Your position about Islam

[vskipper]

The only way that could be tested is to remove the restrictions or create a coed area of worship.

This is a primary example of individuals confusing the wahhabi ideology that has bled into mainstream Islam as actual Islam. Take a look at the kabba or the masjid of Medina and you will notice something....NO BARRIER!

Also if you read the hadiths you can notice case after case where men & women worshipped together (granted that the women stood behind the men but if you think about the Muslim form of prayer you can see the practicle reason for this)

In addition to this you will notice not one example of segregation of the sexes mentioned in the Qur'an. Wahhabis rely a lot on hadiths (most of questionale source & contradictory to the sunna & the Qur'an)

 

[vskipper]

The biggest reason for that is that we would remember the poor that can't eat and we would feel for them.

Other reasons would be like health benefits that we would have from fasting.

But I am not sure on why you wrote for starters. Ramadan is only one month a year. But if you meant that people can fast also other than Ramadan for the sake of God, than you are right.




Well I read this again, again, and again. Still I cant clearly understand what that has to mean.

Quraan says on the matter that Jesus peace be upon him was not crucified nor dead, but Allah rose him.


I think the commentator is trying to prove the Christians and the Jews wrong from what you have provided.

Here are things I have found on the matter, I hope you read them.

Jesus Survived the Cross.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HmCqtsBZHik

I am not sure if that answers your questions. I really like that if the dont answer your question you would further clarify.






3. What went wrong was how it started. Christianity started as an urban religion in a secure Roman Empire. Islam did not start from such a position of comfort, but in a rough neighborhood with warring groups. That isn't their fault, but it led to the Battle of the Trench and the Banu Qurayza, who were eliminated to prevent them from forming an alliance against the first Muslim group. Is there a way this history can be confronted and overcome? I think affected how the religion developed.
~

Well as for Banu Qurayza they were a group of Jews who were living among Muslims and had a treaty with them. But they worked against this treaty and had arrangements with the enemies and betrayed muslims in the middle of a war.[/QUOTE]

For starters is a phrase used similiar to first of all, just a transitional phrase. You might want to consider a lingo book

Also Mirza Ghulam Ahmad was the founder of the Ahmadiyya Movement so his commentary should be taken with a grain of salt at best. The Ahmadiyya movement is a fringe denomination of Islam

 

[Estro Felino]

What went wrong was how it started. Christianity started as an urban religion in a secure Roman Empire. Islam did not start from such a position of comfort, but in a rough neighborhood with warring groups. That isn't their fault, but it led to the Battle of the Trench and the Banu Qurayza, who were eliminated to prevent them from forming an alliance against the first Muslim group. Is there a way this history can be confronted and overcome? I think affected how the religion developed.
~

Let's be honest. Christians professed their religion in secret. The persecutions lasted for three centuries. Lots of Christians were murdered or fed to the lions in arenas.

 

[vskipper]

1- What is your position about Islam?

I have objections to it. Namely the militant way in which it was formed and carried out in parts of the world today as well as the view of women.

2- Do you have any questions that you would like having answers to?

Do you think that apostasy will ever be accepted in the Islamic world?

3- Why do you think Islam is wrong?

The general lack of evidence for the religion to be considered "true" which is the same reason I don't believe most religions.

1. Islam was not truly an offensively militant until the 20th century after European countries tried forcing colonial influence. The type of violence seen today can be traced back to alliance between Abdul Wahhab & the Saudi family.

2. That depends on whose definition you use for apostate. If you go by generally leaving Islam as your definition then you are using a salafi/wahhabi definition. The original definition is one who leaves Islam & then begins attacking it. But, this only applies if Islam is the caliph (ruling power). It would be similar to someone leaving the U.S. and then selling secrets to others.

3. View my thread "static or dynamic God" where I show a clear problem with Islam according to the Qur'an. Also I think that if you really want people to see the issue of Islam you have to approach it from their worldview

 

[Monk Of Reason]

1. Islam was not truly an offensively militant until the 20th century after European countries tried forcing colonial influence. The type of violence seen today can be traced back to alliance between Abdul Wahhab & the Saudi family.

2. That depends on whose definition you use for apostate. If you go by generally leaving Islam as your definition then you are using a salafi/wahhabi definition. The original definition is one who leaves Islam & then begins attacking it. But, this only applies if Islam is the caliph (ruling power). It would be similar to someone leaving the U.S. and then selling secrets to others.

3. View my thread "static or dynamic God" where I show a clear problem with Islam according to the Qur'an. Also I think that if you really want people to see the issue of Islam you have to approach it from their worldview

1. Islam was based on conquest. Muhammad himself led militant conquests. Then two more after him pushed the limits all the way into Spain till they were expunged through war with the Christian King Ferdinand of Aragon. Granted the wars were often politically driven but done in the name of Islam all the same. I have the same problem with Christianity. The different texts on Jihad kept it loose enough to really screw with militant Muslim groups and give them a strong Koranic base for their actions. It doesn't matter if it is the "correct" or "incorrect" way to view the Koran. The problem is that millions do view it this way. Again its not a purely anti-islamic view as it also applies to Christianity in many of its earlier forms and even somewhat today.

2. It was a question. In the Islamic world will it ever be "okay" to leave Islam? Right now in many of those countries I do not think so.

 

[columbus]

I must give you credit dude! You are an intrepid apologist if ever I saw one. :bow:

Well to answer that according to Islam I would start with saying that Islam did not start with Muhammad peace be upon him. That is another misconception. Islam was there since men were on earth because Adam was a muslim and all the prophets that came shared the message of Islam.

Also I should note that your view isn't correct for Muhammad peace be upon him couldn't read or write. The first word which was revealed to the prophet which is "read" also means "recite". So God asked Muhammad peace be upon him through the angel Gabriel to recite what the angel is telling him.

Furthermore, if you read the Quraan, you will see it saying that if that Quraan had been from a man it would have been evident for the reader. Also there is a direct challenge for people to try to bring like the Quraan even if it was one chapter ( and the smallest chapter is from three verses).

This challenge was at the time were Arabs were EXCELLENT in poetry and poetry was their game. Many attempted to take that Challenge but massively failed.


4:82 Then do they not reflect upon the Qur'an? If it had been from [any] other than Allah , they would have found within it much contradiction.

2:23 And if you are in doubt about what We have sent down upon Our Servant [Muhammad], then produce a surah the like thereof and call upon your witnesses other than Allah , if you should be truthful.

The reason you are not getting through to most of us is because you aren't starting at the beginning. It is like you are trying to build a big building without first building the foundation. The foundation is what supports a building by attaching it to the earth. To convince us, you need to attach Islam to reality. You are so accustomed to believing in the miracles that you don't understand that to us they are an imaginary foundation. Nothing built on them can stand.

Take your explanation that the Quraan must be a miracle because Muhammad was illiterate. That is simply not true. Unlike today, when reading and writing are considered basic education, The 7th century was very different. Reading, and especially writing, were technical skills requiring a lot of time to master. Professional skills even, more like writing computer code is today. Of course a man like Muhammad wouldn't do his own writing, any more than the President writes his own code for email.
Oral poetry was, however, a fine art form. Cultured people of the day regularly enjoyed it in groups. Composing, memorizing, and declaiming such works were cultivated skills. During his younger years working for his uncle on caravan trading, I have no doubt that a smart and ambitious man like Muhammad enjoyed sharing this art form with the people he met on his travels. Many of them were Christians and Jews, and so he accumulated a large repertoire from them as well as working on his own. Later in life, as a rich and powerful man, he surely continued to expand and polish his collection of these Arabic masterpieces of art. Going off to a cave for a while would give him time to compose, and when home he no doubt enjoyed gathering with other cultured people to share, criticize, polish and orate. Towards the end of his days he probably felt the need to preserve his collection, so he started having them committed to writing. He personally inspected the scribes work to make sure they were done excellently. There is simply nothing miraculous about a man like Muhammad leaving behind a monumental collection of superb poetry.

But it's human origins are very clear to us. Muhammad and his friends all spoke the same language, so that is what they composed in. Like all poetry composed by humans it loses a huge amount of the meaning and beauty by being translated. Most people find the translations nearly unreadable. The Quraan in other languages is unpleasantly florid and repetitious. The culture and ethics described are clearly a bit of an improvement over the surrounding Arabic, but have long since been improved upon enormously by other cultures. And it contains no information that wouldn't be available to an educated and travelled man of the day. Some is even flat out wrong, but the sort of thing one would expect from this sort of religiously themed poetry.

So I see the Quraan as a human endeavor, and Islam as well.

Peace friend.
Tom

 

[vskipper]

Islam was based on conquest. Muhammad himself led militant conquests. Then two more after him pushed the limits all the way into Spain till they were expunged through war with the Christian King Ferdinand of Aragon. Granted the wars were often politically driven but done in the name of Islam all the same. I have the same problem with Christianity. The different texts on Jihad kept it loose enough to really screw with militant Muslim groups and give them a strong Koranic base for their actions. It doesn't matter if it is the "correct" or "incorrect" way to view the Koran. The problem is that millions do view it this way. Again its not a purely anti-islamic view as it also applies to Christianity in many of its earlier forms and even somewhat today.

Islam was impressively submissive initially. It only conquered through defensive wars. The entering into the Iberian pennisula was by request of the leadership of the era as well as the people. The term jihad has great restrictions set upon it for those who are not wahhabi. But, this yould know if you read more than one source.

True conquests for the sakeof conquests did not come until after the controversial death of Ali

 

[Tabb]

This is a primary example of individuals confusing the wahhabi ideology that has bled into mainstream Islam as actual Islam. Take a look at the kabba or the masjid of Medina and you will notice something....NO BARRIER!

Also if you read the hadiths you can notice case after case where men & women worshipped together (granted that the women stood behind the men but if you think about the Muslim form of prayer you can see the practicle reason for this)

In addition to this you will notice not one example of segregation of the sexes mentioned in the Qur'an. Wahhabis rely a lot on hadiths (most of questionale source & contradictory to the sunna & the Qur'an)

I was directing my concerns at restictions at Masjids that I'm familiar with. Also I agree that it might not be practical for some women because of attire and the manner of prayer. But the choice should be theirs. Things like the debacle over menstrual cycles and other practices do clash with our views of what equality is.

You are right, there is nothing but the avocation of equality of the sexes in the Qur'an. But the view of what equality is by modern standards has falling short. Islam was at the time the leader in women's equality because of the stance. However today you have to see how the world has passed you by and the views of Islam seem anti women. This isn't me saying this, it's the world.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Islam was impressively submissive initially. It only conquered through defensive wars. The entering into the Iberian pennisula was by request of the leadership of the era as well as the people. The term jihad has great restrictions set upon it for those who are not wahhabi. But, this yould know if you read more than one source.

True conquests for the sakeof conquests did not come until after the controversial death of Ali

Defensive conquests that spread all the way from Saudi Arabia to Spain? Or what of the attack on Mecca ?

 

[vskipper]

I was directing my concerns at restictions at Masjids that I'm familiar with. Also I agree that it might not be practical for some women because of attire and the manner of prayer. But the choice should be theirs. Things like the debacle over menstrual cycles and other practices do clash with our views of what equality is.

You are right, there is nothing but the avocation of equality of the sexes in the Qur'an. But the view of what equality is by modern standards has falling short. Islam was at the time the leader in women's equality because of the stance. However today you have to see how the world has passed you by and the views of Islam seem anti women. This isn't me saying this, it's the world.

A. I'm not Muslim. Just believe in honesty
B. What is practiced by many today iis the result of wahhabi influence spreading because of their ties to major oil powers not the Qur'an
C. The "world" you describe also believes in human exploitation (through the marriage of plutocracy & capitalism) & the petrodollar. It believes that sex outside of marriage is okay. It believes that drinking alcohol until you throw up is okay. It defines justice as giving 25 years to life to someone defending themselves but 5 to 10yrs to rapists. (Of course thats to say nothing of the fact that most are oblivious to the way governments are taking away rights because the world views keeping infromed as boring.

 

[vskipper]

Defensive conquests that spread all the way from Saudi Arabia to Spain? Or what of the attack on Mecca ?

The attack on Mecca was by Wahhabis. This statement alone makes me think that you equate the actions of the few with the belief of the many. If most Muslims were violent or believed inkilling non muslims & violent conquest we would have a much larger problem. Honestly it seems like you are just spewing right wing rhetoric like that of Pam Geller, Robert Spencer, & Walid Shoebat.

I do not agree with Islam (for the reasons previously stated) but I will not lower myself to using non honest statements either.

 

[outhouse]

The attack on Mecca was by Wahhabis. This statement alone makes me think that you equate the actions of the few with the belief of the many. If most Muslims were violent or believed inkilling non muslims & violent conquest we would have a much larger problem. Honestly it seems like you are just spewing right wing rhetoric like that of Pam Geller, Robert Spencer, & Walid Shoebat.

I do not agree with Islam (for the reasons previously stated) but I will not lower myself to using non honest statements either.

The problem has never been the amount of extremist.


The problem is why this religion breeds so much terrorism, and why are they so uneducated as a whole.

Dynamically, does religion feed the terrorism or does the lack of education feed terrorism, or my guess, both?

How they treat women is barbaric, as well as the sectarianism that is responsible for genocide, and starting wars for no real reason other then religious belief.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

The attack on Mecca was by Wahhabis. This statement alone makes me think that you equate the actions of the few with the belief of the many. If most Muslims were violent or believed inkilling non muslims & violent conquest we would have a much larger problem. Honestly it seems like you are just spewing right wing rhetoric like that of Pam Geller, Robert Spencer, & Walid Shoebat.

I do not agree with Islam (for the reasons previously stated) but I will not lower myself to using non honest statements either.

I am pretty liberal by most standards actually. However the truth of it still stands. Never have I stated that it was a tenant of Islam to kill but that the religion has the ability to be interpreted that way and has been interpreted that way by an incredible number of people in today's world.

And what about my statement covered "a few". The conquests (granted after Muhammad's death) involved the Islamic empire that stretched from Spain to India. That was not a few but the collective empire.

Muhammad spent the last ten years of his life in the battle with Mecca. He also spent it usurping other tribal states in the Arabian peninsula and even some under Roman control. His belief was that warfare was permitted in the goal of spreading Islam.

 

[vskipper]

The problem has never been the amount of extremist.


The problem is why this religion breeds so much terrorism, and why are they so uneducated as a whole.

Dynamically, does religion feed the terrorism or does the lack of education feed terrorism, or my guess, both?

How they treat women is barbaric, as well as the sectarianism that is responsible for genocide, and starting wars for no real reason other then religious belief.

The answer is in history. One of the oldest known terror organizations was the KKK. They flourished in the southern United States during a time when education was low & poverty was high. When the few educated follow radical ideology and the rest are undereducated and suffering from economic disparity you see a rise in radicalization. (The 3rd Reich & other statist based massacres & tyrants are good examples of this as well) The religion is merely a tool of the pyschopathic few just like political ideology in other areas (ie the peoples party)

 

[outhouse]

The answer is in history. One of the oldest known terror organizations was the KKK. They flourished in the southern United States during a time when education was low & poverty was high. When the few educated follow radical ideology and the rest are undereducated and suffering from economic disparity you see a rise in radicalization. (The 3rd Reich & other statist based massacres & tyrants are good examples of this as well) The religion is merely a tool of the pyschopathic few just like political ideology in other areas (ie the peoples party)

The problem is way to dynamic to run a vague definition like that.


It does not explain the thousands of American lives in Iraq when we tried to free muslims from their oppressors, then when we left to have sectarian violence ruin their chance for a half democratic society.

The president in power in Iraq used his power to advance his religious belief.


Again, do you know anyone that does not think the religion needs serious reform, besides muslim blind to reality?

 

[vskipper]

I am pretty liberal by most standards actually. However the truth of it still stands. Never have I stated that it was a tenant of Islam to kill but that the religion has the ability to be interpreted that way and has been interpreted that way by an incredible number of people in today's world.

And what about my statement covered "a few". The conquests (granted after Muhammad's death) involved the Islamic empire that stretched from Spain to India. That was not a few but the collective empire.

Muhammad spent the last ten years of his life in the battle with Mecca. He also spent it usurping other tribal states in the Arabian peninsula and even some under Roman control. His belief was that warfare was permitted in the goal of spreading Islam.

The fighting during the time of Muhammad was defensive as the others wanted him dead as they saw him as a threat. The spread was primarily through nonviolent means. Those ruling the caliphate who did use non defensive strategy did not even practice Islam, in fact one was a known drunk. The issue in Spain has already been explained (a. It was not Spain at the time but a series of small cities and it was the populace that wanted the moors there b. Many areas came under Islamic control through what is known as dawah)

 

[Monk Of Reason]

The fighting during the time of Muhammad was defensive as the others wanted him dead as they saw him as a threat. The spread was primarily through nonviolent means. Those ruling the caliphate who did use non defensive strategy did not even practice Islam, in fact one was a known drunk. The issue in Spain has already been explained (a. It was not Spain at the time but a series of small cities and it was the populace that wanted the moors there b. Many areas came under Islamic control through what is known as dawah)

From Wiki

The Caravan raids refer to a series of raids which Muhammad and his Companions participated in. The raids were generally offensive[10] and carried out to gather intelligence or seize the trade goods of Caravans financed by the Quraysh, (such retaliation was rationalized as being legitimate actions because many Muslims left their possessions and wealth behind when they migrated from Mecca).[11][12] The Muslims declared that the raids were justified and that God gave them permission to defend against the Meccans' persecution of Muslims.[13][14]

From the Hadith

When you meet your enemies who are polytheists, invite them to three courses of action. If they respond to any one of these, you also accept it and withhold yourself from doing them any harm. Invite them to [accept] Islam; if they respond to you, accept it from them and desist from fighting against them. ... If they refuse to accept Islam, demand from them the jizya. If they agree to pay, accept it from them and hold off your hands. If they refuse to pay the tax, seek Allah’s help and fight them.[12]
~Muhammad

 

[vskipper]

The problem is way to dynamic to run a vague definition like that.


It does not explain the thousands of American lives in Iraq when we tried to free muslims from their oppressors, then when we left to have sectarian violence ruin their chance for a half democratic society.

The president in power in Iraq used his power to advance his religious belief.


Again, do you know anyone that does not think the religion needs serious reform, besides muslim blind to reality?

Many of them are calling for reform but the issue is not in Islam itself but in the salafi/wahhabi ideology that we, as westerners, finance through the petrodollar. Until the tie between the wahhabi ideology and big oil is severed we will continue to fight a losing battle.

Of course all of this is ignoring over a hundred years of meddling by England & France that truthfully brought this problem. The Saudis were helped into power by England. Both England & France tried to create boundaries contrary to the tribes of the region all while destroying the system that was working. This to say nothing of the encouragement of Arab nationalism that was feuled because during WW1 & WW2 they saw Islam as too much of a uniting factor.

Try looking up Saudi,.Abdul Wahhab, Balfour Declaration for starters.

 

[outhouse]

This to say nothing of the encouragement of Arab nationalism that was feuled because during WW1 & WW2 they saw Islam as too much of a uniting factor.

.

Much Is because of the nations boundaries were redraw after the war

 

[vskipper]

@monkofreason

1. Consiider the source. Wikipedia is hardly ever contributed to by unbiased individuals & many today take a hostile stance ingeneral to Islam as a whole because of recent events.

2. Not ALL/b] hadith are noteworthy, for starters. Also consider the words. This is talking about after war has already started. Muhammad actually even tried to sign a peace treaty with them that they then violated.

The propoganda that you are spreading is the same spread by right wing media, and Wahhabi extremists. It is only by understanding the religion and helping to show that these people that groups like ISIS are not representativeof true Islam that peace can ever be achieved.

As much as I disagree with Islam I think it is rhetoric like that which feedsgroupls like Al Qaeda & ISIS.