Are Muslims disobeying the Qur'an by participating in this forum?

[KWED]

Do you consider it irrelevant how an ideology is factually implemented in the real world?

Irrelevant to what?

 

[muhammad_isa]

You have, as yet, failed to show why analysis of the contents of the Quran and sunnah cannot be used to assess Islamic ideology.

As has been already stated, it is all about intention.
Cherry-picking verses about disbelievers can teach us something, but you ignore all the other things which are of benefit to mankind.

The characteristic of disbelief is to question G -d's authority, and so
effectively promote your own.

 

[KWED]

As has been already stated, it is all about intention.
Cherry-picking verses about disbelievers can teach us something, but you ignore all the other things which are of benefit to mankind.

I have explained this to you before.
1. "Intention" is irrelevant. The Quran and sunnah say what they say.
2. "Intention" works both ways. You ignore the violent intolerance and oppression.
3. I don't cherry-pick. I understand that the Quran and sunnah sometimes express contradictory principles. Islam is a religion of peace and violence, of tolerance and intolerance, of equality and discrimination. Not sure how you can claim that it isn't.
4. What parts of Islam are an actual "benefit to mankind" that couldn't be the product of an atheist society?

The characteristic of disbelief is to question G -d's authority, and so
effectively promote your own.

1. The characteristic of belief is to accept god's authority, and so you fail to approach doctrine with any kind of objectivity.
2. I don't question god's authority because there is no reason to assume a god exists. However, if a god did exist I would question his ability to make rational decisions.
3. I don't promote my own authority. I promote taking an evidence-based, rational approach to claims.

 

[stevecanuck]

Are there arguments in defense of Islam that you wouldn't characterize as "Islamopropaganda"?

Do you think anyone who uses "stupid question" in his opening statement is going to give an unbiased assessment?

 

[stevecanuck]

Do you consider it irrelevant how an ideology is factually implemented in the real world?

If yes, then why do you consider the analysis of such implementations meaningless?

You're answering your own question in terms of understanding terrorist groups. Just look at the "factual implementation" of Islam by ISIS etc., and ask yourself if they are faithfully following the dictates of the Qur'an or not.

I've done that, and I don't like the answer. But, that doesn't mean I'm going to deny that answer.

 

[muhammad_isa]

1. "Intention" is irrelevant. The Quran and sunnah say what they say.

How can loving G-d and believing be the same as arguing against?
It's your choice.
I find life is often unpleasant. I have to accept it.
I accept that evil exists. I accept that many people will oppose what I believe.

It's the same old story. Each side blaming the other.
Some people don't want peace .. that is very clear.
No .. intention is very important.
G-d knows why we say what we say, and do what we do.

 

[stevecanuck]

Are there arguments in defense of Islam that you wouldn't characterize as "Islamopropaganda"?

I've read many, and I'm still waiting. Islamoapologists always have an excuse for whatever military action they're trying to sanitize. Mohamed was always "getting word" that whomever was about to launch an attack, or he "was warned" about an assassination attempt, etc.

His army was ALWAYS in the right as it conquered its way first across Arabia, and then onto an unfortunate and unsuspecting world. ISIS et al are simply picking up where the last Islamic invasion left off.

 

[KWED]

How can loving G-d and believing be the same as arguing against?
It's your choice.
I find life is often unpleasant. I have to accept it.
I accept that evil exists. I accept that many people will oppose what I believe.

It's the same old story. Each side blaming the other.
Some people don't want peace .. that is very clear.
No .. intention is very important.
G-d knows why we say what we say, and do what we do.

No idea what you are talking about here.
There is only one issue under discussion here.
Does the Quran contain passages that promote or permit violent intolerance and oppression against certain individuals or groups?
The answer is clearly and undeniably "yes".

You merely seem to be arguing that this violent intolerance and oppression is justified if those people or groups don't submit to Islam.

 

[muhammad_isa]

You merely seem to be arguing that this violent intolerance and oppression is justified if those people or groups don't submit to Islam.

No, I'm not.

I do not like war. However, it is not about what I like and dislike.
Those that commit unwarranted aggression cannot be ignored.
G-d is in effect giving moral support to the believers to defend themselves.

I, personally, am against Putin's current aggression against Ukraine.
For me, it is not a political matter. It is the nature of his rhetoric and behaviour.

If Russia is really concerned about the Russian separatists in the East of Ukraine, then can't he think of a better way of dealing with it?
I don't think that anything he says can be believed.

..and this is the kind of thing that I see G-d as urging us to war.
..and not picking fights with people because they believe this or that.
..just my opinion. You, of course, are free to say that the Qur'an teaches Muslims to behave violently towards everybody.

Don't include me, please!
That is the trouble in war-torn lands. Who can you trust?

 

[Kooky]

Do you think anyone who uses "stupid question" in his opening statement is going to give an unbiased assessment?

Inasmuch as someone using the term "religion of peace" in a mocking and sarcastic fashion.

 

[Kooky]

You're answering your own question in terms of understanding terrorist groups. Just look at the "factual implementation" of Islam by ISIS etc., and ask yourself if they are faithfully following the dictates of the Qur'an or not.

I find that question nonsensical. It is always people who dictate, not texts.
Texts do not speak on their own, they can only be read.

In reading a text, the reader always puts a portion of their own ideas and beliefs into it - otherwise, they wouldn't be able to understand it. Hence why bigots always seem to get bigoted messages from reading a text, whereas others may well get a message that is its exact opposite.

 

[Kooky]

I've read many, and I'm still waiting.

So you are in a position where any defense of Islam can by its very nature only be disingenuous propaganda.
Do you see any point in discussing your views with people who disagree with you in the first place?

 

[KWED]

No, I'm not.

Well, you do a very good impression.

Those that commit unwarranted aggression cannot be ignored.

And this is where your ground becomes shaky. There are many passages that instruct, condone or permit violence, intolerance or oppression of people who are not engaged in "unwarranted aggression".
Sura 5:32-33 says that the punishment for "fasad" and "waging war against Allah" includes death and torture. Classical scholars explains those terms to include "opposition, contradiction, disbelief and disobedience".
The Quran states to "fight people until all religion is for Allah"
Muhammad repeated that statement in more detail
9:5 says to kill disbelievers "wherever you find them, ambush and besiege them". They are all aggressive concepts.

G-d is in effect giving moral support to the believers to defend themselves.

And yet Muhammad managed to conquer half the Arabian peninsula by only using "self-defence".

I, personally, am against Putin's current aggression against Ukraine.

And yet you sound like Putin talking about Ukraine.

 

[KWED]

I find that question nonsensical. It is always people who dictate, not texts.
Texts do not speak on their own, they can only be read.

In reading a text, the reader always puts a portion of their own ideas and beliefs into it - otherwise, they wouldn't be able to understand it.

So again, you claim that religious texts have no bearing on the behaviour of the people who follow those texts.
It is such an incoherent and demonstrably false argument that I can't believe anyone could actually present it with a straight face.

Hence why bigots always seem to get bigoted messages from reading a text, whereas others may well get a message that is its exact opposite.

So when a person reads a far-right pamphlet that says "immigrants are a dirty stain on our beautiful country", if they assume that the author is a racist bigot, they too are a racist bigot?
You didn't really think that through, did you, in your haste to accuse people of being bigots. However, it is not really surprising. People often descend to attempted smears when they run out of rational argument. You aren't the first and you won't be the last.

 

[KWED]

So you are in a position where any defense of Islam can by its very nature only be disingenuous propaganda.
Do you see any point in discussing your views with people who disagree with you in the first place?

Any defence of elements like slavery, torture, using female captives for sex, domestic violence, etc are almost always 'disingenuous propaganda'. There is no defence for such actions, and while I understand that you consider condemnation of those who defend or support those actions to be "bigotry", the civilised world is universal in its disapproval. No one in their right mind considers criticising and condemning apologists for slavery, torture and rape to be "bigots". You are clearly just using it as a blunt weapon in an attempt to stifle criticism. You aren't the first and wont be the last.

 

[muhammad_isa]

.. And yet you sound like Putin talking about Ukraine.

How is that?

 

[KWED]

How is that?

Claiming that Muhammad conquered half of Arabia in "self-defence".

 

[Kooky]

Any defence of elements like slavery, torture, using female captives for sex, domestic violence, etc are almost always 'disingenuous propaganda'.

Are there elements of Islam that you think are worth defending?

 

[Kooky]

So again, you claim that religious texts have no bearing on the behaviour of the people who follow those texts.

Nobody "follows a text". They are following a particular interpretation they have become attached to.

It is such an incoherent and demonstrably false argument that I can't believe anyone could actually present it with a straight face.

So have you already figured out how the Quran makes people bigoted?

 

[Kooky]

There is no defence for such actions, and while I understand that you consider condemnation of those who defend or support those actions to be "bigotry", the civilised world is universal in its disapproval. No one in their right mind considers criticising and condemning apologists for slavery, torture and rape to be "bigots". You are clearly just using it as a blunt weapon in an attempt to stifle criticism. You aren't the first and wont be the last.

Are you putting words in my mouth and ascribing positions I don't hold because you don't understand my argument, or have you already abandoned any attempt to discuss our views in good faith?

If you don't feel like making an honest attempt at engaging with my ideas, then why do you even still respond to me with these false accusations and strawmen? Just put me on your ignore list and move on with your life, like a normal person, instead of spitting this nonsense at me.