Islam

[Ntwadumela]

muslim.org is infamous for its apologencia and very liberal interpretation of islam i note that her age was not disputed until the 1920s. I also note that it states she was 15 ergo still a child.

15 at betrothal is different from 15 at consummation. Also, you are completely forgetting the fact that this is evidence that she wasn't a minor. What apologists are you even talking about anyway? Pedophilia has never been endorsed even where I come from, most people don't advocate it at all. I also haven't stated anything about hating homosexuals either. Explain to me as well why the Prophet was a pedophile if the rest of his wives weren't little children.

 

[on a serious note]

honestly radical wahhabists seem to be more interested in killing other muslims for being the wrong kind of muslim.

not that they dont attack the west, but they seem to be better at killing their own. which is why im not sure why everyone is lumping every muslim into one big group when one sect is trying to genocide all of the others.

 

[Sheikh_Speare]

but not stoning which is what that passage is often taken as endorsing. Any book which you can read and come away with the impression it is desireable to stone others is not something to base a way of life round and yet thousands of people read the koran and reach that conclusion.

You're free to believe that, but to channel Stefan Molyneux, that's not an argument. Secular liberalism is not some axiomatic truth that is obvious to all and which everyone on earth is obliged to accept.

 

[Vitriol]

15 at betrothal is different from 15 at consummation. Also, you are completely forgetting the fact that this is evidence that she wasn't a minor. What apologists are you even talking about anyway? Pedophilia has never been endorsed even where I come from, most people don't advocate it at all. I also haven't stated anything about hating homosexuals either. Explain to me as well why the Prophet was a pedophile if the rest of his wives weren't little children.

the vast majority of islamic scholars have always held she was nine at consummation. that is pedophilia.

from the page:

Again, this would make her more than fourteen at the time of the consummation of her marriage.

He was pedophile because he fucked a child. One does not need to be exclusively into children to be a pedophile.
the current caliph had a harem of sex slaves as did various sultans and caliphs previously. Islam has a long history which endures to the present day of its rulers taking underage wives.

You're free to believe that, but to channel Stefan Molyneux, that's not an argument. Secular liberalism is not some axiomatic truth that is obvious to all and which everyone on earth is obliged to accept.

If mainstream islam likewise accepted that islam is not an axiomatic truth that is obvious to all and which everyone on earth is obliged to accept there would be a great deal less slavery, rape and murder in the world.

 

[autisticdragonkin]

I simply do not think that we can call Muhammad (PBUH) a pedophile even if Aisha was 9 at consummation. As the age of adulthood and the like is based on the social and economic context calling someone a pedophile is necessarily a modern accusation that has no relevance to anyone before the late 1800s. If there was evidence that he was abusive to Aisha that would be different but there is no such evidence of that

 

[AnOminous]

and the quote from the koran describing the destruction of Sodom for their sexual deviancy as death? This is in what way an acceptable outcome?

In what substantial ways does the Islamic view of the destruction of Sodom differ from that in the Bible?

 

[Vitriol]

I simply do not think that we can call Muhammad (PBUH) a pedophile even if Aisha was 9 at consummation. As the age of adulthood and the like is based on the social and economic context calling someone a pedophile is necessarily a modern accusation that has no relevance to anyone before the late 1800s. If there was evidence that he was abusive to Aisha that would be different but there is no such evidence of that

it is relevent because the actions of mohammed are the bar islam sets and he is the example to aspire to. if his behaviour and methods are indefensible in the modern world then there is no place for islam in modern society.

In what substantial ways does the Islamic view of the destruction of Sodom differ from that in the Bible?

none and if we were talking about christianity or large numbers of christians were using it as an excuse to stone or punish homosexuals i would criticise it there.

 

[Sheikh_Speare]

If mainstream islam likewise accepted that islam is not an axiomatic truth that is obvious to all and which everyone on earth is obliged to accept there would be a great deal less slavery, rape and murder in the world.

The two major schools of theology in Sunni Islam (the Asha'irah and the Maturdiyyah) don't consider Islam to be axiomatically true in-and-of-itself which is why the classical theologians of those schools wrote extensive books on the logical coherence of our beliefs (much like Aquina's Summa). We're not fideists.

Here is an academic translation of one of those works on Archive.org:

Nature, Man and God in Medieval Islam: Abd Allah Baydawi's Text, Tawali Al-Anwar Min Matali Al-Anzar, Along With Mahmud Isfahani's Commentary

 

[autisticdragonkin]

it is relevent because the actions of mohammed are the bar islam sets and he is the example to aspire to. if his behaviour and methods are indefensible in the modern world then there is no place for islam in modern society.

Not necessarily. Just because Muhammad (PBUH) didn't use iPads doesn't mean that he wouldn't have used them now. Technological development substantially changes several things and I believe that it includes optimum time to have children and there is no basis to claim that Islam is anti technology

 

[Ntwadumela]

If mainstream islam likewise accepted that islam is not an axiomatic truth that is obvious to all and which everyone on earth is obliged to accept there would be a great deal less slavery, rape and murder in the world.

You do realize that rape is actually considered unlawful in Islam and that most people who rape aren't Muslims at all right?

 

[Vitriol]

The two major schools of theology in Sunni Islam (the Asha'irah and the Maturdiyyah) don't consider Islam to be axiomatic in-and-of-itself which is why the classical theologians of those schools wrote extensive books on the logical coherence of our beliefs (much like Aquina's Summa). We're not fideists.

Here is an academic translation of one of those works on Archive.org:

Nature, Man and God in Medieval Islam: Abd Allah Baydawi's Text, Tawali Al-Anwar Min Matali Al-Anzar, Along With Mahmud Isfahani's Commentary

again some people hold that opinion many thousands of others do not and take a literal and violent interpretation. it is because fundamentally following the teachings of a 7th century warlord is dysfunctional- what is the punishment for apostates?
Quran (4:89) - "They wish that you should disbelieve as they disbelieve, and then you would be equal; therefore take not to yourselves friends of them, until they emigrate in the way of God; then, if they turn their backs, take them, and slay them wherever you find them; take not to yourselves any one of them as friend or helper.Quran (4:89) - "They wish that you should disbelieve as they disbelieve, and then you would be equal; therefore take not to yourselves friends of them, until they emigrate in the way of God; then, if they turn their backs, take them, and slay them wherever you find them; take not to yourselves any one of them as friend or helper.

yes you can write thousands of words of what is essentially sophisti explaining away the barbarism and contradictions but that is largely irrelevantwhen the simple reading, agreed by millions and followed for centuries leads to slaves, death, war and horrible oppression.

You do realize that rape is actually considered unlawful in Islam and that most people who rape aren't Muslims at all right?

you do realise under islamic law a womens testimony is worth half a mans and she cannot refuse her husband sex effectively making rape unproveable? I never claimed all muslims were rapists but the endorsed practice of taking slaves and children as wives certainly leads to a very rapey culture. see germany.

 

[Sheikh_Speare]

again some people hold that opinion many thousands of others do not and take a literal and violent interpretation. it is because fundamentally following the teachings of a 7th century warlord is dysfunctional- what is the punishment for apostates?
Quran (4:89) - "They wish that you should disbelieve as they disbelieve, and then you would be equal; therefore take not to yourselves friends of them, until they emigrate in the way of God; then, if they turn their backs, take them, and slay them wherever you find them; take not to yourselves any one of them as friend or helper.Quran (4:89) - "They wish that you should disbelieve as they disbelieve, and then you would be equal; therefore take not to yourselves friends of them, until they emigrate in the way of God; then, if they turn their backs, take them, and slay them wherever you find them; take not to yourselves any one of them as friend or helper.

yes you can write thousands of words of what is essentially sophisti explaining away the barbarism and contradictions but that is largely irrelevantwhen the simple reading, agreed by millions and followed for centuries leads to slaves, death, war and horrible oppression.

You keep throwing out non-sequiturs as though if you say enough irrelevant things and make enough malapropisms (apologencia for apologia, sophisti for sophistry), I'll crumble and give in under the weight of your stupidity.

By the way, that book I linked is a translation of a classic text that is studied in Islamic schools throughout the world to this day. It's not some marginal, irrelevant thing. At least take a peek at the table of contents, would you?

 

[Ntwadumela]

again some people hold that opinion many thousands of others do not and take a literal and violent interpretation. it is because fundamentally following the teachings of a 7th century warlord is dysfunctional- what is the punishment for apostates?
Quran (4:89) - "They wish that you should disbelieve as they disbelieve, and then you would be equal; therefore take not to yourselves friends of them, until they emigrate in the way of God; then, if they turn their backs, take them, and slay them wherever you find them; take not to yourselves any one of them as friend or helper.Quran (4:89) - "They wish that you should disbelieve as they disbelieve, and then you would be equal; therefore take not to yourselves friends of them, until they emigrate in the way of God; then, if they turn their backs, take them, and slay them wherever you find them; take not to yourselves any one of them as friend or helper.

yes you can write thousands of words of what is essentially sophisti explaining away the barbarism and contradictions but that is largely irrelevantwhen the simple reading, agreed by millions and followed for centuries leads to slaves, death, war and horrible oppression.

you do realise under islamic law a womens testimony is worth half a mans and she cannot refuse her husband sex effectively making rape unproveable? I never claimed all muslims were rapists but the endorsed practice of taking slaves and children as wives certainly leads to a very rapey culture. see germany.

We do not take women and children as slaves and wives at all where I come from. Those countries that do continue to do so because they have a culturally primitive worldview, and it has barely anything to do with religion. Women here in Kuwait also have a lot of rights, in fact, a hadith straight from the Prophet PBUH says: Which parent is more important? The prophet said. The mother. Than the other person repeated: than who? Prophet: mother. Than he asked again: than who? The prophet replied again: the mother. This went on for a while until the prophet finally said the father. Those certain countries with misogynistic attitudes have these beliefs because of primitive cultural beliefs, they just unfortunately happen to be Muslim.

 

[AnOminous]

but not stoning which is what that passage is often taken as endorsing. Any book which you can read and come away with the impression it is desireable to stone others is not something to base a way of life round and yet thousands of people read the koran and reach that conclusion.

"And he that blasphemeth the name of the LORD, he shall surely be put to death, and all the congregation shall certainly stone him: as well the stranger, as he that is born in the land, when he blasphemeth the name of the LORD, shall be put to death." Leviticus 24:16.

The Bible is full of this stoning shit.

Christians generally don't stone people though. In Saudi Arabia they routinely did it until fairly recently. Now they're more civilized and just publicly behead you.

 

[Vitriol]

You keep throwing out non-sequiturs as though if you say enough irrelevant things and make enough malapropisms (apologencia for apologia, sophisti for sophistry), I'll crumble and give in under the weight of your stupidity.

nice personal attack. Those were typos.

By the way, that book I linked is a translation of a classic text that is studied in Islamic schools throughout the world to this day. It's not some marginal, irrelevant thing. At least take a peek at the table of contents, would you?

I'm sure it is- but that does nothing to change the fact that islam, uniquely among the major religions, is frequently interpreted in a fundamentalist way that leads to horrible outcomes. This is a problem with islam.

We do not take women and children as slaves and wives at all where I come from. Those countries that do continue to do so because they have a culturally primitive worldview, and it has barely anything to do with religion. Women here in Kuwait also have a lot of rights, in fact, a hadith straight from the Prophet PBUH says: Which parent is more important? The prophet said. The mother. Than the other person repeated: than who? Prophet: mother. Than he asked again: than who? The prophet replied again: the mother. This went on for a while until the prophet finally said the father. Those certain countries with misogynistic attitudes have these beliefs because of primitive cultural beliefs, they just unfortunately happen to be Muslim.

Mohammed took slaves and endorsed the taking of women and children. Now people imitating his practices are doing the same. This is the problem with islam- at its core it is the ideology of a 7th century warlord and it produces seventh century results. The fact that some countries have managed to develop past this is in spite of islam not because of it. I note kuwait has the death penalty for blasphemy- if i expressed my opinions in your country i could be imprisoned for a decade.

"And he that blasphemeth the name of the LORD, he shall surely be put to death, and all the congregation shall certainly stone him: as well the stranger, as he that is born in the land, when he blasphemeth the name of the LORD, shall be put to death." Leviticus 24:16.

The Bible is full of this stoning shit.

Christians generally don't stone people though. In Saudi Arabia they routinely did it until fairly recently. Now they're more civilized and just publicly behead you.

sure and if this was thread on christianity id criticise it.

 

[Sheikh_Speare]

nice personal attack. Those were typos.

At first I assumed they were, but they are occurring so frequently I'm starting to believe that English is your second language.

I'm sure it is- but that does nothing to change the fact that islam, uniquely among the major religions, is frequently interpreted in a fundamentalist way that leads to horrible outcomes. This is a problem with islam.

Every time I suggest you take a peek at that book, you dodge. I'm beginning to think you just don't want to read a book with "big words" in it.

You haven't even taken a look and for some reason you insist that it's not "mainstream" or something (when it is as mainstream as it is possible to be).

 

[Vitriol]

At first I assumed they were, but they are occurring so frequently I'm starting to question if English is your second language.



Every time I suggest you take a peek at that book, you dodge. I'm beginning to think you just don't want to read a book with "big words" in it.

You literally just sidestepped the point and insulted me instead. Poor show. I've explained several times that the texts you are presenting are irrelevant as they are not stopping thousands, if not millions, of people from adopting a reading of islam which is brutal and oppressive. You are effectively arguing that they are doing islam wrong or are not true muslims which is pointless as they no doubt think the same of you .

There can be more than one widespread opinion in a religion- the split between catholics and protestants is one. islam is the only major religion which routinely produces a school of thought that leads to violence and oppression on a horrible scale. When this view is the one that comes from the simple interpretation and plain reading of the text there is something seriously wrong. That something, in my opinion, is mohammed and the example he set.

If christians or jews were following a literal reading of the old testament that led to similar results in large numbers then i would criticise them as much, but the practical reality is that for whatever reason they do not. The problem is unique to islam in the modern world and denying it on the basis that you are not all like that is nonsense. islam has a serious problem, in 2016 it is very much the religion of war.

 

[Sheikh_Speare]

You literally just sidestepped the point and insulted me instead.

All of your posts so far have been composed of insults, non-sequiturs, and bad reasoning. I see no reason to showcase my best debating skills with a guy who could not possibly understand what I'm talking about

Poor show. I've explained several times that the texts you are presenting are irrelevant as they are not stopping thousands, if not millions, of people from adopting a reading of islam which is brutal and oppressive. You are effectively arguing that they are doing islam wrong or are not true muslims which is pointless as they no doubt think the same of you .

We're not speaking on the same wavelength. You seem to think that cherrypicking quotes, ignoring historical context, or making unproveable blanket statements are hallmarks of intellectual discussion, so I'm giving you my bare minimum of effort.

There can be more than one widespread opinion in a religion- the split between catholics and protestants is one. islam is the only major religion which routinely produces a school of thought that leads to violence and oppression on a horrible scale. When this view is the one that comes from the simple interpretation and plain reading of the text there is something seriously wrong. That something, in my opinion, is mohammed and the example he set.

I have such difficulty parsing your sentences and trying to wring meaning out of them that I'm now exhausted. That quote of yours is semantically empty.

If you want to speak of "literal" reading, you have to show some nuance. The vast majority of Muslims on earth (including Arabs) can't read the Qur'an in its original language. They don't know any of the Qur'an's layers of meaning, be they literal or figurative.

Also, due to the differences between individuals and mindsets, the very notion of a "simple interpretation and plain reading of the text" is meaningless. What one person takes from a text is not the same as someone else. To many people, the verse "Wherever you turn is the Face of God" is a clear evidence for a mystical view of the universe. For others (fundamentalists, the people you claim interpret the text "literally") it's not meant to be taken literally and should be ignored.

Building on the last point, it is highly debatable how literal the interpretation of fundamentalists is. As mentioned
above, fundamentalists ignore the overt pantheism and mystical content of the Qur'an and Hadith.

If you read the writings of prominent AQ and ISIS members, their interpretations of the legal imperatives of Qur'an and Hadith are far from literal. They deny the literal meaning of scriptures forbidding suicide, in favor of a highly tortured and basically meaningless reading. They deny the literal meaning of injunctions against killing women and children in war in favor of complex justifications that nullify the literal meaning of the text. They do the same with prohibitions on killing people with fire, forcing the allegiance of a population, forcing women into marriage, and hundreds of other things.

 

[autisticdragonkin]

@*Asterisk* I do not think that Islam was a mistake or even bad in itself but I think that early Islam could be potentially seen more as a state rather than a religion. I think that the Caliphates greatly contributed to humanity but I am unsure as to whether Islam after the Caliphates has done so but likewise Christianity in those parts of the world is often bad too

Muhammad (PBUH) is to be admired and hasn't done anything that requires our forgiveness

 

[Vitriol]

All of your posts so far have been composed of insults, non-sequiturs, and bad reasoning. I see no reason to showcase my best debating skills with a guy who could not possibly understand what I'm talking about

I have yet to personally insult you. An inability to hear criticism of your prophet's awful behaviour without taking personal offence is a typical hallmark of islamic intolerance of dissent.

Your best debating skills have so far been quoting scripture and liberal use of the no true scotsman fallacy when faced with the atrocities commonly committed in the name of islam and with the blessing of its clerics.

We're not speaking on the same wavelength. You seem to think that cherrypicking quotes, ignoring historical context, or making unproveable blanket statements are hallmarks of intellectual discussion, so I'm giving you my bare minimum of effort.

It shows- quoting scripture to try and prove that somehow the actions of jihadists and the widespread approval of such actions in islamic communities throughout the world is not real islam or not a problem due to islam is a very weak argument. If islam can be easily read to produce backwards and brutal views which can then be used to justify atrocities which are then endorsed by clerics and acted upon then there is a serious problem with islam and the islamic community.

If you want to speak of "literal" reading, you have to show some nuance. The vast majority of Muslims on earth (including Arabs) can't read the Qur'an in its original language. They don't know any of the Qur'an's layers of meaning, be they literal or figurative.

Again this is a no true scotsman. They know enough of the life of the prophet to emulate it and their clerics and teachers can certainly read it.

If you want to speak of "literal" reading, you have to show some nuance. The vast majority of Muslims on earth (including Arabs) can't read the Qur'an in its original language. They don't know any of the Qur'an's layers of meaning, be they literal or figurative.

Also, due to the differences between individuals and mindsets, the very notion of a "simple interpretation and plain reading of the text" is meaningless. What one person takes from a text is not the same as someone else. To many people, the verse "Wherever you turn is the Face of God" is a clear evidence for a mystical view of the universe. For others (fundamentalists, the people you claim interpret the text "literally") it's not meant to be taken literally and should be ignored.

Building on the last point, it is highly debatable how literal the interpretation of fundamentalists is. As mentioned
above, fundamentalists ignore the overt pantheism and mystical content of the Qur'an and Hadith.

If you read the writings of prominent AQ and ISIS members, their interpretations of the legal imperatives of Qur'an and Hadith are far from literal. They deny the literal meaning of scriptures forbidding suicide, in favor of a highly tortured and basically meaningless reading. They deny the literal meaning of injunctions against killing women and children in war in favor of complex justifications that nullify the literal meaning of the text. They do the same with prohibitions on killing people with fire, forcing the allegiance of a population, forcing women into marriage, and hundreds of other things.

Again a no true scotsman- Islam is the only religion where a widespread reading of the text results in violent oppression. You can tell me their reading is wrong all day but that does not change the fact that islam is empirically a more violent religion than any other in the modern world. This is the direct result of them imitating their prophet and his conquests.

I will reiterate my points since you are struggling to understand my style so much:

1. Islam is a religion based on following the example set by a seventh century child fucking, slave taking, imperialistic warlord.
2. many of its followers favour a reading that leads to the same behaviour.
3. The existence of other more peaceful readings is irrelevant if a large number of adherents ignore them.
4. This is a problem not found in other religions in the modern world. No other religion has as negative an impact today and islam should be criticised for it.