This week in Islam

[dialamah]

22 minutes ago, betsy said:

They aren't really practitioners of Islam any longer.

Just as you aren't a practitioner of Christianity any more, as you still refer to the Old Testament for your beliefs, even though the coming of Christ fulfilled the Old Testament and brought in a new era of acceptance, love and non-judgment?

Edited June 24, 2019 by dialamah

[dialamah]

49 minutes ago, DogOnPorch said:

Well.......

They wish you would disbelieve as they disbelieved so you would be alike. So do not take from among them allies until they emigrate for the cause of Allah . But if they turn away, then seize them and kill them wherever you find them and take not from among them any ally or helper.

https://quran.com/4/89

...and may I remind you, I did not write the Quran.

Perhaps I am wrong about the apostasy bit, but until I know and understand the context of that particular verse, I am not going to take your word for it. 

In any case my point stands: if the Quran says one thing and a Hadith adds to or changes it then how is that not an interpretation of Islam.

By the way, here you have an actual supporter of Islam in your midst, which I would think a genuine "critic of Islam" would be happy to engage with.  But you do not; instead you target me with your BS.  

[DogOnPorch]

Jesus said he came not to change the old laws but to fulfill them.

Meaning: keep your old ways as long as they do not violate my way.

[DogOnPorch]

1 minute ago, dialamah said:

Perhaps I am wrong about the apostasy bit, but until I know and understand the context of that particular verse, I am not going to take your word for it. 

In any case my point stands: if the Quran says one thing and a Hadith adds to or changes it then how is that not an interpretation of Islam.

By the way, here you have an actual supporter of Islam in your midst, which I would think a genuine "critic of Islam" would be happy to engage with.  But you do not; instead you target me with your BS.  

 

You're free to pretend I'm trying to make Islam "look bad" via their own statements all you like. The penalty for apostasy is DEATH according to the Quran.

[dialamah]

1 minute ago, DogOnPorch said:

Jesus said he came not to change the old laws but to fulfill them.

Meaning: keep your old ways as long as they do not violate my way.

Funny, because Betsy herself has used the argument that Jesus made the Old Testament laws irrelevant when she's been questioned on certain things she doesn't practice or support.

[DogOnPorch]

Just now, dialamah said:

Funny, because Betsy herself has used the argument that Jesus made the Old Testament laws irrelevant when she's been questioned on certain things she doesn't practice or support.

 

Matthew 5:17...feel free.

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+5%3A17&version=NIV

[dialamah]

5 minutes ago, DogOnPorch said:

You're free to pretend I'm trying to make Islam "look bad" via their own statements all you like.

My question was - why do you continue to engage with me in your zeal to prove how bad Islam is, when you have a much better option in an actual believer.  Are you concerned that he'll be able to decimate your anti-Islam "arguments"?

Quote

The penalty for apostasy is DEATH according to the Quran.

Such drama!  If that is such a fact, why do not all Islamic countries actively seek out and kill apostates?  Why do they essentially ignore them unless they are especially public, and then usually just jail them instead of execute them?

[DogOnPorch]

Just now, dialamah said:

My question was - why do you continue to engage with me in your zeal to prove how bad Islam is, when you have a much better option in an actual believer.  Are you concerned that he'll be able to decimate your anti-Islam "arguments"?

Such drama!  If that is such a fact, why do not all Islamic countries actively seek out and kill apostates?  Why do they essentially ignore them unless they are especially public, and then usually just jail them instead of execute them?

 

Again...you're free to think that I wrote Islam's Quran just to make Muslims 'look bad' all you wish...in which case, I want my royalties. 

[dialamah]

4 minutes ago, DogOnPorch said:

 

Matthew 5:17...feel free.

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+5%3A17&version=NIV

What the Bible says and what Betsy  tells us about what she believes aren't necesasarily related, so this verse, whatever it says, is irrelevant imo.

[GostHacked]

2 minutes ago, dialamah said:

My question was - why do you continue to engage with me in your zeal to prove how bad Islam is,

Answer : Don't feed the trolls. Report, move on.

[dialamah]

1 minute ago, DogOnPorch said:

Again...you're free to think that I wrote Islam's Quran just to make Muslims 'look bad' all you wish...in which case, I want my royalties. 

Where did I say you wrote the Quran?

[dialamah]

1 minute ago, GostHacked said:

Answer : Don't feed the trolls. Report, move on.

Suspiciously good advice. 

[DogOnPorch]

3 minutes ago, dialamah said:

Where did I say you wrote the Quran?

 

Your response to anything in the Quran that's posted is shocked disbelief followed by apologetic blather about context and then a jab at me for making Islam 'look bad'...like I wrote it.

 

[DogOnPorch]

Meanwhile, in Nigeria...

Nigeria: 'Children used' as suicide bombers in Borno attack

Two girls and a boy carried out the bombing outside a video hall in Konduga village in north-eastern Borno State, the UN children's charity said. Their ages are not yet known.

Officials say at least 30 people were killed and 40 injured in the attack.

The bombing is believed to have been carried out by the Boko Haram jihadist group. It has not yet commented.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-48674014

[Goddess]

The Encyclopedia of Islam says: "In Fikh (jurisprudence), there is unanimity that the male apostate must be put to death."

This ruling has been accepted Islamic law for the last 1400 years.  Established, historical Islamic theology and jurisprudence mandates the execution of apostates. Few Muslim scholars have ever challenged this definition.  The  majority of Islamic scholars support it. Various modern Muslims have objections against the death sentence but as Dog points out -  it is they who are deviating from the judgment established by the depth and breadth of Islamic jurisprudence.There is no question that Islam mandates it, except from Muslims living in the West who are embarrassed by it and do their best to cover it up to try and make Islam more acceptable to naive, gullible and ignorant Westerners.

 

Quote

 

An event from the Sirat Rasulallah^[13] and Kitab al-Tabaqat al-Kabir^[14].

After Muhammad took Mecca, he ordered that 10 people to be killed, and several of them were apostates. Here is the list of names found in Ibn Sa'd’s Kitab al-Tabaqat al-Kabir. The quote is from Volume 2, page 168.

"The apostle of Allah entered through Adhakhir, [into Mecca], and prohibited fighting. He ordered six men and four women to be killed, they were (1) Ikrimah Ibn Abi Jahl, (2) Habbar Ibn al-Aswad, (3) Abd Allah Ibn Sa'd Ibn Abi Sarh, (4) Miqyas Ibn Sababah al-Laythi, (5) al-Huwayrith Ibn Nuqaydh, (6) Abd Abbah Ibn Hilal Ibn Khatal al-Adrami, (7) Hind Bint Utbah, (8) Sarah, the mawlat (enfranchised girl) of Amr Ibn Hashim, (9) Fartana and (10) Qaribah.

 

The Sirat Rasulallah provides details behind one of the names – Abdullah Sa’d.

"The apostle had instructed his commanders when they entered Mecca only to fight those who resisted them, except a small number who were to be killed even if they were found beneath the curtains of the Kaba. Among them was Abdullah Sa'd, brother of the B. Amir Luayy. The reason he ordered him to be killed was that he had been a Muslim and used to write down revelation; then he apostatized and returned to Quraysh and fled to Uthman Affan whose foster brother he was. The latter hid him until he brought him to the apostle after the situation in Mecca was tranquil, and asked that he might be granted immunity. They allege that the apostle remained silent for a long time till finally he said yes.

 

Abdullah apostatized and Muhammad wanted him dead.  Abdullah was one of Muhammad’s scribes and said that the reason he left Islam was because he was able to write his own words as the Quran with Muhammad’s approval. Once he realized the Quran was a sham he left Islam.^[15] Later, when Muhammad’s knife was poised at his throat, he realized that Islam was true after all and rejoined the fold.

 

 

Tabari's whole job after the death of Big Mo was to go to all the tribes who had been forced to convert to Islam - and who now thought that because Big Mo was dead they no longer had to be Muslims - and kill them all.

Islam is, in my view - a giant puddle of vomited hatreds - Christians, Jews, dogs, women, gays, infidels, apostates, etc, etc - and the fact that modern Muslims and their Western supporters must wade through the puddle of vomit to pick out anything that might still be edible....well, I just shake my head as to why you would want to.  And holding up that tiny kernel of humanity that you find in the vomit like "Aha! See! Islam is Goooooooood!"  I will pat you on the head and smile because you're really excited about finding that edible piece amongst the vomit, but do not try to force it down my throat.  You swallow what you want but stop forcing everyone else to swallow your vomit morsels.

 

[Argus]

4 hours ago, Marocc said:

Actually a lot of Muslim countries are considered civilised. However, I wouldn't bet on that they care to be considered anything by non-Muslims. There's a reason they have their own countries with their own laws.

They might consider themselves civilized. No one else does, except the moderate countries, and they're going downhill.

4 hours ago, Marocc said:

Increase in the amount of terrorist strikes doesn't equal Islam becoming more extreme, not to mention more extremist.

No, but government actions and laws do. And all of the governments of these countries are becoming more Islamist.

The plain and simple fact is that the Islamic world is driven to consider all others as the enemies in need of conquest so that Islam can spread. They kept attacking everyone around them until they lost the military ability to do so. Nor has the mindset, supported by religion, changed. Were the Islamic countries to suddenly find themselves with the military ability to attack and subdue neighbouring non-Muslim states they would do so again.

[Argus]

40 minutes ago, dialamah said:

What the Bible says and what Betsy  tells us about what she believes aren't necesasarily related, so this verse, whatever it says, is irrelevant imo.

We don't need to interpret the bible. We can see what Christian countries do, how they behave, what laws they impose.

Likewise, we can see the same from Muslim countries.

There is simply no room for interpretation. The Muslim world has barbaric cultural practices, barbaric, backward values, and its governments, in the spirit of Islam, have deeply prejudicial laws against non-Muslims as well as women and gays. You can fish out this or that psalm from the bible and try desperately to compare it to what is said in Muslim religious texts, but the clear and obvious difference is the Muslim world DOES abide by those quotes and the Christian world does not.

[Marocc]

2 hours ago, dialamah said:

Are you saying that if Iran repealed its laws prescribing death for homosexual behavior, Iran would fall apart in a day or two?  The Quran does not prescribe any particular punishment for apostasy.  Would a country such as Saudi Arabia fall apart if they failed to punish apostates?  If there is no compulsion in religion and if both Jews and Christians are considered "people if the book" along with Muslims, would Egypt suddenly fall apart if they stopped requiring government ID to specify one of those three religions and making conversion between those religions a government tracked event?

If that is the response when questioned, then how does a Muslim or even a potential convert** follow this expectation:

And, if a Muslim individual determines that the teachings of their clerics and/or actions of their government are not Islamic, how do they reject it without putting their liberty and perhaps their life on the line?

What do you mean?  How are you "hearing" my tone?  If we were face-to-face, my tone would be quiet, gentle and thoughtful.  There would be pauses as I tried to find the right words to express myself honestly, but with respect.  I understand that much of this does not come across in text, especially as I am known for being straightforward and matter-of-fact amongst my friends, which is softened by my actual tone and demeanor.

So if the Quran does not mention stoning adulterers, then its perfectly fine to implement that as part of Sharia law because someone (not Muhammed, but maybe his friend) said "I know Muhammad thought stoning was acceptable.", and an expert, perhaps centuries later, included that as a Hadith?   

While you may not see Islam as interpretable, I think the hadiths and the stated expectation that individual Muslims determine the truth of what clerics and leaders tell them, I think this makes Islam very interpretable. 

I think this helps explain why there is such a variety of belief in Islam, despite the claim that it is perfect and cannot be changed.  It gives me even more hope for its progression into a more humanistic and freedom-loving religion.  The "extremism" Argus speaks of is no doubt the death throes of governments and fundamentalists who see their influence and legitimacy waning.

He isn't referring specifically to terrorism, but to what seems to be an increase of a more conservative and oppressive interpretation of Islam in (some) Islamic countries.  He and I differ very much on how civilized Muslims are generally and how well they can fit into a progressive Western country, and argue often about it.

**not me.  

The Iranian government may well fall apart from the very mention of such a thing.

Technically all governments track those whether as a whole or individually.

That doesn't refer to outspoken criticism.

There is usually a voice in a written text unless it is a formal text such a book of law.

It is okay to implement laws that aren't mentioned in the Quran. Muhammad (Sallallahu alaihi wa sallam) ordered a woman to be stoned because she confessed to adultery at least three times. She wanted to be punished. If a Muslim is punished by the sharia in the this life they believe they will not be punished for that same sin in the hereafter. That doesn't mean it's necessary to be punished by the law in order to be forgiven. In fact if a person repents so much what is the reason for the punishment to begin with?
The problem is determining when the stonings took place. Before or after the relevant revelation within the Quran.

This is still mainly interpreting the hadiths. Islam=submitting to the will of Allah (Subhaanahu wa ta'ala).

1 hour ago, betsy said:

They aren't really practitioners of Islam any longer.

You have a point.

1 hour ago, dialamah said:

Perhaps I am wrong about the apostasy bit, but until I know and understand the context of that particular verse, I am not going to take your word for it. 

In any case my point stands: if the Quran says one thing and a Hadith adds to or changes it then how is that not an interpretation of Islam.

By the way, here you have an actual supporter of Islam in your midst, which I would think a genuine "critic of Islam" would be happy to engage with.  But you do not; instead you target me with your BS.  

With this type of propagandists you can often prove them wrong by simply reading the preceding verse and the following verse. Verse 4:90

"Except those who join a group between whom and you there is a treaty (of peace), or those who approach you with hearts restraining them from fighting you as well as fighting their own people. If Allah had pleased, He could have given them power over you, and they would have fought you: Therefore if they withdraw from you but fight you not, and (instead) send you (Guarantees of) peace, then Allah Hath opened no way for you (to war against them)."

[GostHacked]

40 minutes ago, Argus said:

They might consider themselves civilized. No one else does, except the moderate countries, and they're going downhill.

No, but government actions and laws do. And all of the governments of these countries are becoming more Islamist.

It could very well be that bombing these nations is making them turn a different corner and go down more extremist ideologies. Maybe that's the intent of the War On Terror, make them more extreme in order to justify going in and bombing them some more.  I mean it's worked in Afghanistan, Syria, Libya, Yemen. We call one side terrorist (Iran) while sucking the D of other terrorists (Saudi Arabia) and try to claim the high ground through it all (which is totally Hippocratic) .

 

[Michael Hardner]

3 hours ago, GostHacked said:

uebec seems to be taking secularism to another level with banning religious symbols for public servants. To me this seems fair as they are banning all religious symbols. If you are really religious, then public service is not the route you should take if it goes against your values or religion.

I don't agree.  Clothing is personal and workplaces shouldn't have complete authority.  Even then they didn't grandfather in these changes, so one year to retirement?  Sorry bud...

[Argus]

3 hours ago, GostHacked said:

It could very well be that bombing these nations is making them turn a different corner and go down more extremist ideologies. Maybe that's the intent of the War On Terror, make them more extreme in order to justify going in and bombing them some more.  I mean it's worked in Afghanistan, Syria, Libya, Yemen. We call one side terrorist (Iran) while sucking the D of other terrorists (Saudi Arabia) and try to claim the high ground through it all (which is totally Hippocratic) .

When was the last time Turkey was bombed? Or Egypt? Or Malaysia or Indonesia?

[GostHacked]

6 minutes ago, Argus said:

When was the last time Turkey was bombed? Or Egypt? Or Malaysia or Indonesia?

Or Saudi Arabia.

Malaysia and Indonesia are tech hubs and a lot of our technology comes from these two nations. A war there would mean a huge disruption in many IT areas. So since our nations depend on them for that, there is no bombing, no matter the internal strife in those nation.

We apparently don't need anything from Iran, so we can sanction the shit out of them until the nation dies. And bomb them if it does not work.

 

Edited June 24, 2019 by GostHacked

[Argus]

3 minutes ago, GostHacked said:

Or Saudi Arabia.

Malaysia and Indonesia are tech hubs and a lot of our technology comes from these two nations. A war there would mean a huge disruption in many IT areas. So since our nations depend on them for that, there is no bombing, no matter the internal strife in those nation.

We apparently don't need anything from Iran, so we can sanction the shit out of them until the nation dies. And bomb them if it does not work.

 

Your theory was that bombing, presumably ours, was behind their growing extremism. I pointed out none of the 'moderate' nations becoming more extreme has ever been bombed.

[GostHacked]

1 minute ago, Argus said:

Your theory was that bombing, presumably ours, was behind their growing extremism. I pointed out none of the 'moderate' nations becoming more extreme has ever been bombed.

If we can consider Saudi Arabia as moderate, we can call Iran moderate as well.

[Argus]

48 minutes ago, GostHacked said:

If we can consider Saudi Arabia as moderate, we can call Iran moderate as well.

What kind of an idiot calls Saudi Arabia moderate? Or Iran? Neither is even in the same galaxy as moderation.

Edited June 24, 2019 by Argus