What do you feel is wrong with Islam?

[Popeyesays]

"There will be Muslims that point out the numerous Jews and Christians that did convert, but I ask how many of you are so faithful that if you are about to lose your head and your wife and daughters are going to be thrown to the heathens would think it was worth it? Many Muslims would think it is, but so did many Jews and Christians."

Can you provide a single historically relevant source to support this happened during the life of Muhammed or during the time of Imams? Betcha can't. If you are speaking about the Banu Qurayzah, the reason for their punishment was betrayal of Medina to the Meccans. Muhammed had a treaty with Qurayzah which recognized their right to be Jews, but they broke it anyway.

Regards,
Scott

 

[MFaraz_Hayat]

There is no trinity associated with Muhammed. He was strictly a one man show. It is only through blind faith in Muhammed that Islam exist. He alone saw the visions and spoke to his angels. He even had problems recognizing which angel was Satan and which was Gabriel.
What seems obvious to me is his early attempts to include everyone. Idolaters, (Allah, black stone, Kaaba). Jews, (Adam, Abraham, Moses, etc). Christianity, (Jesus Christ).
Jews and Christians had no choice but to reject him because he could not be corroborated by scripture or any of the previous prophets. The myth that the three religions are connected remains today even though Muhammed in later revelations tried to build an irreconcilable wall between them. His connections with the idolaters remains today.
There will be Muslims that point out the numerous Jews and Christians that did convert, but I ask how many of you are so faithful that if you are about to lose your head and your wife and daughters are going to be thrown to the heathens would think it was worth it? Many Muslims would think it is, but so did many Jews and Christians. They paid the ultimate price and for Muslims to say there is no compulsion in religion is one of their biggest lies. Of course for the sake of argument you could get out your bible and go to the town square in many Islamic countries and proclaim Jesus Christ to be your Lord and Savior, but I think you need to take my word for it.
Sometimes I wonder if Muslims read their own doctrine, or who Muhammed really was. I guess I underestimate the power of the mind to be willintg deceived.
Don't take it personal Muslims. If Christians start getting really stupid again I will give them my two cents worth.:bow:

The answer to this accusation is:
[FONT=VERDANA,ARIAL, HELVETICA][SIZE=-1][Yusufali 10:99] If it had been thy Lord's will, they would all have believed,- all who are on earth! wilt thou then compel mankind, against their will, to believe!

[/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=VERDANA,ARIAL, HELVETICA][SIZE=-1][Yusufali 2:256] Let there be no compulsion in religion: Truth stands out clear from Error: whoever rejects evil and believes in Allah hath grasped the most trustworthy hand-hold, that never breaks. And Allah heareth and knoweth all things.

I think it is you who needs to read the Quran better.
[/SIZE][/FONT]

 

[credance]

The best I can find about stones acting bizzarely is a BUkhari hadit which refers to Moses chasing a stone that was stealing His clothing.

The Prophet said, 'The (people of) Bani Israel
used to take bath naked (all together) looking at
each other. The Prophet Moses used to take a
bath alone. They said, 'By Allah! Nothing
prevents Moses from taking a bath with us
except that he has a scrotal hernia.' So once
Moses went out to take a bath and put his
clothes over a stone and then that stone ran away
with his clothes. Moses followed that stone
saying, "My clothes, O stone! My clothes, O
stone! till the people of Bani Israel saw him and
said, 'By Allah, Moses has got no defect in his
body. Moses took his clothes and began to beat
the stone." Abu Huraira added, "By Allah! There
are still six or seven marks present on the stone
from that excessive beating."

(Hadith, Bukhari Vol 1)

Regards,

Scott

Thanks for clearing that up.:biglaugh:
Some temper the Islamic Moses had.

 

[EiNsTeiN]

Any time, my friend. Heck, I'll even be polite... well, as possible, of course. :bow:

Ok, thanks....Tell me how they do that in RF please

 

[YmirGF]

When making claims in public this is the usual tactic for people who don't have proof of anything.

Normally I would agree Scott, but I really have no inclination or desire to spend countless hours assembling "proofs" of my points. Believe what you will, I don't much care. In light of this, I have no choice to withdraw my remarks. Satisfied? Islam and it's "prophet" are so very perfect. What was I thinking?

And Moses saw a burning bush that did not consume itself, Jesus beheld a physical Satan, Abraham was willing to sacrifice His beloved son, etc., etc..

We can discuss the delusions of others in another thread, if you wish. Nice deflection however as that does not nullify my point, it seems adds to the possibility that these folks are "touched" and not likely by "god".

Why not? You certainly did.

I am just so very naughty. Tsk, tsk. The devil must have made me do it. *sigh*

You can't make arguments without a nod to proving the argument, otherwise it is diatribe, not argument.

Too true. Thanks for the "heads up".

And give their adherents equal respect, or an equal lack of respect.

I'll try to remember this sage advice if I ever meet a follower of Charles Manson. In theory, you would have me respect their ideas, as well. No? Perhaps I should be respectful of Moonies, FLDS and Scientologists too. You see Popeyesays, I reject the authority of the various religions, even your own, and therefore I might be polite, on occaision, but it is asking a lot to ask me to be respectful.

If so many people who suffer from religious idealism demonstrated an iota of "spirituality" you may never hear a peep from me, other than "billing and coo-ing". I see it all too rarely, rejoice when I do, and wonder why so many pious folks are "spiritually bankrupt". Heck, spirituality has been replaced by petty scriptural accountants who scarcely understand the words that they read. Perhaps I am a fool, for showing my impatience with them, but that is my cross to bear.

Again you made a claim without offering proof so you are hardly a good example.

I don't claim to be, the concept is relatively meaningless to me, in fact. I repeatedly stress in my writing, "I could be wrong." One does not see that on RF very much. Aside from this are you actually pretending that people WANT to be told how to behave? If so, to me, that is a sign of "spiritual bankruptcy" and it makes me very sad.

This is a very narrow and tiny-minded portion of Islam.

Now who is making the assertion? Though I agree, I am quite sure, the majority of Muslims would roll their eyes at the thought of carrying out "terrorist acts" however, there is also a large group of Muslims who are quite sympathetic to the "freedom fighter's" struggle. It would be most interesting to do a survey where Muslims anonomously were able to clearly "spill the beans". I think the numbers would be a cause for concern, but indeed, I am just speculating. Most certainly, I could be wrong.

Perhaps the genetic flaw is on the other side? Again assertion without argument.

Sheesh, Scott. It is only an idea. I often get the feeling from "religious sorts" that there is something wrong with people who do not follow a religion. Muslims in particular are usually quite baffled that a person follows no religion whatsoever due to how entrenched religion is within their own experience. Further to this, religious texts, especially the "Noble" Qur'an labor on and on about the "unbeliever" as if they are "dog droppings on ones shoes". It is a bit difficult no to feel somewhat centred out. Therefore, I am simply conjecturing the idea that perhaps it is the religious who are the ones with the "screw loose". It doesn't mean they do, but it is something that warrants investigation, imho.

If you're trying to influence with this argument, who are you trying to influence? If you are trying to influence the person to whom you respond, your tactics are very, very bad. And if you're trying to influence others, grandstanding and bombast will influence very few.

It is simply reality, Scott. I don't have the slightest idea who believes me or who thinks I am full of it. More importantly, I don't really care. The simple fact is that we all continually influence each other to lesser or greater degrees. I have repeated again and again, that I do not believe in "good" and "bad". Things just are and I am most decidely politically incorrect, to boot. What you (and others) perceive as "very, very bad", still others may well think of as "right on the money". I don't particularly care either way, but I do manage to get people's attention. Perhaps I am just a fool who has an odd ability of saying what is on his mind -- things that others are thinking.

It would cause more thought if it wasn't just plain bad.

But they have and do deify the illustious "Prophet" far above that of any other man. I think your own personal bias is showing as your own sentiments regarding the Christian "Trinity" are rather well known to us regulars. It does not surprise me in the slightest that you refuse to see what I am pointing at. It IS a valid comparrison regardless if youself or Muslims disagree or not.

 

[England my lionheart]

What you are describing is "Wicca" as it exists today. As it exists today it is only a fond re-creation of what somebody THINKS the old pagan traditions might be.

Wikipedia:
"
Wicca (IPA: /ˈwɪkə/) is a nature-based religion popularised in 1954 by Gerald Gardner, a retired British civil servant.[1] He said that the religion, of which he was an initiate, was a modern survival of an old witchcraft religion which had existed in secret for hundreds of years, originating in the pre-Christian paganism of Europe.[1][2] The veracity of Gardner's statements cannot be independently proven, however, and it is a widely held belief that Wiccan theology began to be compiled no earlier than the 1920s.
Various Wiccan traditions have since evolved from that established by Gardner, which came to be called Gardnerian Wicca. These other traditions have distinctive beliefs, rituals, and practices. Many traditions of Wicca remain secretive and require that members be initiated. There is also a movement of Eclectic Wiccans who do not believe that any doctrine or traditional initiation is necessary in order to practice Wicca.[3]"

Never started wars? Nonsense. The whole Celtic migration from somewhere far to the east that lapped over Europe right to the shores of Ireland was full of wars against the people who already lived there. Volkswanderung is not a peaceful process.

Regards,
Scott

But the wars were not fought over religion,yes the wiccan religion is a modern product
of paganism that has been practised or thousands of years.

 

[DarkSun]

The myth that the three religions are connected remains today even though Muhammed in later revelations tried to build an irreconcilable wall between them.

Abraham had two sons: Ishmael and Isaac. Isaac is believed to have been the head of the Jewish line, just as Ishmael is believed to be the head of the Islamic line.

Besides the countless parallels in scripture, that is the main link.

 

[DarkSun]

Heaven forbid that you actually study the life of the illustious "Prophet". It is rather clear that he was suffering from depression and was therefore suicidal. That condition "miraculously" precipitated a visit from non other than "Archangel" Gabriel himself. There is also documentation that the "Prophet" had seizures prior to speaking the latest ayats of the Qur'an. To me, that is sort of an obvious clue that something was not "quite right". Aside from this a good case could be made that the "Prophet" was bi-polar (manic depressive) as that would nicely explain his visions of Hellfire and Paradise. Last, but not least, it is quite possible that the poor chap was also paranoid. Tell me, what would you think of a man who claimed to see palm trees out for a walk at night or perhaps heard the rocks themselves calling his name? I breathlessly await your reply.

You can say all that you want, but all you have here are nothing more than assumptions without base.

Find a reliable source that backs you, and I'll think about what you've said.

Yes, and their motives could be construed as being egotistical. See Pascal's Wagner for what it is worth.

Sorry, people's alleged faith in their invisible friend does not impress me -- in the slightest. To quote Neil Young, "It doesn't mean that much to me, to mean that much to you."

"Better" is simply a value judgment that I care little for. I don't think any group is better than any other group. I don't think a banker is better than a junkie. I don't think a Christian is better than a Muslim. I don't think an environmentalist is better than an oil company executive. That is because I see all people as being equal. I do, however, perceive a great deal of what can be termed ignorance. My chief bug-a-boo is "willful ignorance".

You've just contradicted yourself.

For someone who doesn't believe in value judgements, you sure seem to be upset by this "willful ignorance" that you speak of. You do think that it is better to reject all faith.

Everyone has a set of beliefs. As you've just shown with your "willful ignorance" statement, so do you.

Practice what you preach, hey?

And besides, you've completely misunderstood me. I merely said that the act of insulting another religion was worse than rejecting religious doctrine altogether. Then you gave me a hypocritical lecture on how you lack opinion altogether.

What's up with that?



For a response to the rest of your post, just read my response to your first quote.

 

[~Amin~]

Heaven forbid that you actually study the life of the illustious "Prophet". It is rather clear that he was suffering from depression and was therefore suicidal. That condition "miraculously" precipitated a visit from non other than "Archangel" Gabriel himself. There is also documentation that the "Prophet" had seizures prior to speaking the latest ayats of the Qur'an. To me, that is sort of an obvious clue that something was not "quite right". Aside from this a good case could be made that the "Prophet" was bi-polar (manic depressive) as that would nicely explain his visions of Hellfire and Paradise. Last, but not least, it is quite possible that the poor chap was also paranoid. Tell me, what would you think of a man who claimed to see palm trees out for a walk at night or perhaps heard the rocks themselves calling his name? I breathlessly await your reply.

The ones who prefer the worldly life over
the hereafter, and AVERT(people) from
the way of God seeking to make it [seem]
deviant. Those are in EXTREME ERROR.
Qur'an 14,3.

And already they have MISLED many.
Qur'an 71,24.

Sadly, I haven't the time or the inclination to do so. If you study enough reports about his life, including non-Muslim "white wash" accounts, I am sure you will find what I am saying.

Hey, how have you been old man, long time, i'll give you a little hint
your making a fool of your self, anyway hows the garden going?

 

[kai]

"There will be Muslims that point out the numerous Jews and Christians that did convert, but I ask how many of you are so faithful that if you are about to lose your head and your wife and daughters are going to be thrown to the heathens would think it was worth it? Many Muslims would think it is, but so did many Jews and Christians."

Can you provide a single historically relevant source to support this happened during the life of Muhammed or during the time of Imams? Betcha can't. If you are speaking about the Banu Qurayzah, the reason for their punishment was betrayal of Medina to the Meccans. Muhammed had a treaty with Qurayzah which recognized their right to be Jews, but they broke it anyway.

Regards,
Scott

provide a single relevant source to support what ?

 

[YmirGF]

You can say all that you want, but all you have here are nothing more than assumptions without base.

Due to my lack of interest in doing so I have already stated to Popeyesays that I withdraw the statements. Islam is surely the perfect religion and their Prophet remains pristine and without blemish. What was I thinking? Surely an evil jinn was talking through me.

Find a reliable source that backs you, and I'll think about what you've said.

Point revoked. If I were writing a book on the topic I would thoroughly research my opinions and substantiate my claims. However, this is a mere internet forum and it really isn't worth the effort to "save face".

You've just contradicted yourself.

How is that, pray tell?

For someone who doesn't believe in value judgements, you sure seem to be upset by this "willful ignorance" that you speak of. You do think that it is better to reject all faith.

I think you misunderstand, but perhaps I wasn't being clear enough. "Good" and "bad" are value judgments that change over time and are relative to the perspective taken. I don't believe I have said it is "better" to reject all faith, although I most certainly have done so myself. If I gave that impression, then it was a poor choice of words. However, based on re-reading exactly what I have written in this thread, at no time have I said, "It is better to reject all faith". Oddly, that sounds like Pascal's Wagner in reverse, lol. Again, you might actually try to digest what I am saying instead of simply leaping to conclusions.

Everyone has a set of beliefs. As you've just shown with your "willful ignorance" statement, so do you.

Ummm. Call me silly, but where did I assert that I did not. I am merely stating my own value judgments based on my own observations of reality. The difference, although admittedly it might be difficult to grasp, is that I am quite aware that I am making value judgments, rather than getting trapped into the concept of definitive or absolute "good" and "bad". In theory, it could take a lifetime to understand the importance of the difference, so I am not surprised that you think there is a contradiction. It might make for a spirited separate thread actually.

Practice what you preach, hey?

I do try and for the most part I am successful. Nothing and no one is "perfect". If anything I am simply demonstrating that I am human and that I don't have all the answers. Is there something wrong with that?

And besides, you've completely misunderstood me. I merely said that the act of insulting another religion was worse than rejecting religious doctrine altogether. Then you gave me a hypocritical lecture on how you lack opinion altogether.

But Muslims, "respectfully" insult Christians all the time with their frontal attack on Jesus NOT being the Son of God. Scott, our resident Baha'i also gleefully jumps in on these discussions with reams of quotes from the Baha'i perspective, as if two wrong's make it right.

Many Muslims follow the lead of a medical doctor famous in Muslim circles for his highly technical, but quite proposterous claims of "scientific miracles" within the Qur'an which while done "respectfully" is still insulting to anyone with accurate scientific knowledge.

Aside from this, I highly doubt I would ever claim to "lack opinion altogether". Anyone who knows me here on RF will understand I am highly opinionated, lol. I've never claimed otherwise. My point, as I have pointed out on MANY occaisions, is that my ideas ARE my opinions. Unlike so many posters who back their feeble assertions with reams of "scriptural" quotes AS IF that makes their POV correct, where in fact it just makes them parrots. I can be called a lot of things, but I ain't no parrot, lol. Although, undoubtedly many will assume my thinking is for the birds. I'm good with it all though. :biglaugh:

 

[Popeyesays]

Actually, I have no quibble with Jesus being the Son of God. I just balk at the idea that He is on an equal plane with the Creator. That violates the Unity of God as presented by Abraham, Moses, Jesus(Himself), Muhammed, the Bab and Baha`u'llah. I see no need for God to have DNA to make a woman pregnant, He need only will it so, and it is. And I see no way to stuff one billion tons of God into a 150 pound sack as Jesus probably was. A teacup cannot contain the Ocean and the Ocean must be somewhere.

Opinion is one thing, and everybody has a wealth of opinion, but to argue a point of view requires some thought and some explanation of why one thinks the way one does.

Regards,
Scott

 

[Popeyesays]

provide a single relevant source to support what ?

That jews and Christians were threatened death by Muhammed if they did not convert. You made the claim without any substantiation.

Regards,
Scott

 

[Popeyesays]

But the wars were not fought over religion,yes the wiccan religion is a modern product
of paganism that has been practised or thousands of years.

How can you say what the wars were motivated by that long ago?

An individual who believes in and follows the Wicca of today has all my respect for his beliefs. But, it is simple fact that what we know as "Wicca" was compiled largely by one person in the early 1900's, and he was mostly interested in druidic forms of paganism, which certainly is not ALL forms of paganism.

Julius Caesar wiped out the druids, and we cannot even read the few marked stones from them that exist today.

Regards,

Scott

 

[kai]

Actually, I have no quibble with Jesus being the Son of God. I just balk at the idea that He is on an equal plane with the Creator. That violates the Unity of God as presented by Abraham, Moses, Jesus(Himself), Muhammed, the Bab and Baha`u'llah. I see no need for God to have DNA to make a woman pregnant, He need only will it so, and it is. And I see no way to stuff one billion tons of God into a 150 pound sack as Jesus probably was. A teacup cannot contain the Ocean and the Ocean must be somewhere.

Opinion is one thing, and everybody has a wealth of opinion, but to argue a point of view requires some thought and some explanation of why one thinks the way one does.

Regards,
Scott

then that makes your views irreconcilable with most christian theology and the trinity

 

[kai]

That jews and Christians were threatened death by Muhammed if they did not convert. You made the claim without any substantiation.

Regards,
Scott

i dont think that was me, i am well aware of dhimmitude

 

[DarkSun]

I think you misunderstand, but perhaps I wasn't being clear enough. "Good" and "bad" are value judgments that change over time and are relative to the perspective taken. I don't believe I have said it is "better" to reject all faith, although I most certainly have done so myself. If I gave that impression, then it was a poor choice of words. However, based on re-reading exactly what I have written in this thread, at no time have I said, "It is better to reject all faith". Oddly, that sounds like Pascal's Wagner in reverse, lol. Again, you might actually try to digest what I am saying instead of simply leaping to conclusions.

More than eighty percent of communication is non verbal. You don't need to state something directly your meaning to be clear.

Your tyrade about how ridiculous Islamic scripture is in your eyes, only supporst what I've said. And hey, you agreed with me.
And considering some of the other comments you've made previously about how you find religious beliefs ludicrous, I don't think it's too much of a surprise for someone to have made that deduction.

Anyway, I'm going to side step your next few points about how well-thought-out your value judgements are, compared those of any other faith.

But Muslims, "respectfully" insult Christians all the time with their frontal attack on Jesus NOT being the Son of God.

I don't feel insulted.

=S

You're stereotyping about thirty percent of the world, you know?

Many Muslims follow the lead of a medical doctor famous in Muslim circles for his highly technical, but quite proposterous claims of "scientific miracles" within the Qur'an which while done "respectfully" is still insulting to anyone with accurate scientific knowledge.

Many, but not all.

And again... I'm not insulted.

=S

 

[Popeyesays]

then that makes your views irreconcilable with most christian theology and the trinity

I'm not a Christian, you know.

Regards,
Scott

 

[kai]

I'm not a Christian, you know.

Regards,
Scott

i think i have lost track of this thread

 

[vandervalley]

I don't feel insulted.

=S

You're stereotyping about thirty percent of the world, you know?

Not quite 30% ; not all are "willing muslims" even in a muslim country.

If religious freedom is granted in "muslim" countries I am sure many will convert to Christanity or other religions.