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

[Kooky]

Irrelevant to what?

Irrelevant to the analysis of that ideology.

 

[Kooky]

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.

How do texts speak when they are not being read?

 

[RAYYAN]

It might help if we talk about specific examples to see the reasons

 

[muhammad_isa]

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

You're talking to yourself here..

 

[KWED]

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

Can't think of anything that doesn't already exist independently of all the unacceptable stuff. Feel free to suggest something though.

Do you think we should ignore the bad if the person/organisation also does some good?

 

[KWED]

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

The interpretation originates with the text. Some texts require no interpretation. This really isn't that difficult a concept to grasp.

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

It doesn't take much "figuring out". There are passages that promote intolerance and dehumanisation against certain groups on the basis of their beliefs, sexuality, etc. That is pretty much the definition of bigotry.
Do you condemn, or at least criticise, that promotion of bigotry? Or do you still consider condemning bigotry to be itself bigoted?

 

[KWED]

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.

Tell you what. Why not make your position clear by unequivocally condemning any text, ideology, organisation or individual that attempts to defend or justify slavery, torture, domestic violence, homophobia, etc.

That way, we won't have to keep misunderstanding each other.

 

[KWED]

You're talking to yourself here..

You claim that military action is only permitted in Islam as a defence against aggressors - or "self-defence".
However, Muhammad conquered half of Arabia, fighting many battles beyond the borders of the Medina area.
So, how did he do it if he only ever fought in "self-defence"?

(Don't worry, this is one of those contradictions that no apologist has ever yet been able to reconcile in my experience, so I don't expect you to be able to)

 

[muhammad_isa]

Why not make your position clear by unequivocally condemning any text, ideology, organisation or individual that attempts to defend or justify slavery, torture, domestic violence, homophobia, etc.

Billions of people believe that the author of the Qur'an is G-d.
Your accusations about what people believe are noted.

I do not believe what you claim I believe.
I think that you misrepresent Islam .. basically because you don't like what it says.
Why do Muslims not find what you say is obviously immoral, not to be .. and worship together, reciting Qur'an in reverence?

I for one, intend to continue with my reverence.
I don't believe what you believe about Islam .. including your sweeping statements about Abrahamic religion.

Putin does that. He claims that the west is out to get him, and they are the aggressors.
G-d does not hate righteous people. He dislikes people who plot iniquities, that is for sure.
G-d dislikes bad deeds, and not particular races or nations.

Naturally, it is possible to criticise any text .. on the other hand, condemning billions of people to being immoral is something I would rather leave to G-d.

 

[KWED]

Irrelevant to the analysis of that ideology.

Irrelevant to what that ideology's holy scriptures actually say, yes. Otherwise you will be looking at countless individuals, all practicing it differently and you will have no idea what it is about.

I really fail to see why you are so reluctant you consult the original source material when assessing something. It is standard practice.
Basically you are arguing that if you are putting on a production of Hamlet, you should only consult other people's productions and not Shakespeare's original text. Which is obvious nonsense. You can do that of course, but it would seem somewhat foolish.

 

[KWED]

How do texts speak when they are not being read?

No idea what you are trying to say.

 

[muhammad_isa]

(Don't worry, this is one of those contradictions that no apologist has ever yet been able to reconcile in my experience, so I don't expect you to be able to)

I am not an "apologist".
I believe that the Qur'an is authored by G-d, along with billions of others.
I am not qualified to argue about Islamic history..
..apparently, you think that you are.

 

[KWED]

Billions of people believe that the author of the Qur'an is G-d.
Your accusations about what people believe are noted.

Billions of people believe Jesus is god/divine. Presumably your resort to ad pop leads you to think that is also true.

I do not believe what you claim I believe.

I claim you believe thatch Quran is perfect, unchangeable for all people and all times. Every verse in it is true and every prescription and permission morally acceptable.

I think that you misrepresent Islam ..

Show me where I have misrepresented it. And I mean where what I have said is not supported by passages in the Quran or sunnah - not that you disagree with me.

basically because you don't like what it says.

Really? You picked up on that then?
Yes, I do not like slavery, torture, using female captives for sex ("rape" as it is now called in law), domestic violence, homophobia, etc.
There are other parts that I do not dislike, but I wouldn't forgive Jilly Savile all the child rape just because of all the millions he raised for charity.

Why do Muslims not find what you say is obviously immoral, not to be

Cognitive dissonance. If you truly believe in god, Muhamamd, etc, you are hardly going to condemn then for immoral actions. As you and others have said, what is moral is determined by god's decree. If god allows slavery and torture then slavery and torture are, by definition, moral acts.

Putin does that. He claims that the west is out to get him, and they are the aggressors.

He invades neighbours claiming "self-defence", as Muhammad did.

G-d dislikes bad deeds,

Well, he likes slavery, torture, using female captives for sex ("rape" as it is now called in law), domestic violence, homophobia, etc., so one has to wonder whether god knows the difference between right and wrong.

and not particular races or nations.

He hates disbelievers. That's most of the people who have ever lived or will ever live.

Naturally, it is possible to criticise any text .. on the other hand, condemning billions of people to being immoral is something I would rather leave to G-d.

Slavery is immoral.
Any text that promotes or permits slavery is immoral.
Anyone who defends slavery is immoral.

It really is that simple. It is only your religious belief that prevents you from accepting that.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Cognitive dissonance. If you truly believe in god, Muhamamd, etc, you are hardly going to condemn then for immoral actions.

Fine. You are confident that you know better.
I'll stick with the Qur'an, thanks.

 

[KWED]

I am not an "apologist".

Yes you are. It is the definition of what you are doing on here.

I believe that the Qur'an is authored by G-d,

Yes, you keep saying this, but it is a meaningless claim without something to support it.

along with billions of others.

Ad pop fallacy

I am not qualified to argue about Islamic history..

So you have no solution to the contradiction, and are not interested in finding one. So you simply ignore it.

..apparently, you think that you are.

I have read several books on Islamic history, both religious and academic. It is an interesting subject, even without its subsequent impact on world history and affairs.
It seems odd that someone who has devoted most of their life to an ideology based on that period of history has no interest in it. Well, as the Quran says, "Do not ask questions whose answers may trouble you. Other people did and became disbelievers because of it". Allah knows best!

 

[KWED]

Fine. You are confident that you know better.
I'll stick with the Qur'an, thanks.

Love how I provide detailed responses to each of your points, but you just ignore them all.
Doesn't it bother you that you are unable to address these issues?

 

[muhammad_isa]

Well, as the Quran says, "Do not ask questions whose answers may trouble you. Other people did and became disbelievers because of it". Allah knows best!

If you want to be seduced by "a devil", then there is nothing I can say.
You are an open adversary. I can make the occasional comment, but argument is futile.
After all, you misrepresent the subject of "divine ordinance", insisting that it cannot include free-will. In fact, you misrepresent practically all that I believe ..
..and yet you say you are knowledgable.

Knowledge can be used with different intentions.
satan wants to rob me of my faith and leave me bare.
What have you got to offer but "Qurans no good"?
That's all I see from you.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Love how I provide detailed responses to each of your points, but you just ignore them all.

You don't have to reply to me, if you wish.
I have to answer to G-d, and not you.

 

[stevecanuck]

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.

Of all the disingenuous responses I've read on this site, I've never seen one as absurd as the underlined. Mixing the literal with the figurative and trying to pass it off as a real response only serves to demonstrate the weakness of your position. What a joke.

 

[stevecanuck]

How do texts speak when they are not being read?

And he doubles down.