What do you feel is wrong with Islam?

[Popeyesays]

Ymir:
"For example, even the idea of Prophetic lineage is suspect, as it is all too easy for one to claim to be such, as long as one sticks to the prefabricated script. Muslims are very serious about Prophet Muhammed [pbuh] being the "final" Prophet and yet Baha's attempt to redefine this widely accepted understanding to shoehorn their founders into the succession. Again, all one needs do is stick to the script and not vary too significantly from what come before. I say it this "lineage" is suspect, because it is not like the forerunners can comment on the allegations and claims of the current "Prophet".

If indeed there is a succession of "Prophets", sent by a loving god, then it seems that they have not done an especially good job. I may be silly, among many other less than polite adjectives, but if I were god, I would imbue my "Prophet" with indelible evidence of my existence. That would certainly serve to underscore the importance and authority of that particular "Prophet", at least to my thinking. At least then we wouldn't simply get yet another book that we can all argue over."

THe Pharisees were most careful to adjudicate that Jesus could NOT be the Messiah because He failed to meet their criteria. Jesus appeared and left it to the people to decide if He was or He was not.

The priests and pharoah of Egypt were careful to adjudicate that the God of the Hebrews could not be real because the Hebrew belief system did not fit into imperial Egypt. Moses was there to call His people together, they had to choose to follow or not follow.

Muhammed was not accepted by many Jews and Christians because His appearance was not in accord with what they expected. The purpose of Muhammed was to call the people together and let them choose to follow or not follow.

The Bab appeared in Islamic civilization just as Christ had appeared in Judaic culture, The muslims of the time and place declared He could not be the appearance of the twelfth imam and He certainly could not be an Apostle of God. The purpose of the Bab was to call the people together and let them choose to follow or not follow.

Are we seeing a trend here. We were created to CHOOSE, not be commanded.

Providing all your "proof" would be contrary to free will which is part of the nature of man CREATED by God.

You can huff and puff and demand what you will. "Man proposes, and God disposes."

Regards,
Scott

 

[England my lionheart]

Perhaps, but irreligion is part of their parental role model.

Regards,
Scott

Not at all,whether i believe or not each of my children have been given impartial information on all the religions of the world and have mixed with children from different religions so they have had plenty of information.
And thats the difference,when you look at a religion from outside you can see all the blemishes and you can make a valued judgement as to whether its for you whereas if you inherit a religion from a parent or role model you are less likely to see the corns warts and all.

 

[Popeyesays]

Not at all,whether i believe or not each of my children have been given impartial information on all the religions of the world and have mixed with children from different religions so they have had plenty of information.
And thats the difference,when you look at a religion from outside you can see all the blemishes and you can make a valued judgement as to whether its for you whereas if you inherit a religion from a parent or role model you are less likely to see the corns warts and all.

And you were not a perfect example of doing that?

Regards,
Scott

 

[Autodidact]

The American government is not religious in nature. I'd accuse you of comparing apples to oranges if you weren't already comparing apples to stones.

Regards,

Scott

The point of the analogy is not religion, but nominal ambiguity. I could have used football teams; the point remains. Unless you want to claim that religions are unique in some way that makes them immune to this fallacy?

 

[Popeyesays]

The point of the analogy is not religion, but nominal ambiguity. I could have used football teams; the point remains. Unless you want to claim that religions are unique in some way that makes them immune to this fallacy?

The acts of the Government are not the acts of the individual citizens. Acts of individual citizens are not acts of government.

The COnstitution was meant to be malleable and ammendable. Those qualities encourage thoughts of "How do we change this to meet the moment?"

The acts of religionists are individual responsibilities. The nature of culpability here is exactly the opposite of governmental acts.

Apples and Stones, for sure.

Regards,
Scott

 

[England my lionheart]

And you were not a perfect example of doing that?

Regards,
Scott

No i was not a perfect example as i was raised a christian,i went to a christian school and sunday school(which i thoroughly enjoyed)i was baptised so no i am not the perfect example but who is.
Let me ask you this,how many children of religious parents and i mean any religion have a choice,a real choice ,not many because of the parental role model,monkey see monkey do.
And so i believe the course of giving my children a choice is the way to go,to show it is the right thing to do i can tell you(with great pride i might add)my eldest son won awards as a soldier and is now very succesful in an IT consultancy and has never commited a crime.My daughter is well educated and has given me a beautiful grandaughter and again has never commited a crime and my youngest son is still in school and has won medals for karate and football and has never commite a crime.
Now all this may sound like trivia but it goes to prove that they ,unlike followers of some religions are flourishing and going forward and have no desire to go back to the middle ages .

 

[Popeyesays]

A child that comes of age is free to believe what he will.

For instance in my faith, one cannot declare belief in Baha`u'llah until the age of 15, the age of spiritual maturity. Until then the child is only registered as a "youth".

"' Concerning the age of maturity, He reveals in the appendix of that same Book: 'The age of maturity is in the fifteenth year; women and men are alike in this respect.'"

(Shoghi Effendi, Directives from the Guardian, p. 28)

Being Baha`i is an act of personal decision, not something assigned by birth.

Regards,

Scott

 

[Autodidact]

The acts of the Government are not the acts of the individual citizens. Acts of individual citizens are not acts of government.

The COnstitution was meant to be malleable and ammendable. Those qualities encourage thoughts of "How do we change this to meet the moment?"

The acts of religionists are individual responsibilities. The nature of culpability here is exactly the opposite of governmental acts.

Apples and Stones, for sure.

Regards,
Scott

"America" is not the government or the citizens; it is the nation. The nation is to the government and citizens as a religion is to its clergy and believers.

 

[Popeyesays]

"America" is not the government or the citizens; it is the nation. The nation is to the government and citizens as a religion is to its clergy and believers.

Frankly, no.


point of fact "America" is the name of two continents and a landbridge. There are TWO governments which are usually expressed as "American" the United States and The United States of Mexico.

So you're way off the ball there as well.

Regards,

Scott

 

[Autodidact]

Frankly, no.


point of fact "America" is the name of two continents and a landbridge. There are TWO governments which are usually expressed as "American" the United States and The United States of Mexico.

So you're way off the ball there as well.

Regards,

Scott

I'm using the word "America" in the common usage as meaning The United States of America. However, if you prefer, I can use the the full name.

 

[Popeyesays]

I'm using the word "America" in the common usage as meaning The United States of America. However, if you prefer, I can use the the full name.

It's still apples and stones.

Regards,
Scott

 

[Autodidact]

Think hard Popeye. Are you familiar with the "No True Scotsman" fallacy? The core concept is that you change the meaning of your term from the ordinary usage. In this instance, the OP seems to define the word "Islam" to mean an ideal, non-existent doctrine consistent with his personal interpretation of the Qu'ran. The rest of the world uses it to mean the religion that holds that Allah is the one God and Muhammed his true prophet, as well as including the doctrines, practices and adherents of that religious belief. Any criticism directed at the second, usual meaning, is deflected by pointing to the first, idiosyncratic meaning. Using your own private definitions for things is confusing, as well as fallacious.

So, as I was saying, what do you call the religion practiced in Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Iran, Iraq, and several other Arab countries?

 

[Popeyesays]

Think hard Popeye. Are you familiar with the "No True Scotsman" fallacy? The core concept is that you change the meaning of your term from the ordinary usage. In this instance, the OP seems to define the word "Islam" to mean an ideal, non-existent doctrine consistent with his personal interpretation of the Qu'ran. The rest of the world uses it to mean the religion that holds that Allah is the one God and Muhammed his true prophet, as well as including the doctrines, practices and adherents of that religious belief. Any criticism directed at the second, usual meaning, is deflected by pointing to the first, idiosyncratic meaning. Using your own private definitions for things is confusing, as well as fallacious.

So, as I was saying, what do you call the religion practiced in Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Iran, Iraq, and several other Arab countries?

Of course i am familiar (though it is properly a fallacy of equivalence, the term No True Scotsman was not coined until the mid-1970's)--that and a lot of other fallacies. I include among that number the fallacy your argument presents: Fallacy of Relevance.

Regards,
Scott

 

[Autodidact]

"No True Muslim would murder another person."
"But look at all those Muslims murdering people in the name of Islam, as commanded by their Imams!"
"Oh, but those aren's True Muslims..."

Explain to me how this is not a perfect exemplar of the No True Scotsman fallacy.

 

[Popeyesays]

"No True Muslim would murder another person."
"But look at all those Muslims murdering people in the name of Islam, as commanded by their Imams!"
"Oh, but those aren's True Muslims..."

Explain to me how this is not a perfect exemplar of the No True Scotsman fallacy.

Try this one it is more appropriate to the issue:

Muhammed says the Great Jihad is the struggle within one's self to submit to the will of God.

Leaders who wish to gain power amongst the people of Islamic nations declare that the great Jihad (struggle) is to make war against the west.

Therefore those Leaders who disobey the word of God are not true followers of the Qur'an and the Prophet Muhammed.

Your original syllogism suffers a fallacy of equivalency. It seems you are erecting a strawman since that was never the original argument.

Straw men and red herrings are only successful debate tactics when they remain a distraction from the real point. Let's get back to the real point.

Regards,

Scott

 

[kai]

Your source admits that the first six hundred years its impossible to find any real evidence of organized persecution except at the hands of the pagan Roman state.

It also says this:
"The closest to which this murderous decision (mass expulsions) came was the successive expulsions of the Jews in the Middle Ages: first from France in the early thirteenth century, then England in 1290."9op cit, p. 7--my parenthetical comment for reference.)

Essentially the Christians were more concerned with punishing "heretics" within their own ranks to organize against Judaism.

Regards,

Scott

this was written around 190

O Israel, why have you committed this unheard-of crime? You have
dishonored him who honored you... you have put to death him who gave
you life… Was it not for you that it was written: “You shall not shed
innocent blood, lest you die a wretched death…
"He had to suffer"
but not at your hands...
" He had to be hanged [crucified]"
but not by you!...
You gave a drink of gall to a noble mouth that had fed you with life​

and you put your Savior to death during the great feast!

and i said christians have been blaming jews for the death of christ ever since , the pogroms and attempts at genocide did come later

regards Kai

 

[kai]

Ymir:
"For example, even the idea of Prophetic lineage is suspect, as it is all too easy for one to claim to be such, as long as one sticks to the prefabricated script. Muslims are very serious about Prophet Muhammed [pbuh] being the "final" Prophet and yet Baha's attempt to redefine this widely accepted understanding to shoehorn their founders into the succession. Again, all one needs do is stick to the script and not vary too significantly from what come before. I say it this "lineage" is suspect, because it is not like the forerunners can comment on the allegations and claims of the current "Prophet".

If indeed there is a succession of "Prophets", sent by a loving god, then it seems that they have not done an especially good job. I may be silly, among many other less than polite adjectives, but if I were god, I would imbue my "Prophet" with indelible evidence of my existence. That would certainly serve to underscore the importance and authority of that particular "Prophet", at least to my thinking. At least then we wouldn't simply get yet another book that we can all argue over."

THe Pharisees were most careful to adjudicate that Jesus could NOT be the Messiah because He failed to meet their criteria. Jesus appeared and left it to the people to decide if He was or He was not.

The priests and pharoah of Egypt were careful to adjudicate that the God of the Hebrews could not be real because the Hebrew belief system did not fit into imperial Egypt. Moses was there to call His people together, they had to choose to follow or not follow.

Muhammed was not accepted by many Jews and Christians because His appearance was not in accord with what they expected. The purpose of Muhammed was to call the people together and let them choose to follow or not follow.

The Bab appeared in Islamic civilization just as Christ had appeared in Judaic culture, The muslims of the time and place declared He could not be the appearance of the twelfth imam and He certainly could not be an Apostle of God. The purpose of the Bab was to call the people together and let them choose to follow or not follow.

Are we seeing a trend here. We were created to CHOOSE, not be commanded.

Providing all your "proof" would be contrary to free will which is part of the nature of man CREATED by God.

You can huff and puff and demand what you will. "Man proposes, and God disposes."

Regards,
Scott

yes i am seeing a trend here that people tend to beleive what they want to beleive there has and never will be a prophet who is instantly recognised by all, because the all is looking for different prophets, and history tends to show that "man proposes and disposes" usually of prophets

 

[kai]

Try this one it is more appropriate to the issue:

Muhammed says the Great Jihad is the struggle within one's self to submit to the will of God. could you source that please

Leaders who wish to gain power amongst the people of Islamic nations declare that the great Jihad (struggle) is to make war against the west.

Therefore those Leaders who disobey the word of God are not true followers of the Qur'an and the Prophet Muhammed.

Your original syllogism suffers a fallacy of equivalency. It seems you are erecting a strawman since that was never the original argument.

Straw men and red herrings are only successful debate tactics when they remain a distraction from the real point. Let's get back to the real point.

Regards,

Scott

According to scholar David Cook:

In reading Muslim literature -- both contemporary and classical -- one can see that the evidence for the primacy of spiritual jihad is negligible. Today it is certain that no Muslim, writing in a non-Western language (such as Arabic, Persian, Urdu), would ever make claims that jihad is primarily nonviolent or has been superseded by the spiritual jihad. Such claims are made solely by Western scholars, primarily those who study Sufism and/or work in interfaith dialogue, and by Muslim apologists who are trying to present Islam in the most innocuous manner possible​

And according to Douglas Streusand, "in hadith collections, jihad means armed action; for example, the 199 references to jihad in the most standard collection of hadith, Sahih al-Bukhari, all assume that jihad means warfare​

wiki​

i fear this may start to stray where the argumant goes "jihad means inner struggle " while calls for jihad every where from afghanistan to london from Taliban to Hamas to Hezbollah are calling for war

regards kai

 

[Popeyesays]

From Rumi, in the Mishnavi:

"STORY VI.
Omar and the Ambassador.
The hare, having delivered his companions from the tyranny of the lion, in the manner just described, proceeds to improve the occasion by exhorting them to engage in a greater and more arduous warfare, viz., the struggle against their inward enemy, the lusts of the flesh."

(Mathnavi of Rumi (E.H. Whinfield tr), The Masnavi Vol 1)

110. But verily thy Lord to those who leave their homes after trials and persecutions and who thereafter strive and fight for the faith and patiently persevere, thy Lord, after all this, is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.

111. One day every soul will come up struggling for itself, and every soul will be recompensed (fully) for all its actions, and none will be unjustly dealt with.

(The Qur'an (Yusuf Ali tr), Surah 16)

 

[Popeyesays]

War:

Arabic N N حرب, وغى, عداء, خصام V V حارب, قاتل, صارع

Struggle:

Arabic N N النضال, نضال, نزاع, صراع, مناجزة, كفاح, الكفاح V V صارع, كافح, ناضل, تقدم بصعوبة, شق طريقه بجهد, قاوم
Your source was from:
jihad: Definition and Much More from Answers.com
and the heading was "Military History Companion: jihad"

So that The Military History Companion would be more concerned about the military nature of the word is no big surprise.

Here is the DEFINITION of the word in its less specific reference, just above what you quoted:
"
Dictionary: jihad

also jehad (jĭ-häd')

n.

1. Islam. An individual's striving for spiritual self-perfection.
2. Islam. A Muslim holy war or spiritual struggle against infidels.
3. A crusade or struggle: “The war against smoking is turning into a jihad against people who smoke” (Fortune).

[Arabic jihād, from jahada, to strive.]"


Regards,

Scott