"Objective" povs

[Wasp]

I don't know how often it happens regarding other religions, but when non-Muslims study (or, more correctly speaking, usually just feed their hatred) about Islam they almost always cite books written by non-Muslims and most often westerners.

These writers may be Christian or they may be atheists, but why would anyone do that and expect to "find the truth"? Why would they cite those books to Muslims who have actually been to a Muslim country and who have studied the Qur'an and who know Arabic, and expect their citation is somehow valuable because it's supposedly objective?

Is there a reason to imagine it to be objective?

Have you noticed this phenomenon in discussions about other religions?

 

[Nakosis]

I don't know how often it happens regarding other religions, but when non-Muslims study (or, more correctly speaking, usually just feed their hatred) about Islam they almost always cite books written by non-Muslims and most often westerners.

These writers may be Christian or they may be atheists, but why would anyone do that and expect to "find the truth"? Why would they cite those books to Muslims who have actually been to a Muslim country and who have studied the Qur'an and who know Arabic, and expect their citation is somehow valuable because it's supposedly objective?

Is there a reason to imagine it to be objective?

No discussions are objective in the sense they are not biased.

Have you noticed this phenomenon in discussions about other religions?

I suspect all discussions are discussed from a POV that makes them all inherently biased. I think the problem is more in thinking that any of them are supposedly objective.

 

[danieldemol]

I don't know how often it happens regarding other religions, but when non-Muslims study (or, more correctly speaking, usually just feed their hatred) about Islam they almost always cite books written by non-Muslims and most often westerners.

These writers may be Christian or they may be atheists, but why would anyone do that and expect to "find the truth"? Why would they cite those books to Muslims who have actually been to a Muslim country and who have studied the Qur'an and who know Arabic, and expect their citation is somehow valuable because it's supposedly objective?

Is there a reason to imagine it to be objective?

Have you noticed this phenomenon in discussions about other religions?

On the other side of the coin an opinion is not “objective” just because it’s Muslim, in fact being Muslim can give it a pro-Islamic bias.

 

[Darkforbid]

On the other side of the coin an opinion is not “objective” just because it’s Muslim, in fact being Muslim can give it a pro-Islamic bias.

I agree when has going to the source ever been objective?! It's like arguing propaganda as fact

 

[Terry Sampson]

Why would they cite those books to Muslims who have actually been to a Muslim country and who have studied the Qur'an and who know Arabic, and expect their citation is somehow valuable because it's supposedly objective? Is there a reason to imagine it to be objective? Have you noticed this phenomenon in discussions about other religions?

As a matter of fact, I have.

Oh wait, ... I'm sorry: my mistake.

You objected to claims by folks who "always cite books written by non-Muslims and most often westerners" to Muslims who have been to a Muslim country and who have studied the Qur'an and who know Arabic.

I incorrectly thought you were objecting to non-Muslims (most often westerners) who make marvelous claims regarding the Jewish and Christian Scriptures and don't even cite their sources.

Carry on...

 

[Wasp]

As a matter of fact, I have.

View attachment 31546

Oh wait, ... I'm sorry: my mistake.

You objected to claims by folks who "always cite books written by non-Muslims and most often westerners" to Muslims who have been to a Muslim country and who have studied the Qur'an and who know Arabic.

I incorrectly thought you were objecting to non-Muslims (most often westerners) who make marvelous claims regarding the Jewish and Christian Scriptures and don't even cite their sources.

Carry on...

I'm not sure what you mean, but my comment there includes a question which was ignored at the time and isn't citing anything in particular.

 

[Terry Sampson]

I'm not sure what you mean

• You'd like to see more non-Muslim objectivity in discussions about Islam, right?

 

[leov]

I don't know how often it happens regarding other religions, but when non-Muslims study (or, more correctly speaking, usually just feed their hatred) about Islam they almost always cite books written by non-Muslims and most often westerners.

These writers may be Christian or they may be atheists, but why would anyone do that and expect to "find the truth"? Why would they cite those books to Muslims who have actually been to a Muslim country and who have studied the Qur'an and who know Arabic, and expect their citation is somehow valuable because it's supposedly objective?

Is there a reason to imagine it to be objective?

Have you noticed this phenomenon in discussions about other religions?

Where would I find truth about Islam? Which of the divided would I ask?

 

[Wasp]

• You'd like to see more non-Muslim objectivity in discussions about Islam, right?

I don't actually believe in objective discussion when it comes to religion. Even if it was considered objective it would seem subjective to those on the other side. So this is meaningless. I am objecting to non-Muslims (or anyone) citing others sources about Islam that are written by and sometimes invented by non-Muslims.

 

[Wasp]

Where would I find truth about Islam?

From the Qur'an.

Which of the divided would I ask?

You mean sects? The one who's right of course.

 

[leov]

From the Qur'an. You mean sects? The one who's right of course.

I did. Found it different than many think about it.

 

[Left Coast]

I don't know how often it happens regarding other religions, but when non-Muslims study (or, more correctly speaking, usually just feed their hatred) about Islam they almost always cite books written by non-Muslims and most often westerners.

These writers may be Christian or they may be atheists, but why would anyone do that and expect to "find the truth"? Why would they cite those books to Muslims who have actually been to a Muslim country and who have studied the Qur'an and who know Arabic, and expect their citation is somehow valuable because it's supposedly objective?

Is there a reason to imagine it to be objective?

Have you noticed this phenomenon in discussions about other religions?

I think reading and critically analyzing both/all sides is important to thoroughly, objectively understand an issue (especially something controversial like religion). If you read all pro or all con sources, you are likely to have a biased view of the subject.

 

[Terry Sampson]

I don't actually believe in objective discussion when it comes to religion. Even if it was considered objective it would seem subjective to those on the other side. So this is meaningless. I am objecting to non-Muslims (or anyone) citing others sources about Islam that are written by and sometimes invented by non-Muslims.

Great!
I happen to agree with you: I don't actually believe in objective discussion when it comes to religion either.
I also agree that even if one party thinks they're being objective, the other party is, in all likelihood, going to think the first party is being subjective: That knife cuts both ways.
I also agree that "this" is meaningless.
So, what you're really objecting to is anyone's citation of sources about Islam that are written by and sometimes invented by non-Muslims, right?

If so, it's my turn to object.
Since objectivity is, by our mutual agreement, irrelevant, I object, for starters:

• to a Muslim trying to tell me:
  • citing no sources at all, that the Jewish and Christian Scriptures contain 50,000 errors;
    
  • what the good news was that Jesus of Nazareth shared, first with the lost sheep of Israel, and then with Gentiles by his final instruction through his disciples, after his death at the hands of Roman soldiers and his resurrection;
  • that he doesn't have and can't point to a collection of Jewish and Christian Scriptures that he considers authoritative which predates the Qur'an.

So, how about it? Do you suppose any of those three objections apply to you?

 

[Wasp]

Great!
I happen to agree with you: I don't actually believe in objective discussion when it comes to religion either.
I also agree that even if one party thinks they're being objective, the other party is, in all likelihood, going to think the first party is being subjective: That knife cuts both ways.
I also agree that "this" is meaningless.
So, what you're really objecting to is anyone's citation of sources about Islam that are written by and sometimes invented by non-Muslims, right?

If so, it's my turn to object.
Since objectivity is, by our mutual agreement, irrelevant, I object, for starters:

• to a Muslim trying to tell me:
  • citing no sources at all, that the Jewish and Christian Scriptures contain 50,000 errors;
    
  • what the good news was that Jesus of Nazareth shared, first with the lost sheep of Israel, and then with Gentiles by his final instruction through his disciples, after his death at the hands of Roman soldiers and his resurrection;
  • that he doesn't have and can't point to a collection of Jewish and Christian Scriptures that he considers authoritative which predates the Qur'an.

So, how about it? Do you suppose any of those three objections apply to you?

I don't understand the last one, but I would say no.

 

[Wasp]

On the other side of the coin an opinion is not “objective” just because it’s Muslim, in fact being Muslim can give it a pro-Islamic bias.

I don't think there'd be a "pro-Islamic bias" if a Muslim tells the truth about Islam. I wouldn't call a priest biased if he spoke about Christianity just because I disagree with him. "biased" to me, as used usually in media this way, means something unreasonable and deceptive. Is a mother protecting her child from violence biased? Is a patient accepting treatment for cancer biased?

 

[Terry Sampson]

I don't understand the last one, but I would say no.

Okay, let's take it from the top:

• Have you ever claimed that the Jewish and Christian Scriptures contain 50,000 errors?
• My impression is that you have:
• 
  
• 

 

[Wasp]

Okay, let's take it from the top:

• Have you ever claimed that the Jewish and Christian Scriptures contain 50,000 errors?
• My impression is that you have:
• 
  
• View attachment 31547

That's a question as I said before, not a statement.

 

[Terry Sampson]

That's a question as I said before, not a statement.

LOL! So your question was does the Bible [which, in my neighborhood, refers to the Jewish and Christian Scriptures] have 50,000 errors?
My subjective and biased answer is "No."

My next objection:

• "what the good news was that Jesus of Nazareth shared, first with the lost sheep of Israel, and then with Gentiles by his final instruction through his disciples, after his death at the hands of Roman soldiers and his resurrection;"

Let's break that down, bit by bit:

• Does Islam and/or you believe that Jesus of Nazareth
  • (a) was put to death by Roman soldiers? and
  • (b) was resurrected (i.e. raised from the dead)?

 

[Wasp]

LOL! So your question was does the Bible [which, in my neighborhood, refers to the Jewish and Christian Scriptures] have 50,000 errors?
My subjective and biased answer is "No."

My next objection:

• "what the good news was that Jesus of Nazareth shared, first with the lost sheep of Israel, and then with Gentiles by his final instruction through his disciples, after his death at the hands of Roman soldiers and his resurrection;"

Let's break that down, bit by bit:

• Does Islam and/or you believe that Jesus of Nazareth
  • (a) was put to death by Roman soldiers? and
  • (b) was resurrected (i.e. raised from the dead)?

No. But I'm not sure what's your point. I have never tried to convince a Christian by citing the Qur'an.

 

[Terry Sampson]

No. But I'm not sure what's your point..

• 1st point: If you don't believe that Jesus of Nazareth was put to death by Roman soldiers, then you and I have an "irreconcilable difference".
• 2nd point: If you don't believe that Jesus of Nazareth was resurrected, then you and I have a second "irreconcilable difference".

Next portion of my second objection:

• "what the good news was that Jesus of Nazareth shared, first with the lost sheep of Israel, and then with Gentiles"
• In another thread, you wrote: "The Qur'an confirms the gospel - the revelation given to Jesus, not the words of other people."
  
• I say: Either the Qur'an confirms the gospel of Jesus of Nazareth as is recorded in the Christian Scripture or the Qur'an doesn't. If you say that the Qur'an does, well and good. If you say that the Qur'an doesn't; then you and I have a third "irreconcilable difference" between us.