Debate a Muslim

[A Vestigial Mote]

- As to violence. This is usually the more shocking thing to me in engaging with westerners, especially Americans. A total desensitization from their reality with the world & complete dissociation with their history. That they often forget, American "freedom" propaganda is not really compelling to most of the rest of the world, who instead see hegemony, hypocrisy & violent crime.

And this means what regarding a given individual's principles as regards violence, do you think? Remember that individuals are the ones who may or may not wish to debate with you, and individuals are the ones who may or may not accept or believes claims you may make. Individuals are the ones you might attempt to convert to bolster your numbers. Not "westerners" or "Americans". And your entire "answer" here (if you can call it that) does absolutely nothing to assuage an individual's fears that Islam might propagate and/or prescribe violence against those who leave or question the faith. All you seem to be doing is to excuse such violence by pointing out that others commit (or have committed) violent acts. This is bad, bad business, in my opinion. And when it is you and I discussing, and you wanting to convince me (if you, indeed, do) then you are only going to turn me off from anything else you have to say with generalized non-answers like this.

You shouldn't be throwing stones from your glass houses.

It deserves to be repeated that even if "Americans" on the whole, or "westerners" commit violent acts - an individual coming to you with concerns that your ideology may promote violence definitely should not be satisfied with you pointing out that their countrymen commit violence. What if this individual is intent on seeking asylum from their "terrible" country? Is yours, with its major ideology a safe haven? Can you claim this? This is more to the point of the questions asked. Questions you seem entirely uncomfortable to answer straightly.

 

[Shakeel]

Not relevant.

Or simply embarrassing.

 

[Shakeel]

That was about why women dont lead or something of that nature

It was about responsibilities. You seem to think women have more than men.

 

[firedragon]

It was about responsibilities.

No.

 

[Link]

Here's a question: Why should a non-Muslim accept Islam when Muslims cannot agree on a version of Islam and often deem each other astray/disbelievers?

 

[Link]

To be honest, I don't believe guidance is possible without an Imam from God along with Quran. Quran has not been able to guide us all to the straight path and unite us and is not sufficient alone. Hadiths of Ahlulbayt (a) as a legacy are not enough with Quran either.

This is why I don't see Muslims including Shiite Muslims as necessarily better than other non-Muslim religious people.

This is because the truth is not manifest and the word of God is not high and uppermost, but, rather Muslims have disgraced God's word and made a mockery of his name and signs. But it's not even their fault largely, it's something we inherited (misguidance) and can't be fixed till we get Imam Mahdi (a) back.

 

[firedragon]

Here's a question: Why should a non-Muslim accept Islam when Muslims cannot agree on a version of Islam and often deem each other astray/disbelievers?

Honestly, that's a pretty good question. But this is prevalent in all theologies brother. Also you should note that it is a sectarian issue, not a theological issue. Everyone wants to be superior in some way. If people are diverse, they will each want to be superior, if people are from one single race and creed, people will intentionally create divisions simply to feel superior.

In Christianity, the reformation was probably one of the bloodiest so called "reformations" ever. Millions and millions of people died. Now in this particular thread, people are trying to feel superior pulling a madhab out. Lol.

 

[Link]

Honestly, that's a pretty good question. But this is prevalent in all theologies brother. Also you should note that it is a sectarian issue, not a theological issue. Everyone wants to be superior in some way. If people are diverse, they will each want to be superior, if people are from one single race and creed, people will intentionally create divisions simply to feel superior.

In Christianity, the reformation was probably one of the bloodiest so called "reformations" ever. Millions and millions of people died. Now in this particular thread, people are trying to feel superior pulling a madhab out. Lol.

You are correct, but to me, I'd rather a person stay a certain religion they know and most probably has some sort of link to a Messenger from God originally, then become of a victim of the clergy of Muslims with dwarfed understanding. It's like taking a person out the fire into the frying pan.

If you going to believe in slavery, etc, coming to Islam, maybe it's better a person stays atheist and a Deist for example.

I remember I was sort of dating this woman at university (we never touched, just had food and hanged out) and she asked me for a good translation of Quran, I told her I don't know of any that are not severely distorted in translation. She was horrified, and I told her it's not her fault really. I know most people would prey on people to come to Islam, but, this all I could do, is tell her we've severely misinterpreted Quran so she doesn't disbelieve when reading a Quran translation.

Of course, if a person comes to Quran and Sunnah and reflects, it will heal them. But most people come and then are devoured by our sectarian strife and leaders who are not appointed by God lead them astray.

 

[Link]

Also religion is meant to be a healing and source of peace and unity. If people realize it has not done that for us Muslims, I don't blame them for rejecting Islam on that basis. This despite me believing Mohammad (s) is a Prophet and Messenger of God.

Same way I believe in Jesus and Moses but would never call to either Christianity or Judaism.

 

[firedragon]

You are correct, but to me, I'd rather a person stay a certain religion they know and most probably has some sort of link to a Messenger from God originally, then become of a victim of the clergy of Muslims with dwarfed understanding. It's like taking a person out the fire into the frying pan.

If you going to believe in slavery, etc, coming to Islam, maybe it's better a person stays atheist and a Deist for example.

I remember I was sort of dating this woman at university (we never touched, just had food and hanged out) and she asked me for a good translation of Quran, I told her I don't know of any that are not severely distorted in translation. She was horrified, and I told her it's not her fault really. I know most people would prey on people to come to Islam, but, this all I could do, is tell her we've severely misinterpreted Quran so she doesn't disbelieve when reading a Quran translation.

Of course, if a person comes to Quran and Sunnah and reflects, it will heal them. But most people come and then are devoured by our sectarian strife and leaders who are not appointed by God lead them astray.

I agree with almost everything you say, if not all.

 

[viole]

Hi everyone, I'm new here. I don't know how this works, but here we go.

- You can post your objections (or questions) against Islam here – it's scripture, theology, philosophy, law, politics, spirituality, or history –, bring your best supportive arguments & a white flag (or a prayer mat) for future use.

Good luck!

Do you accept evolution? Namely, among other things, that we and pigs share a common ancestor?

ciao

- viole

 

[viole]

Hi everyone, I'm new here. I don't know how this works, but here we go.

- You can post your objections (or questions) against Islam here – it's scripture, theology, philosophy, law, politics, spirituality, or history –, bring your best supportive arguments & a white flag (or a prayer mat) for future use.

Good luck!

I am Swiss. Therefore, I come from a country which:

1) banned Halal (cruel thing to do to animals)
2) banned the construction of minarets (they just do not fit in the alps)
3) banned women to cover their faces like Batman in public (unless it is Fasnacht), on account of being symbols of woman oppression

what do you think of that? Do you think religious tenets should always be allowed, independently from secular law, or what the majority believe (we have direct democracy here)?

ciao

- viole

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

...this is prevalent in all theologies..

Any way to rate just this sentiment as "Winner?"

 

[viole]

There is scientific evidence that in affairs like memory, logic, mathematical reasoning, and so forth that there is no effective difference between the sexes.

Really? I thought it was obvious that men are vastly inferior.

ciI

- viole

 

[Link]

Any way to rate just this sentiment as "Winner?"

You know what, the true religion has to be different in guidance, if resembles all false religions, conclusion: it's not unique, one of a kind type thing.

 

[firedragon]

1) banned Halal (cruel thing to do to animals)
2) banned the construction of minarets (they just do not fit in the alps)
3) banned women to cover their faces like Batman in public (unless it is Fasnacht), on account of being symbols of woman oppression

Tyranny.

 

[viole]

Tyranny.

Lol. Switzerland is known to be a tyranny. Everybody is after us

It is not tyranny. It is just not bowing to that silly claim that you are a tyrant if you do not allow primitive and cruel superstitions based on zero evidence, in a secular state. That tyranny scarecrow is nor scaring anyone over here. And the Muslims would risk their lives to come here, rather than staying in their God fearing countries, despite our tyranny. i suppose safety trumps primitive tenets, after all.

what you guys need to understand is that everybody can believe any fairy tale she wants to believe. Nobody will oppress you for that. But if there is a conflict, like people discriminating gays on account of Jesus, or preventing sick kids to get a transfusion because of Jeovah stuff, or oppressing women because of Allah saying that, then your fairy tales get no priority. They just go down. That is what a secular state is. It is a simple as that.

Question: if religion X would command their believers to rape their fist born, and Switzerland banned that, would it still be tyranny?

ciao

- viole

 

[epronovost]

This is not my reading. I'm speaking about the positions of the Four Madhhabs on these matters. Anything else is personal feelings.

Unless you so happen to be one of Four Madhhabs, you are giving your personal interpretation and understanding of their teachings (which may be perfect and on point or not, I don't know that), but its definitely your understanding. You are writing to me and answering my question not them

There are two opinions regarding the issue of when either of the parties (wife or husband) fails to fulfill their duties, One: the other party is also absolved of theirs –for a contract is based on exchanged benefits; Two: it is not absolved of theirs, for if one side is sinning the other shouldn't. Either way, the reverse of rights is not sanctioned in Sharia. The wife may provide for her husband from her own grace, for which she is doubly rewarded (for provision & for charity, as the Prophet (pbuh) said), but this does not entail the husband has to obey his wife's sexual wishes. Obligation in Sharia is about sin & reward, do means reward, don't means sin. However, a husband may strike such a deal with his wife, it's just not binding in Sharia.

So to make a long story short. The Sharia, in essence, imposes gender roles. You could have thus answered the question with a simple yes and then offered the explanation as to what exactly are those roles, what leeway there is within them, and why you believe they should be followed. You are going to save yourself a lot of time and headache by taking a more forthright approach that sticks to the questions. Trust me, I am a teacher. It's my job to explain and vulgarize complicated things.

 

[epronovost]

Women can too. These are common to every human being. If you really wish to make that kind of argument.

Perhaps, but they happen more frequently to men so to if you want to make the argument that there needs to be two women for one men in to compensate for potential absence caused by a woman giving birth (and nothing else really) that's a bit hysterical and ridiculous.

 

[sun rise]

This is perhaps the best thread in a very long time because we have multiple Muslim voices and non-Muslim voices as well.

- Yeah, you don't use translations to interpret the Quran. That's absurd.

That is a significant point that I wanted to underline. In poetry and elsewhere the problem of translation is well known. Too often the translation is more about the translator than the original document. It's absolutely no surprise to me that this is true of the Quran as well.

And it illustrates the problem ordinary people have be they Muslim or non-Muslim. And of course, we tend to choose verses which reflect what we want to find.

Given that scholars with deep knowledge of the Quran can also differ, what to me is the answer is to look at the fundamentals of the Quran which are consistent.

I've read enough to believe that those fundamentals are submission to the will of Allah and the "99 Names of God" perhaps with some other parts.

I dont have a problem if Muslims tell me the Hadith is not trustworthy,

There are Quran-only Muslims and Muslims who debate the strength of various Hadiths. To pick only one group to highlight is to me a mistake.

Today there are 4 different qurans in the world, with major differences.
I have al 4 printed coppies.
Hafs, Warsh, Qualan, and Al Duri.

This was new to me Quran - 5 Recitations: Hafs, Warsh, Hisham, Qalun & Al-Duri

But you need to bring proof the of the "major differences" assertion. This is one comparison showing very minor differences between two of them Quran - Comparing Hafs & Warsh for 51 textual variants

Here's a question: Why should a non-Muslim accept Islam when Muslims cannot agree on a version of Islam and often deem each other astray/disbelievers?

There is a hadith, I don't know if it's considered strong or weak, where Muhammad is reported to have said:

The time is near in which nothing will remain of Islam but its name, and of the Kuran but its mere appearance, and the mosques of Muslims will be destitute of of knowledge and worship; and the learned will be the worst people under the heavens; and contention and strife will issue from them,and it will return upon themselves.
...
Ye follower of Muhammad, I swear by the Lord, if ye did but know what I
know of the future state, verily ye would laugh little and cry much.
...
Men will be liars towards the end of the world; and will relate such stories as neither you nor your fathers ever heard. Then avoid them, that they may not lead you astray and throw you into contention and strife.

Sayings of The Prophet | Islamic Values

Signs of the Last Day - The Rejection of the True Religion