ISIL, Taliban = True Islam??

[KWED]

There is no point in me arguing with you.

Not if you can't provide any cogent arguments, no.

If you consider that Islam promotes slavery, that's your opinion. I would agree that it is not "forbidden".

I didn't say it "promotes" it. It permits it. And that is not my opinion, it is clearly expressed in the Quran and sunnah, as you seem to agree

No one is arguing that Islam tells Muslims to take or keep slaves. But if it is allowed, then it is clearly not considered to be immoral by Allah or Muhammad - yet you consider it to be immoral. By extension, you consider Allah and Muhammad to be immoral in that respect.

..and I think that G-d is wiser than you

You keep repeating this platitude, yet you argue as if you know better than god.
God permits slavery. He never says anywhere that it is wrong or should be abolished - yet you argue the opposite, despite accepting it elsewhere. It's that ol' cognitive dissonance again.

I don't know about that.

Obviously. You feel obliged to defend slavery because Allah permits it and Muhammad practiced it.
However, you just said... "It is clear to me that the buying and selling of people is immoral."

I guess it depends on how you view what a slave is.

A person who is owned as property by another person.

I expect that you'd argue that a Muslim wife is a slave. [ property ] No, I wouldn't.

We clearly see things differently.

"Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but not to their own facts".

 

[muhammad_isa]

Obviously. You feel obliged to defend slavery because Allah permits it and Muhammad practiced it..

I don't feel obliged to defend anything that I don't agree with.

However, you just said... "It is clear to me that the buying and selling of people is immoral."

A person who is owned as property by another person.

That's right, yes.
What about the case of prisoners? They are not bought and sold, but can still be deemed as slaves, if they are forced to work.

 

[firedragon]

Sorry .. I would rather rely on the wisdom of G-d.
Is it better to be a "free man" without an income, or be a slave of a morally upright, pious person?

A good person would free their slave on request. It might well be that a slave with a good master wouldn't WANT to be freed.

It is clear to me that the buying and selling of people is immoral.
I have read the Qur'an from cover-to-cover 100's of times.

You should consider whats the word for Slave in the Qur'an.

Is it Ibadh, Riqab, fathaya, Yamin? Some traditional slavers like to translate all of this as slave. But its absolutely nonsensical.

The Quran does not condone slavery. The Quran only promotes freeing of slaves. Also one must note that the Quran speaks of "spending money to free slaves".

Think about it. If you yourself own slaves, you dont spend money to free them. You just free them. You spend money only to free other peoples slaves. Simple logic.

You are absolutely right. The Quran is vehemently against slavery. Most of these people who insult Islam dont have a clue. They pretend to have studied the Qur'an for 20 years, 30 years, 50 years etc. But in really life, they have not even read it.

Peace.

 

[Augustus]

No it is not. Otherwise good people would do bad stuff all the time - but they don't. Just look at most people most of the time. It requires the dogmatic and dehumanising and intolerant elements of irrational ideologies.

You are looking at the wrong scale. Due to the diversity of circumstance and personality, the collective is far more relevant than the individual. Good people do indeed do evil things all of the time and always will because it is a part of our collective nature.

"Rationalists" like Weinberg have a tendency to view violence as an 'error' hat can be fixed rather than an evolved capability that is as intrinsic to our collective nature as altruism and kindness.

You are also making the mistake the kind of mistake that Weinberg makes thinking it requires "dogmatic and dehumanising and intolerant elements of irrational ideologies" to make good people do evil things. That is why I provided Koestler's quote about it really being the consequences of the same aspects of our nature that can drive positive behaviours.

One major factor that drives good people to do evil things is empathy (for those deemed oppressed).

Many people who supported the Iraq War were centre-left liberal interventionists. Christopher Hitchens basically supported it based on his Secular Humanist values.

It's obviously not simply "dogmatic and dehumanising and intolerant elements of irrational ideologies" that can be used to legitimise violence. Throughout history, people killed in the name of "Progress" far outnumber those killed in the name of religion.

They are capable. Maybe not uniquely, but they manner in which they do it is somewhat different to political ideologies.

That assertions would first require you to be able to differentiate between a religion and a political ideology in a meaningful way, and then demonstrate that they are indeed different.

Neither of which you are likely to be able to do.

If you want to try, explain how militant nationalism and Soviet Communism are fundamentally different from 'religion' in the way they affect people.

Is it? Could you provide some examples?

The obvious examples would be things like scientific racialism, eugenics and social Darwinism that were widely supported among the scientific rationalist community, even by the progressives of the day.

Even more harmful would be the impact of Malthusian views on human population that drove policies that exacerbated famines that killed millions.

Science and reason are value neutral, which is why many Enlightenment ideas were profoundly illiberal. Once you deem something 'scientific' then it can be used to justify causing harm because such harm is 'for the greater good', 'inevitable', etc.

Seems like Weinberg struck a nerve.

It's more contempt as I'm not a fan of hypocrisy or bigotry based on irrationality and ignorance.

I'm an atheist so I have no emotional need to defend religions (although, unlike many atheists, I have no emotional need to disparage them either). Anti-theists tend to be remarkably self-congratulatory on their own rationality, so when they peddle naive and irrational misrepresentations it is fait to point these out.

TBH, your objection smacks of whataboutery.
Yes, some political ideology can also get good people to do bad, but that does not exonerate religion from the same crime.
"Yeah, I did all those murders your honour, but my neighbour did some as well last month".

Then you are badly missing the point.

To point out that Weinberg fundamentally misunderstands the issue in question is not remotely comparable to "whataboutery".

 

[Link]

So you accept it includes both girls too young to have had their first period, and those who suffer from primary amenorrhea (about 1% of the population - a condition that isn't diagnosed until the person is past the age of starting puberty).

You have reading comprehension issues if you think this is my stance.

 

[Link]

I agree.
Incidentally, I believe that ALL humans are fallible.
..and that includes Moses, Jesus and Muhammad [ peace be with them ]

Human beings are human beings. They CANNOT possess Divine properties .. such as All-Knowing for example.

Right, the prophets do not sin purposely .. that is not the same thing as claiming they are infallible.

If all humans are prone to sin, then sin would not be blamable. If it's impossible to avoid sin, then it's not blameworthy.

 

[muhammad_isa]

..If it's impossible to avoid sin, then it's not blameworthy.

I've heard it all before.
G-d created evil, so it is G-d's fault

 

[Link]

I've heard it all before.
G-d created evil, so it is G-d's fault

It's a rational stance that you have to be capable of avoiding sin for it be blameworthy.

 

[Link]

Mohammad (s) and his family (a) are exalted above all other sent ones, because they submit to God fully with no lack of praise and a fully exalted manner in all stages without fault.

Ultimately, they are proofs with regards to Prophets (a) too, and so Prophets (a) knew their station and repented through it.

Adam (a) only got forgiven because he repented with regards to them. People who envy their station will never enter paradise.

They are proof on all creation, that submitting fully to God is possible, such that there is no lack of submission and effort in God's way. They are examples of that, consequently, Prophets (a) if they swerved would return to the path knowing that family of Mohammad (s) are such they never deviate.

If God wished, he could have kept Mohammad (a) and his family (a) hidden from creation. Bu they are his ultimate favors upon humanity, upon which ingratitude towards will never be accepted and no repentance will be accepted in this day and age except through their intercession.

 

[Link]

When they jumped in faith to God in the initial covenant, they did it with utmost love and sincerity possible of God's creation. Consequently, God trusts them to never deviate and remain in that utmost sincerity and path as long as he protects them with his light. They embrace his light and protection and won't ever deviate.

 

[KWED]

I don't feel obliged to defend anything that I don't agree with.

So why are you defending "Islamic slavery", despite claiming to consider slavery "immoral"?

What about the case of prisoners? They are not bought and sold, but can still be deemed as slaves, if they are forced to work.

Forced labour is also something that civilised society rejects, but it is a different issue to slavery (owning another person as property).

 

[KWED]

The Quran does not condone slavery. The Quran only promotes freeing of slaves.
You are absolutely right. The Quran is vehemently against slavery.

Either you have never read the Quran, or you are lying. Either way, not a good look for an apologist of Islam.

 

[loverofhumanity]

The verse you gave does not say "will be revealed on the Day of Resurrection".

Also, in the verse you gave above, chapter 3:7, says that "The perverse at heart eagerly pursue the ambiguities in their attempt to make trouble".

Are you saying that since you take these ambiguities so heavily you are "perverse at hear" as this verse says?

The Sura is quite clear.

 

[firedragon]

The Sura is quite clear.

The verse is clear alright. But still does not say ""will be revealed on the Day of Resurrection".

Its an interpolation.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

@InvestigateTruth There are plenty of verses to support what I said. But the verse you quoted is also revealed in that context, in the context, that God destroys oppressive people in the past, and that believers were oppressed by them, but that he sent certain chosen ones and God delivers the believers and destroys their prosecutors. In this regard, many verse emphasize "wait, so we too are waiting", and we'll see when the Mahdi comes, who is supported and who will be disgraced.

His forces in the past were always helped by God destroying their opponents in times of peril they faced from them.

How what you are saying is applicable to Jesus? Was not He crucified and His apostles were all martyred?
How about 14 inllibles? We're not all Imams martyred? Was not Imam Hossein and His 72 companions martyred?

I know. I know

You think Imam Mahdi comes and will be a Worldly ruler with military power and revenge Right?

Firstly, that is not what the Hadithes tells us:

Imam Ja’far Sadiq (a.s.) said: O Mufaddal, you have made a nice statement. Now tell me in what type of our Rajat do you believe? While some of our miserly Shia consider that the Almighty Allah will give material rule and wealth and make Imam Mahdi (a.s.) as the ruler. But woe unto them, when was our kingdom usurped that it would be restored to us?
Mufaddal said: Your kingdom has never been usurped from you, because
it is in fact prophethood, messengership, Imamate and successorship.

Biharulanwar, Vol. 52


In many Hadithes it is said Mahdi will live only 7 years.

In another Hadith, Imam said, there is no One among Us, who will not be Martyred. Meaning that includes Imam Mahdi.

But in Bahai View all these Prophecies are fulfilled in the Person of the Bab. He proclaimed in the year 1260, and was Martyred in the 7th year, as was prophesied.

 

[firedragon]

How what you are saying is applicable to Jesus? Was not He crucified and His apostles were all martyred?

Where do you get the information that "apostles were all martyred"? Is there anything authentic with provenance?

 

[Link]

How what you are saying is applicable to Jesus? Was not He crucified and His apostles were all martyred?
How about 14 inllibles? We're not all Imams martyred? Was not Imam Hossein and His 72 companions martyred?

I know. I know

You think Imam Mahdi comes and will be a Worldly ruler with military power and revenge Right?

Firstly, that is not what the Hadithes tells us:

Imam Ja’far Sadiq (a.s.) said: O Mufaddal, you have made a nice statement. Now tell me in what type of our Rajat do you believe? While some of our miserly Shia consider that the Almighty Allah will give material rule and wealth and make Imam Mahdi (a.s.) as the ruler. But woe unto them, when was our kingdom usurped that it would be restored to us?
Mufaddal said: Your kingdom has never been usurped from you, because
it is in fact prophethood, messengership, Imamate and successorship.

Biharulanwar, Vol. 52


In many Hadithes it is said Mahdi will live only 7 years.

In another Hadith, Imam said, there is no One among Us, who will not be Martyred. Meaning that includes Imam Mahdi.

But in Bahai View all these Prophecies are fulfilled in the Person of the Bab. He proclaimed in the year 1260, and was Martyred in the 7th year, as was prophesied.

It's both what most of hadiths say and what Quran says too. You cherry pick hadiths but are not aware of the majority.

Also Quran is explicit people of the book will accept Jesus before his death, the topic is about his death, so "his death" doesn't refer to the people of the book but Jesus' death which the verses before were saying he never was killed or crucified. Wouldn't be the only thing you decontextualize and break language flow for though.

Also the rule and authority of God extends to everything in universe, whether people recognize it or not.

The Imam (a) is saying they are the true rulers whether people accept it or not. But there are many hadiths that their position was usurped as it was not recognized and false leaders put in place of government. See Sahifa Sajjadiya for example, the Du'a about Friday and Eids.

 

[Link]

Where do you get the information that "apostles were all martyred"? Is there anything authentic with provenance?

He follows desires not guidance from God. He doesn't even accept day of judgment, he interprets everything to suit his desires.

 

[Link]

Also martyrdom is their choice and way of generosity. They have incredible powers and God always asks them if they wish to use it to save their lives or not. Same with Yahya (a) and other martyred chosen ones.

When Sulaiman (a) request that he be able to display the power of the chosen ones which he is one of and use his power to rule and force the truth upon people by display of signs, he did so, but even then, even with devils under his control, people accused him of sorcery and didn't accept him.

Their will is with God, they rather God plans for them and through them.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

One person in this very page says that he has understood islam to be "honor killings, genital mutilation, pushing homosexuals off of high towers, burning people alive in cages, stoning them to death, and the like" and that he probably learned that from me.

You're referring to a comment I made, but you've misrepresented my words. Never happened. I neither said that I understand Islam to be those things, nor that I learned about them from you.

Are you lying, or do you have a reading comprehension problem?

And no, I'm not going to show you where I didn't say that. I'm simply rejecting your unsupported claim out of hand. If you care to show the thread where you don't have a reading comprehension issue and are telling the truth, go for it. You will fail.

And why should anybody believe your interpretations of Islam when you can't interpret the simple sentences that somebody like me writes? You're here to tell us what is and isn't true Islam, but you can't accurately report what is or isn't true about It Ain't Necessarily So.

Different? They are enemies. Soap and cheese. Salt and lime. But the problem is, there are lots of people who say that Islam is represented by them both. that's the whole topic.

That may be a problem for you, because you aren't interested in much more than sanitizing the way the world perceives Islam, an impossible task given how much information is available that contradicts you. But it's not a problem for those who have no such agenda. Militant Islam, however, is.

Of course Islam is represented in part by the Taliban and ISIS. They'll tell you that they're Muslims, and proud defenders of the faith as they understand it. How is that not a face of Islam? That you want to distance your faith from terrorism is understandable, but you can't. It's an aspect of Islam just as it's become an aspect of American Christianity.

It was silly of Khomeini (q) but may we all move past that.

What does that mean, move past it? It (a fatwa) happened and will likely happen again. And people will be killed for drawings that Muslims dislike in the name of Islam.

If all humans are prone to sin, then sin would not be blamable. If it's impossible to avoid sin, then it's not blameworthy.

The Christians might like to have a word with you about that. Blaming and punishing sinners, and how to avoid that through submission, are fundamental elements Christianity. The first story involving man has him sinning and being blamed and punished. The central dogma of Christianity is that Christ came to earth and died for your sins so that you can be saved from them.

I agree with you, however, that it would be unjust to design humanity as it is, every one of us innately prone to sin and unable to avoid it, then blame and punish them for it, especially using eternal, gratuitous torture.