
3
6
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Polytheist-Witch
3
3
6
Wylted is overly invested in why two people choose to have sex with one another. No idea why you're obsessed with homosexuality but honestly it's none of your business what two adults are doing their bedroom. It's also not any religions business either. Any god that involved and what you're doing in your bedroom if you're two consenting adults has not enough things to do with his own immense life. And probably isn't really a god.
Topic's author
#83
Yassine
Yassine's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 1,085
3
2
6
Yassine's avatar
Yassine
3
2
6
-->
@rosends
Thank you for showing your true colors. Have a nice day. 
- Are you JIDF? You seem to have a problem with what I said. By all means, do share. 
#84
rosends
rosends's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 806
3
2
6
rosends's avatar
rosends
3
2
6
-->
@Yassine
I don't know what jidf is. I have no problem with what you said. It was enlightening and revealing and I appreciate it as a wonderful piece of shorthand to help me understand your underlying position. 

Topic's author
#85
Yassine
Yassine's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 1,085
3
2
6
Yassine's avatar
Yassine
3
2
6
-->
@Wylted
Are you one of these liberal muslims who think it's okay for dudes to fuck each other?
- Sharia does not give a rat's a** what dudes or broads do behind closed doors as long as they keep it to themselves. That's between them & God, that He may forgive them if they repent, or punish them otherwise. As for non-Muslims, their disbelief itself is greater than any sin they might commit.


this can get a bit complex as a philosophy, but unlike humans, nation states are not punished in the afterlife. For individuals, we can be more forgiving. If somebody punches me in the face, God may give them their punishment. For nations, it is up to other nations to punish them.
- States consist of humans though. Do you not believe God would punish the commander who orders killing of innocents, or the soldier who kills the innocents?


I would say the verse you shared is too peaceful, which is in contradiction to my beliefs about Muslims,
- It's probably not that it is "too peaceful", it's rather that in Christianity there are virtually no rules for Just War, for Christ did not participate in warfare to constitute an example thereof, which leave Christians with the other biblical accounts of war. The wars in the Bible, at least outwardly, promote destruction & humiliation of all enemies, invaders or defenders, combatants or civilians. This is also true for the Western system, as Just War is a fundamentally antithetical concept to Western legal & political theory. 


so I'm not sure if that is cherry picked or a genuine belief,
- You could say this is cheery picked, if you mean picking the worse verses from the Quran. Admittedly, "kill the polytheists wherever you find them" -without context- does sound pretty bad & violent, which is why Islamophobes love to quote it. As to what we actually believe, this relates to the concept of Abode of Peace (Dar Islam) & Abode of War (Dar Harb) in Sharia, or more broadly to the concept of Ismah – Inviolability in the Four Mathhabs (traditional legal schools of thought):
  • The general position of the Four Mathahbs is that non-Muslims are fought for their hostility, not their disbelief. That is, hostile non-Muslims are not inviolable. Inviolability meaning: right to legal recourse for the victim or their family, & punishment for the perpetrator. Though, there is a difference of opinion of the definition of Hostility, whether it is contractual or it is natural.
  • The Hanafi view is that the basis of inviolability is humanity (Ismah Adamiah – Human Inviolability). Thus, the default assumed condition of non-Muslims is that of Peace, unless otherwise the case. Hence, we are at peace, unless you start a war.
  • The Maliki view is that the basis of inviolability is covenant (Ismat Ahd – Inviolability of Covenant). Thus, the default assumed condition of non-Muslims is that of War, unless otherwise established. Hence, we are either at peace under covenant, or otherwise at war.
  • Those in the Abode of Peace are inviolable, & those in the Abode of War are not. Inviolability extends to the 6 sacred rights: faith, life, reason, family, property & honor –accordingly, for the Prophet (pbuh) said: "whoever kills who has a covenant from Allah and His Messenger, then he has violated the covenant with Allah and His Messenger, so he shall not smell the fragrance of Paradise" & said: "The property of those who have been given a covenant is not lawful except for the dues which are levied."...etc.
- In summary, human beings are categorized according to the following in Sharia:
  • The Abode of Peace is inclusive of:
  1. Ismat Millah – Inviolability of Faith = any Muslim anywhere.
  2. Ismat Dhimmah – Inviolability of Protection = non-Muslim permanent residents of Islamic state. <– Ahl Dhimmah or Dhimmis.
  3. Ismat Istiman – Inviolability of Asylum = non-Muslim temporary residents in Islamic state.
  4. Ismat al-Ahd – Inviolability of Treaty = non-Muslim residents in foreign territories under peace treaty with Muslims.
  • Abode of War consists of:
  1. Muharib – Combatants = non-Muslim militarily enabled adult males in foreign territories at war with Muslims <– non-inviolable.
  2. Musalim – non-Combatants = non-Muslim non-combatant women, children, elderly, slaves, disabled, insane, peasants, laborers & monks <– granted semi-inviolability, for the Prophet (pbuh) said: "do not kill the women, and the children, and the elderly. Must not be killed are also the chronically ill, the blind, the monk, and the slave must not be killed". & also said: "you must not kill a woman or a laborer"...etc.

but I am curious as to why you ISIS would operate differently than the above, if it is a genuine belief that is common.
- That's indeed a very interesting question. ISIS are from the Sururi faction of the Wahhabi/Salafi sect, who are followers of the 18th century Muhammed Ibn Abd Wahab, a preacher who renounced the traditional schools & called for the return to -according to him- the "original" teachings of the Quran & Sunnah (prophet's example). Influenced by past sects, this dude taught very strange things, for instance:
God is a humanoid material body, albeit very huge, contingent on time & space. Hence, Wahhabis are anthropomorphists.
  • If you follow the Four Mathhabs -which all Muslims have been for a 1000 years, then you're a Mushrik (polytheist) for doing Shirk (associating partners with God), hence a Kafir (disbeliever).
  • If you seek intercession of the Prophet (pbuh) in prayer to God -which all other Muslims believe in-, then you're polytheist Kafir too.
  • If you visit tombs of prophets & saints for blessing, then you're a polytheist Kafir too.
  • If you don't make Takfir (i.e. believe the above muslims are Kafir), then you too are Kafir...etc.
- Consequently, ISIS do believe that Muslims in today's Levant & Iraq (& elsewhere) are either apostates or polytheists -for believing in the intercession of the Prophet (pbuh) or the blessing from prophets & saints. But, since there is no covenant or treaty between ISIS & these muslims, they believe "kill the polytheists wherever you find them" is appropriate, therefore killing said muslims -polytheists in their eyes- is legitimate. In the process, they also reinterpret everything to fit that narrative, for instance "oppressors" as "disbelievers", "transgression" as "disbelief". They also blast the tombs of prophets & saints to prevent people from visiting them...etc. 


There is a theory about war. That when war takes place, you have 2 options. Very quick and ruthless, like peeling a bandaid or very slow, like how the Iraq war happened. Before the era of and ease of mass propagandist was a thing, most preferred the quick and bloody approach, because it looked ugly, but resulted in less death and suffering than a drawn out affair. Now that cameras can catch every despicable aspect of war, and propaganda is so important to winning, most feel compelled to do the slow approach, so they don't look like monsters. It results in more suffering, but they save face.
- Weren't you saying, "love thy enemy", "turn the other cheek" just few posts ago. How do you reconcile that with this?


I didn't criticize those verses. It seems like a very honorable way to conduct yourself with other nations, I just don't think it is the approach that we should take.
- This isn't necessarily directed at you, although you're here. In reality, Christians -or westerners in general- do not adopt Just War practice or grant any rights to enemy combatants, prisoners of war or even civilians. In spite of this, why are they so adamant, then, on criticizing Islam & especially Muhammed (pbuh) regarding war? 


If they refuse, than that is between them and God/Allah. The people who promote it, should be stopped in non violent ways though.
- 'Stopping' implies force & punishment. How else do you plan on stopping such acts?


I didn't say they were wrong. God gave certain directions to ancient Israelites. I told you the reason for those directions, which were to harden them and to make sure they were multiplying, so they could be a more powerful nation. Nothing hardens somebody, like having them lose their compulsion to kill, by stoning a homo to death. Those laws were for Jews in the times of Moses, they aren't for me or anybody living today.
- Does this apply to all the Ten Commandments & other biblical laws or just homosexuality? Didn't the beloved Jesus (pbuh) say he came to uphold the Law? What do you say of Canon Law (which pre-modern Christians followed)?





Topic's author
#86
Yassine
Yassine's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 1,085
3
2
6
Yassine's avatar
Yassine
3
2
6
-->
@rosends
I don't know what jidf is. I have no problem with what you said.
- Are you trying to say you support flying rockets into babies?


It was enlightening and revealing and I appreciate it as a wonderful piece of shorthand to help me understand your underlying position. 
- That's a very wordy sentence. What is my underlying position then?

#87
rosends
rosends's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 806
3
2
6
rosends's avatar
rosends
3
2
6
-->
@Yassine
Are you trying to say you support flying rockets into babies?
Nope. I'm saying that by seeing how you word the issue and where you think it appropriate to mention it, I can understand your thinking and extrapolate from that to help me understand your thinking in other areas.

That's a very wordy sentence. What is my underlying position then?
It isn't any more wordy than meaning requires it to be. Are you saying you don't know your own position? You are the one who made the statement. Were you saying something other than what your words mean?
Topic's author
#88
Yassine
Yassine's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 1,085
3
2
6
Yassine's avatar
Yassine
3
2
6
@RationalMadman
Okay, Yassine, not only due to being cautious what to criticise in the faith but genuinely as you seem to be here for actual discussion despite being very opinionated (arguably biased) 
- I don't disagree there. I believe the only way we can reach mutual understanding & common truth is when all sides speak firmly & openly about their convictions. 


I will ask you this and it's a genuine question, it isn't loaded:
Is Islam (the real Islam) the holy scriptures, the past actions of Islamic regimes, Sharia law itself or what Muslims choose to redefine it as, to adapt to modern (more liberal and egalitarian) times?
- That is an excellent question. – I appreciate your genuine interest, so I'm going to answer sincerely. I shall present the definition of Islam, & build from there to what this definition entails, in a question-answer format.
  • What is Islam? – 'Islam' from the root word 'aslama' meaning: to surrender, to submit, to bring about peace, to hand over... in this sense, Islam is to surrender to & be at peace with God's Will.
  • What does 'surrender to' or 'be at peace with' exactly mean for us? – God's Will is absolute, humans do not actually have independent agency to act on God's creation free from God's Will. Humans are, in truth, already subject to God's Will. – However, as cognitive beings -whom God bestowed with Reason- we have the volition to deny this fact & delude ourselves otherwise. Therefore, Islam (surrender to God's Will) is not to come under God's dominion after being free from it, for that was never the case to begin with; it is rather to internally realize (or be at peace with) that truth, of the relationship between the human being -the created, & God -the Creator: that God is the omnipotent omniscient sole creator & sustainer of the worlds, hence the absolute subjection & dependence of oneself to God. – denial of this truth is, therefore, delusion (kufr).
  • What is the religion of Islam? – The Quran says: "Verily, the Deen [true religion] in the sight of Allah is Islam [surrender]" (3:19). 'Deen' (religion) from the root word 'dana', meaning: to be close, to yield, to conform, to be indebted... Deen is, thus, the debt & gratitude one has towards God, or the way one gets close to God. The religion of Islam is, thus, the universal primordial message taught by all prophets that the way to be close to God & be grateful to Him, is to surrender & be at peace with His Will. – [We believe Islam is the primal religion & the original teaching of all religions -which people's whims & desires pervert as time passes:  "We certainly sent into every nation a messenger, [saying], "Worship Allah and shun false gods"" (16:36).]
  • How does one practice Islam? – Follow the teachings of the prophets. But, since all these teachings have been altered or lost to time, the final & universal version of Islam conveyed by the seal of prophets Muhammed (pbuh) was to abrogate all others & last to the end of time. Therefore, the practice of Islam post-Muhammed (pbuh) until the end of time, is manifested in the teachings of Prophet Muhammed (pbuh).
  • What Islam did the Prophet (pbuh) teach? – Prophet Muhammed (pbuh) taught Islam through the Quran (his revelation) & the Sunnah (his normative example), addressed to the human being in all his 3 dimensions: body, mind & soul. Particularly, he (pbuh) taught:
  1. Morality (Islam) = teachings about right actions for body, founded on the 5 pillars of Islam: Shahada (testimony of faith), Salat (daily prayers), Zakat (charity tax), Syam (fasting Ramadan), Hajj (pilgrimage to Mecca).
  2. Rationality (Iman) = teachings about right convictions for mind, founded on the 6 pillars of Iman: belief in Allah, in the Angels, in the Books, in the Prophets, in the Day of Judgment, & in Predestination & Divine Decree.
  3. Spirituality (Ihsan) = teachings about right intentions for soul, founded on the 2 pillars of Ihsan: to worship God as a witness to the divine presence, else as a witnessed in the divine presence.
  • How do we recognize said Islamic tradition (or Islam) today? – Although the letter of the Tradition can be readily accessed in the Quran & the Sunnah (hadiths), the spirit of the Tradition can only be accessed through prophetic Isnad (chain of authority back to the Prophet (pbuh)). That is, the Prophet (pbuh) authorized some of his companions to teach or enforce the religion, who in turn later authorized their successors to teach or enforce it -generation after generation until today's ulama, who trace their chains of authority back to the beloved Prophet (pbuh). The ulama are the representatives of the Islamic Tradition, in both letter & spirit.
  • Where are these teachings today? – The prophetic teachings propagated by the companions would shortly after crystallize into the Suuni mathhabs (the traditional schools of thought), in Law, Theology, & Mysticism. Specifically:
  1. Prophetic morality crystalized into the Fiqh tradition aka Islamic Law (or Sharia Law), expressed through the Four Madhhabs (legal schools of thought). Namely: Hanafi, Maliki, Shafi'i & Hanbali.
  2. Prophetic rationality into Kalam = Islamic Theology, expressed in the 3 Sunni theological schools. Namely, Ash'ari (predominant), Maturidi (virtually the same), & Athari (minority).
  3. Prophetic spirituality into Tasawuf = Islamic Mysticism (Sufism), expressed in the many Sufi tariqas (orders). Namley, Qadiri, Shathili, Tijani...
  • What of other Islam related teachings/interpretations not adopted by the Sunni mathhabs? – These opinions may very well be related to the letter of the Islamic Tradition (Quran & Sunnah), but will not be deemed valid opinions by the traditional ulama, for they are without the authoritative spirit of the Tradition, because they lack prophetic Isnad. Hence, such opinions are considered innovations or deviations.
  • What is an -inadmissible- innovation? – It's a novel non-authoritative scripture (in letter) or interpretation of scripture (in spirit) pertaining to Islamic doctrine. This innovation can thus stem from a fabricated hadith, or from a deviant interpretation of established scripture.
  • What is the difference between Sunni Islam & other sects in Islam? – The pillar of Sunni Islam is prophetic Isnad, which all other sects either lack or reject. In that respect, there are two ways sects appear in the Islamic Tradition. The founders of these sects either promoted innovations that were rejected by the traditional schools without authorization, or they did it while claiming fake authorization (i.e. without real Isnad).
  • What are some of the major sects of Islam? – There are several sects in Islam which emerged from disagreement on tenets of doctrine:
  1. On human agency: Qadaryah believe in true free will, Jabryah in absolute determinism. [Sunnis = free will in intentions, determinism in actions]
  2. On political leadership: Shia = leadership is divinely appointed (specifically the descendants of the Prophet (pbuh)), Haruryah = leadership is fake news (like ISIS). [Sunnis = leaders are elected by the people]
  3. On reason vs. revelation: Mutazilah = revelation is subject to reason, Atharia = reason is subject to revelation. [Sunnis = reason & revelation are congruent]
  4. On God's attributes: Jahmyah = God is all transcendent, i.e. does not act on the world, Mujasima = God is all immanent, i.e. a literal body in time & space (like the Wahhabis). [Sunnis = God is transcendent & immanent]
  5. On faith vs. works: Murjia = in faith alone for salvation, Khawarij = works sufficient for salvation (like Wahhabis). [Sunnis = faith with works are required for salvation]
  • Are the followers of these sects Muslim? – Yes, of course. Although they may not believe or practice the authentic & authoritative teachings of Islam, they are still in the fold of Islam. As Imam Ghazali said, "what takes one outside the fold of Islam is what brings one into it: belief in the truth of the Prophet (pbuh)". Generally, these follower may either believe that the Prophet (pbuh) said something which he, in fact, didn't. Or, they may believe he (pbuh) meant something which he, in fact, didn't. In neither cases does the follower discredit the Prophet (pbuh) -unless of course they do.
  • Are liberal muslims Muslim? – Outwardly, as long as they profess to be Muslim, they are, unless they contradict themselves otherwise. Such as by saying, "I'm Muslim but I don't believe the Prophet (pbuh) (or don't believe in the Quran)", obviously that's nonsense. Inwardly, as long as they don't discredit the Prophet (pbuh) knowingly they are Muslim; else they aren't. For instance, if a liberal truly believes the Prophet (pbuh) did not prohibit fornication, & he commits it, then he has not left the fold of Islam. If a liberal believes the Prophet (pbuh) prohibited pork, yet he insists pork is permissible -whether he consumes it or not- then he is no longer in the fold of Islam.
  • What does it mean to be in the fold of Islam? – It means one is subject to Taklif (accountability in Sharia). That is, one is liable to the judicial, social & public rulings of the Islamic state (in case there is one), & to the ethics of the faith. Contrasted to non-Muslims who are not liable to said rulings & ethics. 
  • What is accountability to God in Islam? – God holds us accountable for our true intentions, not our actions or thoughts. In this sense, a non-Muslim who's sincere in their pursuit of the divine may be better in the eyes of God than a Muslim who isn't sincere in his Islamic faith. Only God knows the true intentions of his creatures, & in the Day of Judgement nothing matters except sincerity.
  • What of the different versions of "Islam" in modern times? – Islam is God's religion that the beloved Prophet (pbuh) taught, in letter & spirit, -in morality & rationality & spiritually. Therefore, Islam is not "whatever I want". Anything which does not pertain to the Prophet's true teachings is, course, not Islam.
  • Can a muslim have his own opinion in the faith? – If a muslim is a Mujtahid, i.e. qualified to interpret scripture & receives authorization to advise (fatwa) or judge (qadaa) from licensed ulama (with prophetic Isnad), then his opinions in whatever he's qualified in (Ijtihad) are considered valid (as long as they don't contradict scripture or consensus). A Muqallid muslim (without qualification or permission) is not allowed to form opinions, deemed thus invalid, instead he is mandated to seek advise from the ulama; else accountable for his opinions.
  • What is salvation for Muslims? – In Islam, there is no salvation in the sense of 'saved guarantee' or 'pass to Paradise'.  Salvation in Islam is understood as right to intercession (shafa'a). That is, in the day of judgement, those who believe in the beloved Prophet (pbuh) have a right to his intercession, that he may intercede between them & Allah in asking Allah to forgive them & save them (same for every other prophet with his followers). Thereafter, Allah may chose to forgive or not. Although, Allah has promised to forgive all sins except Shirk (associating partners with Him), He does whatever He please. As the Prophet (pbuh) said, not even he is guaranteed salvation & Paradise, except by the Grace of Allah. A muslim can never appraise his own fate or the fate of others, that he is going to Heaven or that another is going to Hell, for that authority belongs to God alone.





Topic's author
#89
Yassine
Yassine's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 1,085
3
2
6
Yassine's avatar
Yassine
3
2
6
-->
@rosends
Nope. I'm saying that by seeing how you word the issue and where you think it appropriate to mention it, I can understand your thinking and extrapolate from that to help me understand your thinking in other areas.
- So, do you or do you support flying rockets into babies?


It isn't any more wordy than meaning requires it to be. Are you saying you don't know your own position? You are the one who made the statement. Were you saying something other than what your words mean?
- Is this how you talk to everyone? Say what you mean, mean what you say. & what is my position?
#90
rosends
rosends's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 806
3
2
6
rosends's avatar
rosends
3
2
6
-->
@Yassine
So, do you or do you support flying rockets into babies?
Why does that matter? The subject here (though it should be religion) is that you have presented how YOU feel. Do you have a problem with someone pointing out that your statement is useful in understanding who YOU are?

Is this how you talk to everyone? Say what you mean, mean what you say. & what is my position?
By "this" do you mean "with the right words to convey the right meaning"? If so, then yes, that's how I talk to everyone. I have said what I mean. Have you? If so, then you know your position.