ISIL, Taliban = True Islam??

[sun rise]

If you're going shout, at least stay on topic. To be clear, random rape is not allowed in Islam. What is allowed is sex, minus any need for consent, with wives, slaves, and captives of war.

I see you're going to ignore facts. So there's no sense in continuing to present them.

 

[sun rise]

I don't think so. I think Mohamed had them all hoodwinked. He (through the Qur'an) told them literally hundreds of times that they would burn forever if they didn't follow him. People already prone to superstitious belief are easily frightened into obedience.

I get it. You hate Islam.

 

[sun rise]

I have seven years of personal observation from living in a majority Sunni Muslim country, and I came away with the distinct impression that they eat, live, and breathe Islam.

Sunni and democratic Pakistan is an example you might want to ponder. The voting majority favor the death penalty for "insulting Islam". That's about as dogmatic as it gets.

You did not answer the question but offered a personal observation which I discount because of your hatred of Islam. As far as being observant Muslims, there are many who are totally observant but quite moderate in their views.

And citing one nation instead of answering the question is asking me to buy into a logical fallacy. Nope.

In India where there are almost as many Muslims as Pakistan the attitude is quite different.

So what you're illustrating is that, one your hatred for Islam is stripped away, that there are too many fanatics and they're concentrated in Pakistan.

 

[stevecanuck]

You did not answer the question but offered a personal observation which I discount because of your hatred of Islam. As far as being observant Muslims, there are many who are totally observant but quite moderate in their views.

And citing one nation instead of answering the question is asking me to buy into a logical fallacy. Nope.

In India where there are almost as many Muslims as Pakistan the attitude is quite different.

So what you're illustrating is that, one your hatred for Islam is stripped away, that there are too many fanatics and they're concentrated in Pakistan.

I know a struck nerve when I see one. See you in another thread. Bye.

 

[KWED]

As for female captives, Imam Bukhari quotes the Prophet SAW, as saying: If any of you have a slave girl, whom he gives good education and excellent training, and then he emancipates her and marries her, he shall have a two-fold reward.

Bukhari also said...
"A man manumitted a slave and he had no other property than that, so the Prophet (ﷺ) canceled the manumission and sold the slave for him. Nu'aim bin Al-Nahham bought the slave from him."

As your hadith shows, freeing slaves was done as a means of gaining a reward or atoning for sin, presumably because they were a valuable commodity, like giving away money. There are no references that say slavery is bad and should be abolished. None.
And why is marrying her owner part of the deal? And why was she a slave in the first place?

G-d guides whomsoever He wills, and sends astray whomsoever He wills.

Thus negating free will. Thanks!

 

[KWED]

You really haven't got a clue about people's responsibilities to each other.

What are you on about? I explained the principle of iddah. I even provided a link for you to read up about it yourself. What have "people's responsibilities to each other" got to do with it. It is about guaranteeing paternity.

Oh, and btw, I'm not an "apologist". I have been an adult Muslim for 45 years.
I have nothing to apologise for.

A religious apologist is someone who argues in defence of a religion. It doesn't mean apologise".

Without G-d's mercy, I wouldn't have been guided to the straight path.
I do not credit myself .. it is all the doing of God, the Most High.
If it was not His will, I could not be a Muslim.

Thus negating free will. Again.

Do you think it fair that Allah punishes people that he misguides and does not reveal himself to?
And why do you think you are so special and deserve Allah's special attention when he ignores billions of others? That's quite some ego there.

 

[KWED]

9:111 - "Allah hath bought from the believers their lives and their wealth because the Garden will be theirs: they shall fight in the way of Allah and shall slay and be slain". Now, I ask you - how many "interpretations" can be taken from that?

As many as are required for moderate Muslims to convince themselves that Islam is "The Religion of Peace".
And I don't blame them. It must be turmoil trying to reconcile what the Quran and sunnah actually say and what they want then to say.
Which brings us nicely back to the OP. Groups like ISIS don't have to reconcile them because they just accept what they say and do not try to bend scripture to fit their own worldview.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

We think it's futile. But one day. Your words will echo. In the minds of those who read them. You're doing sterling work for rationalism. Kudos.

Well, it's futile to try and sway those who dogmatically accept unevidenced claims.
But it's idd not futile to have the discussion / argument in public, because those who aren't entrenched that deeply into the dogma's yet, who are still kind of "on the fence" (regardless if they believe or not) indeed read these words.

And hopefully they see and realize the intellectual dishonest from the other side and hopefully that makes them step back and think a little.
They don't have to agree with me. If my words can cause someone to step back and think a little, then I consider that a good thing.

 

[KWED]

Firstly, I think you mean "Islam" and not the Qur'an. The Qur'an has not changed.

That was my point!
The world has changed massively over the last 1400 years but the Quran has not, can not.

Violence does not happen without a reason.

Indeed. It is usually a response to some stimulus. In the Quran the reason for violence is generally connected to punishing people who reject Islam in some way, and expanding the sphere of influence of Islam.

Religions aren't to blame for terrorism.

They can be. If a group or individual specifically cites scripture as the motivation and justification for actions, and those is a clear correlation between the two, we can lay ay least someone the blame at the feet of the religion.
It's like saying you can't blame politics for terrorism.
The whole point of "terrorism" is that it is violence to further an ideological agenda.

There has always been oppression in the world. Christians oppressing Muslims, or Muslims oppressing Christians.

But why are they oppressing each other? What do they use to explain their actions? At least some of the time it is religion.

It is about mankind's nature. They have love for wealth and power.

So you are claiming that people never act through the desire to do god's will?
You just admitted that your actions are not always your own but are guided by god's will.
So if some people want to do gods will, and they are guided by god, how can you separate their actions from religion. It makes no sense whatsoever.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Well, it's futile to try and sway those who dogmatically accept unevidenced claims.
But it's idd not futile to have the discussion / argument in public, because those who aren't entrenched that deeply into the dogma's yet, who are still kind of "on the fence" (regardless if they believe or not) indeed read these words.

And hopefully they see and realize the intellectual dishonest from the other side and hopefully that makes them step back and think a little.
They don't have to agree with me. If my words can cause someone to step back and think a little, then I consider that a good thing.

Yeah, I know. But I honestly as a skeptic can't replicate your version of rational. To me rationality is like any other human behavior. It works, but it has limits just like human ability to move around.
So I am neither rational nor irrational. I am rational when that applies and irrational when it doesn't apply.
In short I accept the limits of evidence as claimed here: https://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/0_0_0/whatisscience_12

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Then why do you quote it as historically accurate?

He didn't.
You're just being your intellectually dishonest self again.

 

[KWED]

Millions of people think that. It is an uninformed opinion.

No, it is an opinion informed by evidence.
Anyone reading the Quran without a pre-existing belief in Islam and its divine origin would conclude that it was most likely written by one or more 7th century Arab men.

In the same way that people deny Jesus, people deny Muhammad.

They don't usually deny the historical character of Jesus. They just reject the stories about magic. But yes, the two characters are quite similar in some ways. Like Jesus, some historians suggest that the character of Muhammad never actually existed, based on lack of archaeological evidence from the period around when he was supposed to have lived.
Either way, there are clear similarities between the two.
Probable historical character with some corroborative evidence, but not conclusive.
Zero evidence for any magical powers or divine connection.
Possibly never existed as an individual at all.
That is the reality of the situation.

It is so easy to make a claim. However, it is not so easy to back it up.

As religionists have been demonstrating for thousands of years.

Were Muhammad and his companions all "in it together" ?..or what?

Some might have been. Others might just have been following a charismatic leader.
Remember that if you take out all the claims about god, the Quran is just the record of a successful 7th century political and military leader from Arabia. Nothing remarkable about it.

 

[KWED]

And all married women except those whom your right hands possess (this is) Allah's ordinance to you, and lawful for you are (all women) besides those, provided that you seek (them) with your property, taking (them) in marriage not committing fornication. Then as to those whom you profit by, give them their dowries as appointed; and there is no blame on you about what you mutually agree after what is appointed; surely Allah is Knowing, Wise.

That passage is saying that Muslim men are not allowed to have carnal relations with any women other than the ones specified. It specifies those "your right hand possesses", which is a reference to slaves, even if they are married. This is confirmed by various hadith..."We captured some women from the area of Awtas who were already married, and we disliked having sexual relations with them because they already had husbands. So, we asked the Prophet about this matter, and this Ayah was revealed. Consequently, we had sexual relations with these women". (Sahih Muslim)
A somewhat convenient "revelation" don't you think?
Aisha herself is recorded as saying to Muhammad "Your Lord seems to hasten to fulfil your desires".

The bit you highlighted refers to how to make other women lawful.

Christianity does the same.

Indeed, there are passages in the Bible that condone behaviour that today would be classed as "rape".

The USA's motto is the same "New order of the ages" and so forth.

 

[muhammad_isa]

I don't think so. I think Mohamed had them all hoodwinked..

Wow .. so the Muslims have all been "hoodwinked"
No .. there is a reason for everything.

People who claim that "there is no god", despite the evidence to the contrary have their reasons.

They say "there is no objective evidence, it is all lies".
G-d tells us "Those whom Allah sendeth astray, there is no guide for them. He leaveth them to wander blindly on in their contumacy".

Some of us are believers, and some are not.
That is the ordinance of God, the Most High.
He knows that which He created.

 

[KWED]

Talk about being ignorant. 10 seconds with google and

Rape in Islamic law - Wikipedia

Accordingly, sexual violation is regarded as a violation of moral and divine law.[1] Islam divided claims of sexual violation into 'divine rights' (huquq Allah) and 'interpersonal rights' (huquq al-'ibad): the former requiring divine punishment (hadd penalties) and the latter belonging to the more flexible human realm.[2]

Rape is considered a serious sexual crime in Islam. In Islam, rape is called Zina Al-Zibr[3] or Ightisab,[4] and it falls under the rules of Hirabah.[5] Classical Islamic law (Shari'a) regarded the crime of sexual violation as a coercive zina, and therefore a hadd offence.[1] There is also a lack of recognition of marital rape by mainstream jurists.[6]

You misunderstand. There is nothing in the Quran or sunnah about rape (sex without consent). There is only "lawful" and "unlawful" sex.
Some lawful sex (like sex with captives and children) is today considered rape.
Some unlawful sex (like sex before marriage or gay sex) is now completely legal and acceptable.

When you look at all the cases cited by apologists, they are all deemed "unlawful" because of issues other than consent.
Your reference is referring to how rape is defined under modern Islamic jurisprudence, not how it is forbidden in scripture - because it isn't, because it wasn't a thing.

Until just recently in the "enlightened" USA

Mere whataboutery. Any society that permits or enables violence against women is wrong, regardless of the nature of the justification.
This thread is about Islam, so I am criticising Islam's approach. In a thread about Christianity, I would be attacking that. In a thread about medieval England, I would be addressing that issue.
However, the problem with your whataboutery is that US law last century, or English law in the Middle Ages, etc, is not claimed to be divinely revealed, infallible and immutable. It can be, and usually is changed for the better. A vital point that apologists often seem to fail to grasp.

 

[KWED]

I don't think so. I think Mohamed had them all hoodwinked. He (through the Qur'an) told them literally hundreds of times that they would burn forever if they didn't follow him. People already prone to superstitious belief are easily frightened into obedience.

And don't forget that he promised them a share in any booty stolen on raids and expeditions. Money talks!

 

[KWED]

Haha. You were looking at another book on the internet, insulted me saying I dont have it, while all the time you quoted the wrong book. See, being a little humble when you have made a mistake in a hurry to insult someone won't result in you losing yourself.

So you admit that Ibn Abbas' tafsir does contain that interpretation.
So just another dishonest red herring.

The verse does not say anything about little girls. It is speaking about women. Grown women who are married. Annisaa.

As I have already explained, you are just question begging.
The verse is talking about females who have already been married, so why is it surprising that it would use a term that denotes a married female?
The issue is the age those women were married!
Several renowned Islamic scholars (who have studied the Quran in more depth and who are are more fluent in Classical Arabic that you or I) explicitly explained that the verse refers to married females too young to have started menstruation.
You have still to address that key point.

 

[KWED]

You are speaking about a verse in the Quran. Where does it talk about a 9 year old girl?

Ah, the "I shall ignore the existence of hadith when it suits me" argument.

Perhaps you aren't aware but hadith are often crucial in understanding the meaning of the Quran.
If you claim that the Quran forbids marriage to anyone as young as 6 (despite it containing no verses that include such a prohibition) you would have explain why Muhammad married a 6 year old girl (on Allah's instruction, according to some scholars).

 

[KWED]

No no. What you are doing is a typical, daily seen missionary tactic. "I am quoting hadith because you believe it, not because I believe it". But the thing is, we dont believe it so strongly like you do.

In Islamic tradition these ahadith have been discussed and debated so much that you should try and learn these things prior to teaching others about their beliefs.

Second thing is, you are quoting ahadith as if they are verified history. Which is "your belief". You are quoting it.

No idea what you are on about here.
1. Hadith are an integral part of Islamic ideology and belief.
2. I cite hadith where relevant because they are an integral part of Islamic ideology and belief.
Not sure how much clearer I can make it.

No. The text does not say it. Where did that "Too Young" part come from?

I have quoted the various tafsir several times now. They all say something along the lines of "Too young to have started menstruation". If you disagree, take it up with the relevant scholars. You certainly seem to think you are better informed on the Quran and Classical Arabic that the likes of Ibn Kathir and Ibn Abbas.

Remind us what your qualifications are and which sheiykh you studied under?...

 

[muhammad_isa]

The issue is the age those women were married!
Several renowned Islamic scholars (who have studied the Quran in more depth and who are are more fluent in Classical Arabic that you or I) explicitly explained that the verse refers to married females too young to have started menstruation.
You have still to address that key point.

Islam is not defined by scholars, particularly ones that have been cherry-picked, and lived in times long ago.
God expects us to use our intelligence.

..but not for evil purposes.
If somebody with knowledge answers your apparent anomaly, you will just change tack onto another subject, and not acknowledge it.
God knows best why you might do that.