Criticism of Islam.

[firedragon]

If I understand your transliteration, you are quoting the verse that says, "To them, their religion, and to me, mine".

That verse does not imply an, "And that's okay". It's just a simple statement of fact that different people have different religions.

You dont understand transliteration, its an everyday haters haven to find. Just google it.

So I asked you, if you understand "transliteration" why cant you answer?

Yakaffara bissilaahi.

Simple. As an pretend arabic expert you probably can see that the word Kaafir is in that sentence. So what does that mean? Since you said kaafir means atheist (which is of course said with website scholarship).

Please provide an expert answer.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

I started reading the Qur'an shortly after 9/11 because I didn't believe the horrible things some people were saying about Islam. I wanted to be able to defend Islam from a position of knowledge. I wanted to be able to show people the peace and tolerance that defines Islam. Those good intentions didn't survive the beginning of surah 2. I was gob-smacked at the pure hatred Allah has for all people and things non-Muslim. Verse 29:68 says, "And who does more wrong than he who invents a lie against Allah or rejects the Truth when it reaches him? Is there not a home in Hell for those who reject Faith?".

Seriously? That's the absolute worst thing a person can do?

I see the Bible offers our rejection of God in the same manner, as do the Baha'i Writings.

I see the warnings reflect our choices and that the Message describes to what extent that rejection will lead us to.

It is the rejection of that Message that gives us the condition that man reaches, ungodliness brings about materialisim.

The key here is that ungodliness can be practices by believers and non-believers alike.

9/11 is a warning of how misguided faith can also become our downfall.

I have come to consider the greatest mistake we can make is that of rejecting God given Faith and Laws, as that rejection is the destruction of humanity, rejection of God's purpose for humanity and the result of that rejection is recorded in those teachings.

Yet, we still choose not to look for God in all things.

Regards Tony

 

[Twilight Hue]

How can it do that? The Qur'an says that Muslims must fight to get into heaven. You can't redact that.

I base it on how Christians during the Crusades likely thought along those same lines, whereas Muslims have that type of mindset today.

Eventually over time this mindset could settle, once lessons are learned, like Christianity had leading to its more docile form we see today.

 

[Brinne]

When discussing Islam in the West I find it unfortunately gets bogged down in a conversation based in geopolitics. Often people point to the Middle East (with a very colonial mindset) and say "look bad things happen here" an attribute that wholly to Islam. Which I find has a number of issues.

Firstly, it ignores the role of materialism and colonialism in the creation of the "modern Middle East." The vast majority of conflict is rooted in material realities (i.e your neighbor has x, and you do not -- it doesn't matter what creed they ascribe to you'll find a reason to acquire x) and that's not really any different in this region of the world. This was exasperated by the fall of the Ottomans as a central power in the region (with the European powers feeding the flames of ethnic conflict to gain an upperhand over the Ottomans - again geopolitics and material incentive) and the poor handling of decolonization and the French/Anglo mandate. The British dealings in the Levant is a pretty blaring example of how little nation building mattered to them.

Secondly, it's kind of built off this flimsily premise that if Islam is some "backward barbarian terrorist religion destined to cannibalize its own people" than it should follow that historically Muslim civilizations should a) reflect that b) imploded. Which isn't the case when looking at the "Islamic Golden Age."

Outside of that; I think theological criticism is fair. Just as I would say the same for criticism of other faiths. But I think its particularly lazy when criticism of Islam is just thinly veiled xenophobia mixed with misinformation and historical inaccuracy.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Maybe you have no clue about the religion and your source of knowledge must be the TV or some website. I can put it bluntly. And I will tell you directly that in that case, Buddhism is a more terrorist religion judging by the people and what they had done, and Hinduism, Christianity, Atheism, are all terrorist putting your own standard on it.

This kind of thread will bring out a lot of people like you who put their hatred in the place of God and worship hatred. So what happens is with a lack of understanding, knowledge and shallow surfing, they will show themselves.

If your standard and source of knowledge is that, then you should know how many fingers are pointing at yourself.

Peace.

This is what bothers me with threads like these and apologists such as yourself.
You simply are not being honest or truthfull.

You open this thread specifically about islam and invite people to give their criticism about islam.

And when they do so, you change the topic and say "well, THEY do it too!!".

Anything to avoid facing the facts.

And the fact is that islamic terrorism is so "rare" that it has become quite mundane.
Whenever some car explodes somewhere killing a bunch of innocent in some market place, I'll happily bet 1000 bucks that the one who flipped the switched yelled "allahu akbar" while doing so.

I don't think I've ever seen you acknowledge the very real, very common, very current problem of groups like boko haraam, isis, al-qaida, etc etc etc etc etc and them being literally inspired by their religious islamic beliefs.

That's their motivation. No matter how hard you try to deny it, change the subject, refuse to acknowledge it,...

And the level of support these people get among so-called "moderate muslims", or at least the refusal to "condemn" these people, is quite disturbing as well. No, it's not the majority. But it's still way to big.

These aren't some marginal groups left and right. These are groups controlling vast territories and having millions, even billions, in funds to fuel their very islamic very barbaric and terrorist agenda.

But you can continue sticking your head in the sand.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

You do. If you dont know what you are talking about, practice some humility and dont make such statements.

Like I said, I don't need to know those specifics in order to know that this hadith is generally accepted. It's not like I'm just making it up.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

How can it do that? The Qur'an says that Muslims must fight to get into heaven. You can't redact that.

It can do it in the same way christianity / christians did it.
By ignoring all the horrible bits and only focus on the good bits - and make those judgements through humanistic reasoning instead of by letting the medieval logic of the book tell you.

The bible is full of horrible bits that never were redacted either.
Instead, they are just ignored.


Problem is that islamic culture is still very much stubbornly into this superiority complex and it makes an explicit point about taking it for every letter and insisting on ALL of it being "perfect".

This is why fundamentalism in that culture is still so very common.

 

[firedragon]

Like I said, I don't need to know those specifics in order to know that this hadith is generally accepted. It's not like I'm just making it up.

Please try to ask when you dont know something. Also, just because something is generally accepted by some, that is not a good enough methodology to assess anything. That is the ad populum fallacy.

Honestly It is very rare to find Muhaddatheen (ahadith scholars) who are as extreme as you. Really. They developed these sciences and methods of authentication and biographies etc etc because they do not take hadith as sarih, mathrook or anything like that at face value "Like you had done above".

So you are being fanatically in embrace of hadith than the Muhaddatheen.

No questions asked. I believe the hadith is true. Thats your attitude.

A million questions asked. Chains checked. Stories checked. Biographies checked. discrepancies checked. Criterions checked. Head narrators checked. Source criticism applied. Linguistic criticism applied. A whole painstaking exercises applied. Thats the attitude of the Muhaddatheen.

As a Jew, you are an extremist Muslim. More extreme than any muhaddatheen I have ever known.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

When discussing Islam in the West I find it unfortunately gets bogged down in a conversation based in geopolitics. Often people point to the Middle East (with a very colonial mindset) and say "look bad things happen here" an attribute that wholly to Islam. Which I find has a number of issues.

Firstly, it ignores the role of materialism and colonialism in the creation of the "modern Middle East." The vast majority of conflict is rooted in material realities (i.e your neighbor has x, and you do not -- it doesn't matter what creed they ascribe to you'll find a reason to acquire x) and that's not really any different in this region of the world. This was exasperated by the fall of the Ottomans as a central power in the region (with the European powers feeding the flames of ethnic conflict to gain an upperhand over the Ottomans - again geopolitics and material incentive) and the poor handling of decolonization and the French/Anglo mandate. The British dealings in the Levant is a pretty blaring example of how little nation building mattered to them.

Secondly, it's kind of built off this flimsily premise that if Islam is some "backward barbarian terrorist religion destined to cannibalize its own people" than it should follow that historically Muslim civilizations should a) reflect that b) imploded. Which isn't the case when looking at the "Islamic Golden Age."

Outside of that; I think theological criticism is fair. Just as I would say the same for criticism of other faiths. But I think its particularly lazy when criticism of Islam is just thinly veiled xenophobia mixed with misinformation and historical inaccuracy.

Personally I don't give a rat's behind what islam (or any religion) supposedly really says.
First, because you can ask 10 followers from around the world and you'll likely get 10 different answers.
Secondly, because I care about how it is lived, how it plays out in practice.

So I don't care what shariah law supposedly really is all about according to self-proclaimed anonymous internet scholars, or even internationally recognized acclaimed scholars. What I care about is how it is actually implemented in the real world. How it is lived.

And all I can see, is wherever "shariah" law is claimed to be established, I witness barbarism, immorality, brutality, raping of human rights and just...well... evil all round.


And then folks like @firedragon will quote my post and rather condescendingly try to humiliate me with their "superior expert islamic scholarship" and once again (perhaps) try to tell me what shariah is really all about.
And once again, I can not care about that. Because whatever guys like that have to say, it is not what I see being practiced in the world.

I don't care about the tree. I care about the fruit. I don't have to eat the tree. But I have to eat the fruit.
And the fruit I see, are poisoned apples.

So to those folks who condescendingly try to "school" me, I can only say: go school your muslim brethren in the middle east who apparently don't have access to your superior knowledge and then get back to me when that fruit is no longer so poisonous.

 

[Brinne]

Personally I don't give a rat's behind what islam (or any religion) supposedly really says.
First, because you can ask 10 followers from around the world and you'll likely get 10 different answers.
Secondly, because I care about how it is lived, how it plays out in practice.

So I don't care what shariah law supposedly really is all about according to self-proclaimed anonymous internet scholars, or even internationally recognized acclaimed scholars. What I care about is how it is actually implemented in the real world. How it is lived.

And all I can see, is wherever "shariah" law is claimed to be established, I witness barbarism, immorality, brutality, raping of human rights and just...well... evil all round.


And then folks like @firedragon will quote my post and rather condescendingly try to humiliate me with their "superior expert islamic scholarship" and once again (perhaps) try to tell me what shariah is really all about.
And once again, I can not care about that. Because whatever guys like that have to say, it is not what I see being practiced in the world.

I don't care about the tree. I care about the fruit. I don't have to eat the tree. But I have to eat the fruit.
And the fruit I see, are poisoned apples.

So to those folks who condescendingly try to "school" me, I can only say: go school your muslim brethren in the middle east who apparently don't have access to your superior knowledge and then get back to me when that fruit is no longer so poisonous.

Please don't quote my posts if you're not going to respond to what I've said.

My assertion is that the realities of the Middle East are deeply tied to the material consequences of colonialism and imperialism. Conflict always arises from material conditions as I explained. That is truthful for the whole of history. Ideas and creeds are only utilized as motivators for these conflicts -- and any ideal (whether progressive or not) can be used for this purpose.

My post has nothing to do with "superior Islamic scholarship" - it's purely based on a secular view of history in the Middle East. I am not a Muslim, either.

If you genuinely care about issues in the Middle East; it's important to view where this extremism stems from and why. And why was this "barbarism" you speak of that is intrinsic to this region not at all a barrier during a period of time when Muslims societies were the most educated societies outside of East Asia.

 

[firedragon]

Please don't quote my posts if you're not going to respond to what I've said.

My assertion is that the realities of the Middle East are deeply tied to the material consequences of colonialism and imperialism. Conflict always arises from material conditions as I explained. That is truthful for the whole of history. Ideas and creeds are only utilized as motivators for these conflicts -- and any ideal (whether progressive or not) can be used for this purpose.

My post has nothing to do with "superior Islamic scholarship" - it's purely based on a secular view of history in the Middle East. I am not a Muslim, either.

If you genuinely care about issues in the Middle East; it's important to view where this extremism stems from and why. And why was this "barbarism" you speak of that is intrinsic to this region not at all a barrier during a period of time when Muslims societies were the most educated societies outside of East Asia.

This is a global problem. This exists all over the world with all religions and all kinds of societies and countries. If you take a look at just say the past 100 years its probably good enough. 200 years is better.

What you say is true. Some people study this throughout their lives. In a nutshell, its called sociology of religion. You know it.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Please try to ask when you dont know something.

I'm not asking for irrelevant information.

 

[stevecanuck]

Yeah, but also the Quran says over and over again not to mock a "people", and not to generalise your hatred

Please provide the verse numbers that say that. Here are some that say the opposite.

7:176 - "A person who follows his own lust is like a dog: if you attack him he pants with his tongue out, and if you leave him he pants with his tongue out. Such is the likeness of people who deny Our verses".
7:179 - "They [unbelievers] are worse than lost cattle".
8:55 - "For the worst of beasts in the sight of Allah are those who reject Him".
62:5 - "The example of those who were entrusted with the Torah and then did not take it on is like that of a donkey who carries volumes [of books]. Wretched is the example of the people who deny the signs of Allah. And Allah does not guide the wrongdoing people. <<<< How's that for generalising?
70:42 - "So leave them to plunge in vain talk and play about, until they meet their Day which they are promised"
80:42 - "they who are unbelievers, the wicked". <<<< Oh look, more generalising.
67:22 - "Is then one who walks headlong, with his face grovelling, better guided, or one who walks evenly on a Straight Way?

and it keeps telling you that "their faith is for them, yours is for yours"

Nope. One time only. And as I pointed out, that was just a statement of fact and carried no implication that Allah is okay with that.

and it also keeps telling you that you are not god.

It's a toss-up. Was that more non sequitur or strawman?

And can you show me the "number of verses" you say "God saved the believers from the oppressors by destroying the oppressors"? You said "time and time again" so can you show me the number of verses that says this?

Check above. How many quotes did you offer to back up your wholly gratuitous claims?

 

[Link]

There is this essential problem in Islam.

Scholars - Quran - hadiths

To understand Quran, you need hadiths. To know which hadiths right you need scholars. Scholars may or may not be right in their methodology for all we know. They may all be wrong. Their guidance is not infallible guidance of God.

This is a problem.

The Quran itself has not solved people's disputes till this day, and Quran in 4:59 and after- when talking about disputes, didn't say the book would be enough of a reference and solution.

As most Muslims believe there are no more Guides and Messengers after Mohammad (s), how will we solve our disputes?

Every person talks some sense about Quran but a lot of non-sense as well. Are we required to listen to people talking about Quran. Is reputation of who knows Quran the way to go?

Indeed, to me, there is no Islam or guidance and Quran even is hidden in reality, in this century.

The Quran calls to the family of the reminder, but not of them are in public now.

We are in trouble and deeper trouble we will get to, the longer we await the return of the Mahdi.

The Mahdi is long due, we have to bring him back, or the problems will never be solved, and there will be great chaos in the earth.

How do we bring the Mahdi back? The thick veil from Satanic whispers and what he cast upon the Quran has to be broken. It has to be. It's the only way.

We can't remove it from everyone, but we need some great number and some kind of message pertaining to the truth of Ahlulbayt (a) in Quran has to be delivered as well as major changes in laws like allowing slavery has to be shown to be Tahreef of Quran in meaning.

 

[Link]

There is a serious problem with your reasoning -- the existence of people who DO have insight to justice, who are kind and compassionate and loving, and who nevertheless reject God and Muhammad.

Evil is when you are willing to harm others in order to get ahead (or at least, most evil falls under this defintiion). Evil people exist both inside and outside of Islam, as well as good people. Thus being a Muslim is a terrible, unreliable standard for deciding whether a person is evil.

In my experience, you have a few very good people, a few very evil people, and a whole awful lot of mediocre people. Religion does not seem at all to be a factor in where someone falls on the spectrum.

Being a Muslim is not an indication of being just but being non-Muslim I believe make's one politics warped by Satan and oppressive.

The thing is Shahada is not a guarantee of justice, because, we can be hypocrites. But opposing it is almost a guarantee of becoming unjust in nature, inside and out.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Being a Muslim is not an indication of being just but being non-Muslim I believe make's one politics warped by Satan and oppressive.

But what is your evidence? The evidence indicates that Muslim beliefs are not a reliable source of determining whether one is a good or bad person. Such does not seem to be dependent upon any particular religious tradition, including islam.

 

[Link]

But what is your evidence? The evidence indicates that Muslim beliefs are not a reliable source of determining whether one is a good or bad person. Such does not seem to be dependent upon any particular religious tradition, including islam.

You have it right one way being a Muslim doesn't mean your just or your politics is not warped by Satan, but my experience, which can be wrong, is that people who oppose Mohammad (s) tend to have warped political views and lack sense of justice.

That is it is an essential trait to be on the side of Mohammad (s) to have right politics and sense of justice, although there are exceptions. If you don't take side of God's chosen, Satanic misguidance takes over and your view get's warped.

However, if you testify to Mohammad (s), it maybe that your politics is still warped by Satan because you aren't sincere to God nor follow the family of Mohammad (s).

It's my experience people who don't hold to Quran and Ahlulbayt (a) get warped views of all sorts.

 

[stevecanuck]

Hmm. So you are an expert in arabic right?

Is strawmen and gratuitous denial all you have? Seems to be.

Its cute you cherry picked from a cherry picked verse because you dont know anything else. Very cute. And please dont make up new languages.

"Cherry picking" is always used as a last refuge of those who know they can't get away with denying that a verse exists, so they try to trivialize them instead. Nice try. Well, not really. You're quite transparent.

Its not Ado al kafarina. There is no "Ado" sound in arabic. Aww.

Aww, you're going to try to get away with pretending that the ع in Arabic has an English equivalent. Actually, corpus.quran.com transliterates the word as ʿaduwwun rather than Ado, or 'ado (the diacritical marks give the extra sounds). I've seen a few ways of representing ع in English. Using an upper case 'A' or even a '9' are a couple of them.

Can you explain what "yakaffara bissilahi" mean in Quranic arabic?

1. What's your point? You tried this nonsense before without ever getting to a point. You get ONE chance to explain why you ask.
2. If you use an عrabic keyboard and then paste it here, I'll give it a shot. My vocabulary might not be up to it.

 

[stevecanuck]

Haha. Website scholarship.

I'm sure I'm not the only one who's noticed that you never really engage. You either insult or deny. Then to top it off, you chide others about not employing scholarship. Kinda hypocritical, doncha think?

 

[stevecanuck]

You dont understand transliteration, its an everyday haters haven to find. Just google it.

So I asked you, if you understand "transliteration" why cant you answer?

Yakaffara bissilaahi.

Simple. As an pretend arabic expert you probably can see that the word Kaafir is in that sentence. So what does that mean? Since you said kaafir means atheist (which is of course said with website scholarship).

Please provide an expert answer.

Another strawman. Yawn.

If you're quoting a verse, tell me which one so I can look at it. Nothing will be resolved until you do.