Why condemn a whole people if only a few do wrong?

[firedragon]

Sam Harris is saying there is a problem with the fundamentals of Islam, a way of paraphrasing that is to say at least some of the fundamentals of Islam are wrong.

No twisting to suit an agenda required in my opinion.

Right. So show me what he specifically cites as fundamentals of Islam rather than saying "I dont know what Sam Harris says but this is what I think", and I say this for the third time to you alone. Anyway of course as usual if you respond with something irrelevant I will not respond, and then you can make a comment to feel good when I dont respond.

Have at it.

 

[danieldemol]

Nope. Because you say things like "I dont know what Sam Harris said, but this is what I think" and spread some.

Thats a need showing up.

No point mate. Have a blast.

The need is to spare women of undue inconvenience in my opinion, in other words it is driven by morality, no hatred required. Nowhere have I suggested that people should hate Islam, only that it is wrong at its fundamental level.

 

[firedragon]

The need is to spare women of undue inconvenience in my opinion, in other words it is driven by morality, no hatred required. Nowhere have I suggested that people should hate Islam, only that it is wrong at its fundamental level.

I think you are pretending not to understand relevance because I know you are intelligent.

So that's the end of that discussion.

 

[danieldemol]

Right. So show me what he specifically cites as fundamentals of Islam rather than saying "I dont know what Sam Harris says but this is what I think", and I say this for the third time to you alone. Anyway of course as usual if you respond with something irrelevant I will not respond, and then you can make a comment to feel good when I dont respond.

Have at it.

You seem to think the universe revolves around you and the unenlightened questions you ask.

If Sam Harris meme is demonstrably correct it does not matter ETA much if he gets one or more fundamentals wrong as I see it.

 

[firedragon]

You seem to think the universe revolves around you and the unenlightened questions you ask.

If Sam Harris meme is demonstrably correct it does not matter at all if he gets one or more fundamentals wrong as I see it.

Great. Cheers.

 

[Samael_Khan]

Brother. Show me something specific Sam Harris says as "Fundamentals of Islam". If you wish to speak of what he is ignorant of in Christianity and every other religion we can discuss that separately.

Cheers.

What I wrote was one critique he made in that video with me adding a bit extra for clarification. He is saying that if you compare Jainism with Islam, going to the extremes in either religion (by extreme he means embracing the fundamentals to its maximum) leads to different results. A Jain extremist becomes obsessed with filtering water so that he doesn't kill bugs. A muslim extremist becomes extremely violent. Therefore, the fundamentals of Jainism is absolute pacifism, whereas the fundamentals of Islam is extreme violence. He is using the comparison to make his point.

 

[firedragon]

What I wrote was one critique he made in that video with me adding a bit extra for clarification. He is saying that if you compare Jainism with Islam, going to the extremes in either religion (by extreme he means embracing the fundamentals to its maximum) leads to different results. A Jain extremist becomes obsessed with filtering water so that he doesn't kill bugs. A muslim extremist becomes extremely violent. Therefore, the fundamentals of Jainism is absolute pacifism, whereas the fundamentals of Islam is extreme violence. He is using the comparison to make his point.

Right.
1. Do you agree or disagree? Why?
2. What Islamic Jurisprudence or school of thought is he picking Islamic Fundamentals from? Whats the source?

 

[Samael_Khan]

Right.
1. Do you agree or disagree? Why?

I have no idea. The more I have tried getting into studying Islam the more roadblocks I have come across. Like I would read the Quran, come to a certain idea about what it says and if my idea doesn't agree with what a specific muslim says then they will say that my understanding is warped because I am not reading the Arabic. The same goes for authentic and inauthentic hadith.

I can speak on the general practices and attitudes of muslims, but I know very well that what people do does not necessarily reflect what the religion fundamentally taught at its inception or in its books.

So in short, I get told different things by different muslims and when I get to grips with one muslims viewpoint then another muslim would be saying that that viewpoint is wrong.

So some muslims cherrypick verse that come across as peaceful and tell me that it is a peaceful religion. But I have also come across sites on the web by muslims that say that the Quran says muslims must attack non believers and anybody not of their "tribe".

2. What Islamic Jurisprudence or school of thought is he picking Islamic Fundamentals from? Whats the source?

I have to investigate this and get back to you.

 

[Samael_Khan]

Right.
1. Do you agree or disagree? Why?
2. What Islamic Jurisprudence or school of thought is he picking Islamic Fundamentals from? Whats the source?

Could you possibly open a thread educating everyone on the forum about Islam in detail? (Unless you have done so already) And by detail I am talking about textual analysis and addressing points of criticism.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

What you said is true. Just brushing off peoples arguments by saying they are not educated in a subject is a cheap thing to do, but that's not the case here. Also, you did not question the proponent why they embrace someones argument without checking the sources, apply criticism, and some analysis. I dont mean to offend you, but but you should do that.

Anyway, when someone makes one post quoting one quotation of Sam Harriss, which is just a quote with no sources and no criticism, that's very shallow. You should question that too. Also, responding to that, one cannot make an assessment as large as you expect. Maybe a new thread is needed for that.

Anyway let ask you something. Sam Harris speaks about "Fundamentals of Islam". I am saying that he has no education whatsoever on what he is speaking about. But since you are asking for reasons, please give me the "fundamentals" he is speaking about, and I will give you the reasons why I say he has no clue of what he is speaking about.

Peace.

In my experience, you'll say about anyone, no matter who it is, that (s)he is "uneducated in islam" whenever that person critiques islam and / or disagrees with you on Islam.

This is an assumption you make right out the gates and nothing will budge you from it.

It doesn't matter who is making the comments. If the comments include critique of Islam, you'll just dismiss it as "ignorant" by default.

When somebody who's truly ignorant about Islam and yet praises it, you'll be silent on the matter.

 

[firedragon]

I have no idea. The more I have tried getting into studying Islam the more roadblocks I have come across. Like I would read the Quran, come to a certain idea about what it says and if my idea doesn't agree with what a specific muslim says then they will say that my understanding is warped because I am not reading the Arabic. The same goes for authentic and inauthentic hadith.

I can speak on the general practices and attitudes of muslims, but I know very well that what people do does not necessarily reflect what the religion fundamentally taught at its inception or in its books.

So in short, I get told different things by different muslims and when I get to grips with one muslims viewpoint then another muslim would be saying that that viewpoint is wrong.

So some muslims cherrypick verse that come across as peaceful and tell me that it is a peaceful religion. But I have also come across sites on the web by muslims that say that the Quran says muslims must attack non believers and anybody not of their "tribe".

I have to investigate this and get back to you.

I understand perfectly about what some muslims say and what some other muslims may say. This is an outcome of sociology of religion. Its the case with any religion. Even Atheism, Buddhism, Jainism, taoism, etc etc. Everything. Thats why primary sources are key in understanding something. When you speak of cherry picking, muslims do it, and others do it too. If you want, we could have a whole new thread on that and two could respectfully discuss, agree or disagree.

Nevertheless, by asking you to specifically quote Sam Harris's sources for his so called "fundamentals of Islam" matter, I am not holding you ransom brother. I am asking you to explore further. If you want I can elaborate without asking you because I have read his books. Maybe not all, but some. So I know what he is speaking of, and I know that he is absolutely uneducated in theologies he is speaking about.

What do you say? You wish to have a new thread?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

ROFL at me having a 'need to "Hate Islam"'

Yep. Whenever you critique islam, it MUST be because you "hate it". And off course, you also MUST be arguing from ignorance. Because there is simply no way that you can actually have a valid criticism of the "perfect religion".

 

[firedragon]

Could you possibly open a thread educating everyone on the forum about Islam in detail? (Unless you have done so already) And by detail I am talking about textual analysis and addressing points of criticism.

Yes, I have opened many threads "I think" on this topic. I didnt see this post earlier, so of course brother. I will open a new thread, or you could open one yourself and quote me there and I will definitely participate. It is my honour.

Edit: Haha. One day someone said something nice, and I replied saying "it is my honour", and another guy jumped in without knowing the context of the discussion or the meaning of "it is my honour" claiming that I am being an arse claiming "only I have honour". Lol. This is old English I grew up with. It is just saying "It is my pleasure" or "I am honoured to engage with you or know you". I just thought I would do this disclaimer before I get that again (in case).

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Right.
1. Do you agree or disagree?

I agree.

Why?

Isis, Al-qaida, Boko-haram,..................................

Wherever extremist muslims get organized, terror and brutality follows.
This is not the case in Jainism.

So the answer to the "why" question is simple observation and the facts of the world.

2. What Islamic Jurisprudence or school of thought is he picking Islamic Fundamentals from? Whats the source?

That's not the argument.
The argument is based in the observation that wherever fundamentalism in Islam exists, terror and violence follows.

And since fundamentalism is about taking an idea to a dogmatic extreme, the end result will be the core of that idea being amplified.

So if fundamentalism of idea X always results in brutal violence, it follows that the core of idea X includes brutality and violence.


Assuming you disagree with that, perhaps you can give us your explanation for why fundamentalism in Islam results in brutal violence, while fundamentalism in something like Jainism results in extreme pacifism and an obsession with not even hurting a fly - literally.



Off course you won't answer to this post because likely you have me on ignore.
I guess you can't handle tough questions.

 

[Spirit of Light]

I agree.



Isis, Al-qaida, Boko-haram,..................................

Wherever extremist muslims get organized, terror and brutality follows.
This is not the case in Jainism.

So the answer to the "why" question is simple observation and the facts of the world.



That's not the argument.
The argument is based in the observation that wherever fundamentalism in Islam exists, terror and violence follows.

And since fundamentalism is about taking an idea to a dogmatic extreme, the end result will be the core of that idea being amplified.

So if fundamentalism of idea X always results in brutal violence, it follows that the core of idea X includes brutality and violence.


Assuming you disagree with that, perhaps you can give us your explanation for why fundamentalism in Islam results in brutal violence, while fundamentalism in something like Jainism results in extreme pacifism and an obsession with not even hurting a fly - literally.



Off course you won't answer to this post because likely you have me on ignore.
I guess you can't handle tough questions.

Do you believe Isis represent the true Islam? A clue is they are extremists. Islam actually teach more of a middle way, and extremism is not a part of any middle way.

 

[Samael_Khan]

Yes, I have opened many threads "I think" on this topic. I didnt see this post earlier, so of course brother. I will open a new thread, or you could open one yourself and quote me there and I will definitely participate. It is my honour.

Edit: Haha. One day someone said something nice, and I replied saying "it is my honour", and another guy jumped in without knowing the context of the discussion or the meaning of "it is my honour" claiming that I am being an arse claiming "only I have honour". Lol. This is old English I grew up with. It is just saying "It is my pleasure" or "I am honoured to engage with you or know you". I just thought I would do this disclaimer before I get that again (in case).

Awesome! I think that you should open the thread because then you can lay out the opening points that people will most likely respond to. If you want we can open a one on one debate thread to prevent comments that are unproductive we can do that too. I once started a Jews only thread which was extremely productive until Christians came in and derailed it. It was a learning experience. So I could ask any tough questions I can think of and you can reply without someone taking your comments in bad faith.

So it will be an educational thread.

Does that sound good?

And don't worry, I have read lots of old english books so I know the phrase very well.

Edit. Maybe I should start the thread with you replying to certain questions I ask. So I guide the points and you respond to them?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Do you believe Isis represent the true Islam?

What "true" islam is, does not interest me as that, it seems to me, is a matter of opinion.

I can ask 10 muslims from around the world what "true islam" is and I'ld get 10 different answers.
I could go ahead and spend decades studying Islam to find out what "true islam" is and this work will only result in yet another opinion. My opinion, in that case.

A clue is they are extremists.

That's not a clue. That's the very basis of the argument presented.

Extremist: someone who takes an idea to its extremes.

Where extremism in Islam shows up, brutality and violence follows.
Where extremism in Jainism shows up, extreme pacifism and an obsession with not even hurting a bug follows.

This suggests that at the core of Islam, are at least the seeds of brutality and violence.
While at the core of Jainism, are at least the seeds of pacifism and respect for literally all living things.


Perhaps you can answer the question that @firedragon is going to ignore anyway:

Can you give us your explanation for why fundamentalism in Islam results in brutal violence, while fundamentalism in something like Jainism results in extreme pacifism and an obsession with not even hurting a fly - literally.

Islam actually teach more of a middle way, and extremism is not a part of any middle way.

You say this, but if that were the case, I wouldn't expect extremism in Islam to go hand in hand with brutality and violence.

If Islam truly is a "religion of peace" like people like to claim, why then are extremist muslims not extremely peaceful? Why are they the exact opposite?

I look forward to your answer to the question.

 

[firedragon]

Awesome! I think that you should open the thread because then you can lay out the opening points that people will most likely respond to. If you want we can open a one on one debate thread to prevent comments that are unproductive we can do that too. I once started a Jews only thread which was extremely productive until Christians came in and derailed it. It was a learning experience. So I could ask any tough questions I can think of and you can reply without someone taking your comments in bad faith.

So it will be an educational thread.

Does that sound good?

And don't worry, I have read lots of old english books so I know the phrase very well.

Edit. Maybe I should start the thread with you replying to certain questions I ask. So I guide the points and you respond to them?

You know, one reason I like to see open discussion is because sometimes someone brings such a profound point that could set off a fantastic research. Ironically, most of the time they dont even know it.

Bro. Its your wish. What ever you say, I will abide by.

 

[Spirit of Light]

What "true" islam is, does not interest me as that, it seems to me, is a matter of opinion.

I can ask 10 muslims from around the world what "true islam" is and I'ld get 10 different answers.
I could go ahead and spend decades studying Islam to find out what "true islam" is and this work will only result in yet another opinion. My opinion, in that case.



That's not a clue. That's the very basis of the argument presented.

Extremist: someone who takes an idea to its extremes.

Where extremism in Islam shows up, brutality and violence follows.
Where extremism in Jainism shows up, extreme pacifism and an obsession with not even hurting a bug follows.

This suggests that at the core of Islam, are at least the seeds of brutality and violence.
While at the core of Jainism, are at least the seeds of pacifism and respect for literally all living things.


Perhaps you can answer the question that @firedragon is going to ignore anyway:

Can you give us your explanation for why fundamentalism in Islam results in brutal violence, while fundamentalism in something like Jainism results in extreme pacifism and an obsession with not even hurting a fly - literally.




You say this, but if that were the case, I wouldn't expect extremism in Islam to go hand in hand with brutality and violence.

If Islam truly is a "religion of peace" like people like to claim, why then are extremist muslims not extremely peaceful? Why are they the exact opposite?

I look forward to your answer to the question.

My answer to extremism in Islam and other religions are that their ego is to high, the seek power over others, not power over ego/self. They use very similar to critiques of islam only the verses that is made during wartimes.

If you study Islam for a lifetime of course your understanding would be better than only having an opinion from what you see on the news.

Isis or other terror groups are not representative of islam.

You can study all the scripture you want, but if you not live it every day, the wisdom does not arise.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

My answer to extremism in Islam and other religions are that their ego is to high, the seek power over others, not power over ego/self. They use very similar to critiques of islam only the verses that is made during wartimes.

If you study Islam for a lifetime of course your understanding would be better than only having an opinion from what you see on the news.

Isis or other terror groups are not representative of islam.

You can study all the scripture you want, but if you not live it every day, the wisdom does not arise.

You danced around the question instead of actually answering it.

Your answer does not at all explain why extremism in islam always results in brutality and violence while extremism in jainism results in extreme pacifism.

Instead, you merely tried to explain why somebody would become an extremist.
That's not what the question was about.



I ask again: if islam truly is a "religion of peace", then why are extremist muslims not extremely peaceful, but rather the exact opposite of that?

If Islam truly were a religion of peace, then why aren't extremist muslims more like extremist jainists (is that how you call someone who follows jainism? lol)?

I think this is a serious question and I feel like it deserves a serious answer.