Ask About Islam

[KWED]

We are not claiming that people aren't Muslims, at least I'm not.
We are saying that they are not behaving like a believer should, despite them claiming they are.

And they may say the same thing about you.

War makes people behave badly. Religion can be an excuse.

Do you think that a soldier using a female captive (that he has been given by his commander) for sex is "behaving badly", in principle?

If people are severely oppressed, don't be surprised if they become hostile.

Conquering armies are often more hostile than the people they are invading.

Take the Banu Qurayza as an example. They had planned to change sides if the Quraysh gained the upper hand at the Battle of the Trench. This never happened. In response, Muhammad attacked their town and after the Banu Qurayza surrendered, he ordered the beheading of every man and boy over puberty (estimated to have been around 600), sold every woman and child into slavery, and took all their property and possessions. A perfect example of the winning side massacring and looting their helpless victims - a common theme throughout history.

 

[KWED]

The point is that the system of "adult consent" has become uppermost due to people's dismissal of marriage.
How can a person who dismisses the morality of marriage be an authority on what is moral?

As far as a believer is concerned, they cannot.
Common-law relationships have become "the norm".

So, are you saying that a husband does not need his wife's consent for sex?

 

[muhammad_isa]

So, are you saying that a husband does not need his wife's consent for sex?

Don't start that nonsense.

You are morally bankrupt, as far as believers are concerned.
Sexual intercourse outside of marriage is unlawful.

 

[KWED]

No turmoil.

Sure.

Sex outside of marriage is wrong.

Unless it is with a female slave or captive.
So how is that morally acceptable when consensual sex with a long-term partner isn't? Explain that.

You don't believe that, so all your moral accusations, as far as I'm concerned, are deeply flawed.

I notice that you are still ignoring my answers and points that you find problematic, so I guess I shouldn't expect you to explain why using slaves for sex is fine but consensual sex within a long-term, monogamous relationship is degenerate and immoral.

Another point for you to ignore...
What is the moral difference between an unmarried couple in a monogamous relationship for 20 years, and several people who marry and divorce each other for a few years at a time over 20 years? Why is one acceptable but the other unacceptable?

 

[KWED]

Don't start that nonsense.

Interesting that you didn't answer.
Does a husband need a wife's consent for sex? Yes or no? (Further refusal to answer will be taken as a "no")

You are morally bankrupt, as far as believers are concerned.

You keep saying that, but you don't seem to be able to come up with any explanation other than I don't consider sex outside marriage to be wrong (as long as it's informed, adult and consensual).

Sexual intercourse outside of marriage is unlawful.

Unless it is with a female slave or captive. And you consider that to be morally acceptable, but consensual sex between two people in a long-term, monogamous relationship is more morally offensive that using slaves for sex.

And you claim to have the moral high ground? It would be funny if it wasn't so disturbing.

 

[Link]

@KWED You know my view that slavery was never allowed by God and that "malakat aymanihim" 2nd form refers to Muta. I'm curious why you think we should approach Islam in a way that relies on what fallible people deem authentic and trustworthy when they didn't even show proof for their analysis of people but just quoted opinions of people saying so and so is trustworthy and so and so is a liar, etc.

I'm curious why you disagree with moral teachings and moral interpretations of Quran and see it like me that it's immoral to have slaves, yet, believe Islam should be attributed this teaching. There are hadiths that show no human should be ever be a slave but these are not as well known.

What is your methodology on ascertaining something is part of Islam?

 

[MyM]

A subset of those two billion are. And they subset of those two billion are not. You claim they're not real Muslims. They claim you're not real Muslims.

excuses excuses

imagine if those 2 billion all did what isis did...what would the world be like today? ....

it's bs to believe that they represent Islam. Just accept it, unless you are one of them.

 

[MyM]

No. Until a human can show that there is a correct interpretation, you are all sincere believers.

that's just ridiculous...no matter what MUSLIMS tell you, you will never believe so that's your problem not ours.


In Islam, Allah says in the Quran

And the example of those who disbelieve, is as that of him who shouts to the (flock of sheep) that hears nothing but calls and cries. (They are) deaf, dumb and blind. So they do not understand. 2:171

your fault, not ours.

 

[MyM]

No. Until a human can show that there is a correct interpretation, you are all sincere believers.

It was shown at the beginning of my thread..maybe the other thread about asking Islam because that was hijacked about isis and taliban ON PURPOSE. Go read it. If you deny the evidences we put forth, then it's not our fault and just stop talking about it.

 

[ppp]

excuses excuses

Excuses for what.

imagine if those 2 billion all did what isis did...what would the world be like today? ....

It would be terrible.

it's bs to believe that they represent Islam. Just accept it, unless you are one of them.

I'm afraid that it's not BS. Multiple opposing groups with an ideological framework can and do exist. Even where all groups are sincere. Sincere, just means that the members of the group actually believe what they're saying. For instance, I assume that you're sincere. But I don't assume that you are correct. Either in your interpretation, or in the morality of your beliefs. But I still assume your sincerity. Same for them.

 

[KWED]

I gave you a lovely video to watch and to tear apart if you can find anything wrong with it. lol you did not

The first example he gives it typical of Naik's dishonest approach. He states "In 1973, two scientists received the Nobel Prize for describing the creation of the universe, called the Big Bang. They said it started as a primary nebula which exploded in a secondary separation".
This is all wrong. Every bit of it, even the people and the dates. He is literally making it up as he goes along, safe in the knowledge that no one there is allowed to challenge him (he refuses to debate sceptics and scientists).

The whole video if full of such nonsense. The man is a charlatan, who is also banned from several countries and wanted in India for promoting terrorism.

 

[MyM]

Excuses for what.

It would be terrible.

I'm afraid that it's not BS. Multiple opposing groups with an ideological framework can and do exist. Even where all groups are sincere. Sincere, just means that the members of the group actually believe what they're saying. For instance, I assume that you're sincere. But I don't assume that you are correct. Either in your interpretation, or in the morality of your beliefs. But I still assume your sincerity. Same for them.

they are a minority group and the majority are against them, the Quran is against them and ahadith are against them what more do you want of proof in Islam.... no matter what we say, you will deny it seems.

 

[ppp]

that's just ridiculous...no matter what MUSLIMS tell you, you will never believe so that's your problem not ours.

I absolutely believe when you say that you are sincere in your beliefs. I also believe that other divisions within Islam are sincere. I do not believe any of your or their given beliefs is necessarily moral.

 

[ppp]

they are a minority group and the majority are against them, the Quran is against them and ahadith are against them what more do you want of proof in Islam.... no matter what we say, you will deny it seems.

Let's say that the majority interpretation is against them. Then what?

 

[Sheldon]

Mmm .. many people claim to be in favour of democracy, while in fact they are hypocrites.

Oddly enough they'd say the same about you. You'd think a perfect deity would be able to communicate a perfect message, that unambiguously asserted that it is never moral to commit acts like slavery or rape, go figure. They still cite the same Quran you do, and you all claim to know better, same with Christians and the bible. People tend to imagine a deity that reflects their own personalities, prejudices and desires, that's why religious tomes tend to reflect those aspects of the human cultures they originate in.

 

[KWED]

@KWED You know my view that slavery was never allowed by God

I understand that you are uncomfortable with slavery. Who isn't!? Unfortunately both the Quran and sunnah explicitly allow slavery.
I also understand that you have developed a new religion based on Islam, but that also rejects much of Islamic doctrine and dismissed that bulk of Islamic scholarly exegesis over the lasyt 1400 years. However, you cannot retrospectively apply your new ideas to Islam. They are two different concepts.

What is your methodology on ascertaining something is part of Islam?

Basically...
1. Is it in the Quran?
2. Is it confirmed by hadith.
3. Is it supported by scholarly consensus.

With all due respect, "Everyone is wrong, only I know the truth!" is a pretty flimsy methodology.

 

[Sheldon]

It is measured by word connection. The stacking of symbols (like mythical creatures part this and part that). The more connections the stronger the reputation.

And their keywords must fit into the 12 gates.

Edit:
3 classes, 4 Directions, 3 positions in each of the 4 directions. Total 12 directions.

So no then it is not corroborated by any objective evidence, just subjective opinion and interpretation, thought as much.

 

[MyM]

Let's say that the majority interpretation is against them. Then what?

What do you mean then what? Explain. I answered your question.

You have good and bad people everywhere you go, in every religion, in every race, color and form.

 

[Link]

I understand that you are uncomfortable with slavery. Who isn't!? Unfortunately both the Quran and sunnah explicitly allow slavery.
I also understand that you have developed a new religion based on Islam, but that also rejects much of Islamic doctrine and dismissed that bulk of Islamic scholarly exegesis over the lasyt 1400 years. However, you cannot retrospectively apply your new ideas to Islam. They are two different concepts.

Basically...
1. Is it in the Quran?
2. Is it confirmed by hadith.
3. Is it supported by scholarly consensus.

With all due respect, "Everyone is wrong, only I know the truth!" is a pretty flimsy methodology.

But you know if you apply that methodology, it get's you an awful religion. So why not try an alternate route. After all, Quran condemned Jews and Christians for following scholars when those scholars attributed God things without proof and knowledge, and made good into evil and evil into good.

Hadiths - for every hadith that say x... there is a hadith that says not x.

Scholars are condemned in Quran in the past versions of Islam (before Mohammad (s)) because they distorted, what makes you think the final version has scholars who did not?

 

[KWED]

they are a minority group and the majority are against them,

When Muhammad started preaching he was in a tiny minority and everyone else was against him. Was he therefore wrong?

the Quran is against them and ahadith are against them

Ironically, many passages in the Quran and hadith support their actions. The problem they have is that most Muslims have moved on. Their Islam has adapted to a changing world. ISIS insist on going back to 7th century Arabia.