What do you feel is wrong with Islam?

[kai]

You are entitled to yours, and I to mine. I base this particular opinion on what Baha`u'llah requires of His followers. If you treat me with disdain, I also have an opinion about that.

Taking my chill pill, but you take yours.:yes:

Regards,
Scott

where have i treated you with disdain? show me and i will gladly apologise

 

[Popeyesays]

Maybe we are not the only ones who can't cut it when it comes to making sense of the Qur'an(notice the capital)and the pinch of salt required to digest it.
Maybe its not us that "can't cut it" but maybe its the followers of the religion that have trouble understanding reality and live in a blinkered world where it is hoped a little patch of paradise maybe gained.
Plain easy to understand writing without symbols,metaphors etc,otherwise we end up with a book that we can interpret as we wish when we read the Qur'an for example.

Or the Bible, or John Stuart Mill for that matter, after all utilitarianism requires a pinch of salt as well.

Mill says himself that many propositions are not amenable to "proof", to wit:

"
On the present occasion, I shall, without further discussion of the other theories, attempt to contribute something towards the understanding and appreciation of the Utilitarian or Happiness theory, and towards such proof as it is susceptible of. It is evident that this cannot be proof in the ordinary and popular meaning of the term. Questions of ultimate ends are not amenable to direct proof. Whatever can be proved to be good, must be so by being shown to be a means to something admitted to be good without proof. The medical art is proved to be good by its conducing to health; but how is it possible to prove that health is good? The art of music is good, for the reason, among others, that it produces pleasure; but what proof is it possible to give that pleasure is good? If, then, it is asserted that there is a comprehensive formula, including all things which are in themselves good, and that whatever else is good, is not so as an end, but as a mean, the formula may be accepted or rejected, but is not a subject of what is commonly understood by proof. We are not, however, to infer that its acceptance or rejection must depend on blind impulse, or arbitrary choice. There is a larger meaning of the word proof, in which this question is as amenable to it as any other of the disputed questions of philosophy. The subject is within the cognisance of the rational faculty; and neither does that faculty deal with it solely in the way of intuition. Considerations may be presented capable of determining the intellect either to give or withhold its assent to the doctrine; and this is equivalent to proof. "


Regards,
Scott

 

[England my lionheart]

Or the Bible, or John Stuart Mill for that matter, after all utilitarianism requires a pinch of salt as well.

Mill says himself that many propositions are not amenable to "proof", to wit:

"
On the present occasion, I shall, without further discussion of the other theories, attempt to contribute something towards the understanding and appreciation of the Utilitarian or Happiness theory, and towards such proof as it is susceptible of. It is evident that this cannot be proof in the ordinary and popular meaning of the term. Questions of ultimate ends are not amenable to direct proof. Whatever can be proved to be good, must be so by being shown to be a means to something admitted to be good without proof. The medical art is proved to be good by its conducing to health; but how is it possible to prove that health is good? The art of music is good, for the reason, among others, that it produces pleasure; but what proof is it possible to give that pleasure is good? If, then, it is asserted that there is a comprehensive formula, including all things which are in themselves good, and that whatever else is good, is not so as an end, but as a mean, the formula may be accepted or rejected, but is not a subject of what is commonly understood by proof. We are not, however, to infer that its acceptance or rejection must depend on blind impulse, or arbitrary choice. There is a larger meaning of the word proof, in which this question is as amenable to it as any other of the disputed questions of philosophy. The subject is within the cognisance of the rational faculty; and neither does that faculty deal with it solely in the way of intuition. Considerations may be presented capable of determining the intellect either to give or withhold its assent to the doctrine; and this is equivalent to proof. "


Regards,
Scott

Yawn,no chill out pill required:sleep:

 

[Popeyesays]

Yawn,no chill out pill required:sleep:

:troll:
Regards?

 

[England my lionheart]

:troll:
Regards?

Tush,you should'nt consider yourself a Troll,everybody knows they are'nt real.
Best regards

 

[GabrielWithoutWings]

Not to break up your little row, but I thought I'd respond to the OP.

-One thing that I don't like about Islam is the thought of other Muslims.

Really. I wouldn't be as scared of non-Muslims, so much as I would Muslims, especially those who act out of bounds that cause me and mine grief.

-I don't like the verses in the Qur'an that speak that it's okay to physically strike women, even if it does so on an escalating scale.

-I don't understand the criteria for determining how Hadith are received as authentic or fraudulent.

-I don't know how people can tolerate so much micro-management in their lives.

 

[McBell]

When you put all the parables, psalms and analogies from the Bible togther, and contrast them, put them into context, and actually read them without an agenda, then the true meaning is as plain as day. The use of poetic devices only makes it insightful, not vague or misconstrued.

How do you reconcile the fact that the Bible was 'put together' by men with an agenda?
Certain books included, certain books excluded.

 

[credance]

There seems to be more controversy about the origins of the Bible then there is about it's content. On the other hand there is no controversy about the origins of the Quran. It was dictated to Muhammed by Gabriel directly from God. One problem I see is the only one who can testify to this is Muhammed, and he is dead.
Maybe it is true that the Quran must be sung in Arabic for you to feel it's power. Maybe only Arabs should be Muslims, I dont know.
The English version tells me little about how I relate to God and the Hadiths even make me relate less.

 

[kai]

There seems to be more controversy about the origins of the Bible then there is about it's content. On the other hand there is no controversy about the origins of the Quran. It was dictated to Muhammed by Gabriel directly from God. One problem I see is the only one who can testify to this is Muhammed, and he is dead.
Maybe it is true that the Quran must be sung in Arabic for you to feel it's power. Maybe only Arabs should be Muslims, I dont know.
The English version tells me little about how I relate to God and the Hadiths even make me relate less.

a big clue there its an Arab religion, spread by arabs, in arabic, your english version is no good the holy Quran must be the arabic version to be truly authentic

 

[DarkSun]

How do you reconcile the fact that the Bible was 'put together' by men with an agenda?
Certain books included, certain books excluded.

The Old Testament was written, repeatedly, by maticulously devoted Jewish scribes. The New Testament was put together during the council of Nicea, whereby every possibly fallacious document was discarded. They weren't picking and choosing scripture based on the point they wanted to make. They were subjecting the documents in question to scrutiny, by cross-referencing them with other pieces of scripture. If one text contradicted with another, in a dramatic way, then it was discarded.

The only agenda people had in mind was accuracy.

 

[Sunstone]

The only agenda people had in mind was accuracy.

You're very idealistic.

 

[McBell]

The Old Testament was written, repeatedly, by maticulously devoted Jewish scribes.

And that is why there are no two copies that are identical.
Really meticulous they were...not

The New Testament was put together during the council of Nicea, whereby every possibly fallacious document was discarded. They weren't picking and choosing scripture based on the point they wanted to make. They were subjecting the documents in question to scrutiny, by cross-referencing them with other pieces of scripture. If one text contradicted with another, in a dramatic way, then it was discarded.

You forgot about the addition of breaking them into chapters and verses.
You forgot about all the additions and subtractions to the verses.
And yes, they did pick and choose which books were included and which books were left out.
Jasher for instance.
Wonder why a book specifically referred to by God was left out?
Didn't fit into the agenda?

The only agenda people had in mind was accuracy.

I got some ocean front property in Arizona for sell too.

 

[DarkSun]

And that is why there are no two copies that are identical.
Really meticulous they were...not

My point was not that the scribes were infallable, but that they were devoted to accuracy. Making one or two mistakes in text, per generation, and being subserviant to countless rulers, could possibly have taken its toll on the OT. Irrespectively, when read in context the meaning is still there. All a person needs to do is read it, without the desire to bend it.


You forgot about the addition of breaking them into chapters and verses.
You forgot about all the additions and subtractions to the verses.
And yes, they did pick and choose which books were included and which books were left out.
Jasher for instance.
Wonder why a book specifically referred to by God was left out?
Didn't fit into the agenda?

When you can actually back up what you're saying, I'll listen to you. As it is, I severely doubt you have any solid evidence.


Anyway, isn't this thread meant to be about Islam?

 

[kai]

[/size]

My point was not that the scribes were infallable, but that they were devoted to accuracy. Making one or two mistakes in text, per generation, and being subserviant to countless rulers, could possibly have taken its toll on the OT. Irrespectively, when read in context the meaning is still there. All a person needs to do is read it, without the desire to bend it.


You forgot about the addition of breaking them into chapters and verses.
You forgot about all the additions and subtractions to the verses.
And yes, they did pick and choose which books were included and which books were left out.
Jasher for instance.
Wonder why a book specifically referred to by God was left out?
Didn't fit into the agenda?

When you can actually back up what you're saying, I'll listen to you. As it is, I severely doubt you have any solid evidence.


Anyway, isn't this thread meant to be about Islam?

i thought everyone new the hebrew version had no chapters or verses just one long story with no time to take a breath and yes we are supposed to be talking about islam

 

[McBell]

Anyway, isn't this thread meant to be about Islam?

Interesting, it is, this sudden urge to get back on topic....

 

[Popeyesays]

Hand transcription does not allow for two documents being "identical". It took technology to be able to do that.

Regards,
Scott

 

[kai]

Hand transcription does not allow for two documents being "identical". It took technology to be able to do that.

Regards,
Scott

then as the Islam has always steadfastly stuck to the idea that the arabic version is the only true quran i think it would have not changed at all , due to it not being translated properly(altough i know it has been translated)

 

[Popeyesays]

then as the Islam has always steadfastly stuck to the idea that the arabic version is the only true quran i think it would have not changed at all , due to it not being translated properly(altough i know it has been translated)

I was speaking of printing which is done in Arabic these days, and photocopying as well.

Regards,
Scott

 

[kai]

I was speaking of printing which is done in Arabic these days, and photocopying as well.

Regards,
Scott

yes i know but i am saying that the only true Quran is in arabic, so you wouldnt have the same problems in translation if we all had to learn ancient hebrew?koine/aramaic/latin to read the bible

 

[Popeyesays]

yes i know but i am saying that the only true Quran is in arabic, so you wouldnt have the same problems in translation if we all had to learn ancient hebrew?koine/aramaic/latin to read the bible

I do not now, nor have I ever thought that one HAS to read Herew, Greek or Arabic to understand the word of God. It's either for everyone or it is patently false. That some may think otherwise strikes me as religiously and culturally jingoistic.

Scripture is either eternal and universal or it is not the word of God in the first place.

This does not mean that scripture is not designed for the time and place, but the spiritual truth is eternal.

Regards,
Scott

\