Ask About Islam

[muhammad_isa]

Out of context? Is that all you could come up with? Does it say, "Fight those who believe not in God", or does it not?

The Qur'an teaches us a lot of things.
Why not just take one word? "Fight"

 

[KWED]

Its a difference in "you can do it but should not do" and "you do it you die right there and then"

Indeed. But both prescriptions are clear about the particular rule they are prescribing.
Think about it. What would be the point of having a perfect and final rule for all time that results in death if you break it, but it was worded in such a way that it was impossible to apply with any consistency.

A Muslim is a human being who can chose to not follow the rules/guidelines, but then they also know that it will have consequences if they do it wrong.

Obviously, but that is not the issue here. It is whether those rules or consequences are clear or ambiguous.
If they are ambiguous then any punishment risks being unjust and unfair.

So no black and white.

Nothing you said contradicted my argument. Consider my example of pork being haram again (or perhaps you didn't consider it the first time). It is black and white and unequivocal. There is no room for nuance or context.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Consider my example of pork being haram again (or perhaps you didn't consider it the first time). It is black and white and unequivocal. There is no room for nuance or context.

It is black and white.
One should not eat pork, unless we are forced to by hunger.
Is that supposed to demonstrate that everything you claim about Islam to be true is true?
..because it fails miserably.

 

[stevecanuck]

The Qur'an teaches us a lot of things.
Why not just take one word? "Fight"

Again, does it say, "Fight those who believe not in God", or does it not?

The fact that you won't address a point of fact is most telling.

 

[KWED]

No, they are not.

Open up your Quran. What colour is the paper? What colour is the ink?
Literally "in black and white" (that's the origin of the expression).

That is why we all have different opinions.

Yes, but our opinions do not change what is written in the Quran and sunnah (in black and white).
In my opinion the prohibition on eating pork no longer makes any sense and should no longer apply. Does that mean if I was a Muslim I would be able to eat pork without it being a sin in Allah's eyes? Would he say, Well, it's not black and white, he's entitled to his opinion"?
Obviously not.

..take the cutting off of the hand of a thief.
One Muslim [ or atheist ] could claim that it means that somebody who is caught thieving should immediately have their hand cut off.

Personally, I see it in an entirely different light.
It is THE WORST CASE SCENARIO. It remains a legal option.
..and such sentencing acts as a deterrence to perpetual criminals.

1. In the sunnah, Muhammad states that there is no way to avoid the punishment. It is to be implemented regardless. No room for nuance. No intercession is allowed. Repentance does not avoid the punishment. There are sahih hadith where Muhammad became angry with people (including one of his wives) who tried to intercede on behalf of people facing amputation.
2. We are not talking about the details of the implementation of the punishment.
One person may think it means "Hack it off with the first blade you can find". Another may think it means "Take them before the imam for an official order, anaesthetise them and remove it surgically".
But both accept that the Quran states that a thief should lose their hand. It's there in black and white (5:38)! It says "As for the thief, both male and female, cut off their hands." No qualifications. No alternatives.
In the sunnah the examples of values are an egg, a rope, and a quarter of a dinar, so items of very low value.

 

[KWED]

It is black and white.
One should not eat pork, unless we are forced to by hunger.

Thank you. (Really don't see why you tried to claim such rules are not "black and white).

Is that supposed to demonstrate that everything you claim about Islam to be true is true?

No. But it does demonstrate that on that particular issue, I was right and you were wrong - so a precedent has been set.

..because it fails miserably.

The only miserable failing was you claiming that it wan't black and what and Muslims can exercise their own opinions on such rulings (in the context of the Quran and sunnah).

 

[muhammad_isa]

Again, does it say, "Fight those who believe not in God", or does it not?

The fact that you won't address a point of fact is most telling.

No, it isn't.

I could quote verses that appear to state the opposite.
All it shows is your continued misrepresentation of what the Qur'an teaches.

There is no doubt that Islam teaches us to be harsh towards those disbelievers that start aggression.

That's hardly the fault of Muslims who believe.
Reality is reality. No army will succeed without resolve.

 

[muhammad_isa]

1. In the sunnah, Muhammad states that there is no way to avoid the punishment. It is to be implemented regardless. No room for nuance. No intercession is allowed. Repentance does not avoid the punishment..

Nonsense.

 

[KWED]

..so are you claiming that scholars teach that we should kill our neighbours if they are not Muslims?

These straw men don't do your argument any favours.
No one is claiming that Islam commands all Muslims to kill all non-Muslims.
The claim is that the Quran and sunnah allows the use of violence (including killing) and the threat of violence as a means of persuading people to submit to Islam and punishing those who refuse to submit, under certain conditions.
Do you deny that?

 

[KWED]

It is your misunderstanding of your own knowledge. You say you can say all you want that you have proofs, but they are not proven in creation of the human being. You cannot prove it 100% nope.

So I guess this is where we draw the line, you go your way, I go mine. I do have a choice because I can prove mine and my proof is the Quran and Mohammad pbuh. You can deny all you want but that is not gonna bother me in the least. you keep on sayin it's a myth...I mean wouldn't a common sensible man think, "oh what if she is right?" wouldn't you think it would be the right thing to do is give it a chance...if you don't feel like it because of your sincere hate, at least try and disprove the sciences in the Quran. You might learn something really new

Oh, **** me! Not Zakir Naik?
The man is a charlatan who has been repeatedly exposed as a liar or an idiot (possibly both) - and is also banned from several countries for promoting terrorism, for good measure.

 

[KWED]

I could quote verses that appear to state the opposite.

Indeed you can. Which merely shows that the Quran contains contradictions. And what did Allah say about that?
Correct, if it contains contradictions it is not from god.

All it shows is your continued misrepresentation of what the Qur'an teaches.

So you accept that the Quran presents contradictory messages that need interpretation.
So, how do we assess which interpretation is the right one?
And more importantly, why did Allah put the contradictions in there in the first place?

There is no doubt that Islam teaches us to be harsh towards those disbelievers that start aggression.

And also against those that fight you. Does this include those fighting to defend themselves and their homes against attack?
Also, why "act harshly"? Why not simply defend yourselves?
Also remember that Allah says to "treat prisoners harshly as a warning to others", kinda like ISIS beheading prisoners on video as a warning to others? (And just to make sure we have some context, Allah approved of Muhammad;s order to behead prisoners during the massacre of the Banu Qurayza)

That's hardly the fault of Muslims who believe.

Ah, the Nuremberg Defence (We were only obeying orders. Not out fault.)

 

[muhammad_isa]

These straw men don't do your argument any favours.
No one is claiming that Islam commands all Muslims to kill all non-Muslims.
The claim is that the Quran and sunnah allows the use of violence (including killing) and the threat of violence as a means of persuading people to submit to Islam and punishing those who refuse to submit, under certain conditions.
Do you deny that?

I do.
I had to read your post several times.
The caveat is "in the small print".
i.e. persuading people to submit to Islam

That is incorrect according to my understanding.
We have been ordered to fight against those who instigate corruption until they cease to do so.
There is no compulsion in religion. You can't force people to believe something.
..but you can make an effort to maintain law & order.

 

[muhammad_isa]

So you accept that the Quran presents contradictory messages that need interpretation.

No. There is no contradiction unless you interpret as such.
G-d has given us intelligence, and we can use it sensibly .. or otherwise.

Ah, the Nuremberg Defence (We were only obeying orders. Not out fault.)

Nonsense. Ignorance is no excuse for breaking the law, and neither is it valid in the "eyes of G-d".

 

[KWED]

Nonsense.

Oh dear. Do you really think I make this stuff up?

"May Allah curse the thief who steals an egg and as a result his hand is cut off, and who steals rope and as a result his hand is cut off. The hand of the thief shall be cut off if he steals a quarter of a Dinar or more." - Sahih Bukhari and Muslim

'A'isha reported that the Quraish had been anxious about the Makhzumi woman who had committed theft, and said: Who will speak to Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) about her? They said: Who dare it, but Usama, the loved one of Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) ? So Usama spoke to him. Thereupon Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) said: Do you intercede regarding one of the punishments prescribed by Allah? He then stood up and addressed (people) saying: O people, those who have gone before you were destroyed, because if any one of high rank committed theft amongst them, they spared him; and it anyone of low rank committed theft, they inflicted the prescribed punishment upon him. By Allah, if Fatima, daughter of Muhammad, were to steal, I would have her hand cut off. - Sahih Muslim

This does not mean that if the thief repents, his hand should not be cut off. It only means that if a person repents after his hand has been cut off and reforms himself and becomes a true servant of God, he will save himself from the wrath of Allah, Who will cleanse him of his sin. - Ala Maududi

 

[KWED]

I do.

Well, either you have never read the Quran or any hadith or classical tafsir on the issue, or you are being dishonest.

I had to read your post several times.
The caveat is "in the small print".
i.e. persuading people to submit to Islam

That is incorrect according to my understanding.
We have been ordered to fight against those who instigate corruption until they cease to do so.
There is no compulsion in religion. You can't force people to believe something.
..but you can make an effort to maintain law & order.

Your "understanding" is wrong. Both Allah and Muhammad are quite clear that fighting in order to persuade people to submit to Islam is not only allowed, but "commanded".

"And fight [the disbelievers] until there is no fitnah and all religion is for Allah" (Quran 8:39)

"I have been ordered by Allah to fight against the people until they testify that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and that Muhammad is Allah's Apostle, and offer the prayers perfectly and give the obligatory charity, so if they perform that, then they save their lives and property from me" (Sahih Bukhari and Muslim)

"This way, they will have no choice, but to die or embrace Islam" (Ibn Kathir on verse 9:5)

Plus the constant "Worship me or I will torture you forever".

I appreciate that you may feel uncomfortable about the idea of using violence or the threat of violence to get people to embrace Islam, But Allah and Muhammad have no such qualms.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Science can't prove evolution because of the possibility of irreducible complexity in binary systems.

"Irreducible complexity" is a PRATT originally invented by the conmen over at the Discovery Institute, whose ideas were exposed even in court to be nothing but a dishonest attempt at trying to get biblical myth to be taught in science classes.

The structures that are supposedly "irreducibly complex" can in reality easily evolve through the simple mechanism of mutation followed by selection.

For example, say the mind is irreducible complex as a system. That is mind cannot arise from non-mind systems, it can evolve, but not arise from non-mind to mind transition because it's so vastly different and also binary (either there is a ghost in the machine or not).

Making up hypotheticals in which you expose that you didn't even understand what "irreducibly complex" means according to the con-men that invented it, while piling on baseless assertions in a pathetic attempt to "support" other baseless assertions, is not the way to be taken seriously.

As far as I know, no one has explained mind arising from non-mind nor even solved the hard problem of consciousness.

First of all, what we refer to as "mind" is a rather abstract concept that might not even exist in reality.
Secondly, so what? Argument from ignorance in the making?

The fact is that all other evidence doesn't disappear when one can point to a certain detail that is yet to be explained.

Common ancestry of species remains a genetic fact, regardless of what "minds" are or where they come from - or what the actual validity of that question even is.

No one has surveyed all systems in nature and proven how they arise in transitional small steps.

Which isn't even reasonable to demand in the first place.
It's like asking to provide a photograph of your face of every second that you were alive to demonstrate that you are aging. Absurd.

That means evolution (full wise) can be proven false and so the burden of proof is on the people to prove it false.

No. It rather means that you don't have a clue what you are talking about.
It also means that you don't seem very proficient in logic, as even if I grant your misleading, false and fallacious premises, then still your conclusion doesn't follow.

Whether some people have or not in the scientific community, I don't know. It maybe some people have but the scientific community power structure is too vested in atheistic theories to accept it.

The majority of people in the world that accept evolution are theists.

Funny how literally nobody seems able to argue against evolution without lying about it.

But since it has something that can prove it false

It doesn't.

, then just one binary irreducible complex system in nature is needed to prove it false.

IC is a PRATT.

I personally believe mind as in ghost in the machine is a proof of a Creator and can't arise from non-mind systems through small mutations picked by natural selection. Actually, I am sure of it.

Your beliefs are irrelevant.

 

[KWED]

No. There is no contradiction unless you interpret as such.

Well, you claim that the Quran needs to be interpreted.
You said... "I could quote verses that appear to state the opposite."
If a verse states the opposite to another verse, they are contradictory, by definition.

G-d has given us intelligence, and we can use it sensibly .. or otherwise.

Insert irony meter gif here.

Nonsense. Ignorance is no excuse for breaking the law, and neither is it valid in the "eyes of G-d".

That wasn't my point. You claimed that... "Acting harshly towards those disbelievers that start aggression (and prisoners) is hardly the fault of Muslims who believe".
They can choose whether or not to "act harshly". If those actions are later deemed to be a war crime, claiming "I was only doing what Allah told me" is not a defence.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

But until someone comes up with some actual demonstration that the flagellum is irreducibly complex, it is necessarily an argument from ignorance fallacy.

The flagellum is "irreducibly complex". In the sense that there are systems in there with a collection of parts that all play a vital role. So removing one part, will make the whole thing not work.

The problem with this IC as a creationist argument, is the assertions they make about it which are rooted in either ignorance of evolution, or dishonesty about it.

They assert that "therefor, this system couldn't have evolved", because they imagine (or pretend) that evolution means that it adds 1 part at a time and the system for example needs 32 parts, but as it is configured today it only works with those 32 parts present. So they think / pretend that evolution needed to add those 32 parts one at a time, subsequently to each other 'at random' and that this doesn't compute with natural selection.

They are correct that it doesn't compute with selection. But they are so ignorant / shortsighted that they don't get that evolution doesn't work that way.

What they completely ignore here is the repurposing of parts.
What they also ignore is that functions evolve and then get optimized.
During optimization, unnecessary things can be removed and stuff.
And that's how you can end up with systems that seem "irreducibly complex".

No "divine intervention" required at all.

It's all just propaganda to confuse the naïve and the ignorant.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

you can dispute any part of religious beliefs, but I have proof from my Creator. Ever create a human being? Ever say how we are created? Did an ape ever tell you how you were created? Well over 1400 years ago, in the Quran, it tells exactly how we are made. No ape or animal can ever come up with that type of knowledge. Science does prove things and they test evidences and they have told us that no way we have come from apes. Now there are missing links and wrongness being proven in Darwin's theory. I am not here to debate on this anymore. Seems you will never understand the humbleness one has for their Creator for the appreciation that our Creator has made and given us. According to Islam, it is indeed for those who understand and believe and you right now, are not one of them.

Just as an FYI: the way you are presenting it here, you are like a walking advertisement for people to stay away from your religion.

You should really read up a bit. You don't have to believe evolution. But at least learn what it actually says.
At this point, your intellectual integrity and honesty is pretty much non-existent.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

if someone told me we came from apes, of course one must want to understand why apes are yet not transforming and why are there still apes!

If you would take a high school course of evolution theory, that stuff likely will be covered in lesson 1 or 2.