Imam demands Ayaan Hirsi Ali death in pennsylvania.

Status
Not open for further replies.

FightyF

Banned
Chairman Yang said:
Ok, serious question to any Muslims who want to answer: how do you feel about the mandatory punishments for those who stop following Islam? Or is that not actually the correct interpretation?

According to the Islamic Penal code, anyone leaving Islam, but choosing to fight against Muslims in their own lands, is given the death penalty. It's pretty much a death penalty for treason.

The Hadith Riz posted isn't the basis for this law though. What that is considered a basis for is the fact that Muslims are forbidden to use fire as a weapon.

I have to respond to PM's earlier messages, I will have to bump that older thread, and I can answer all questions in that one.

What's wrong with disliking an ideology is that he has formed a new religion, in his own head, and labels it Islam, and then applies such beliefs against Muslims and Islam as it is in reality.

That's the biggest issue here.
 

BocoDragon

or, How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Realize This Assgrab is Delicious
Fight for Freeform said:
I have to respond to PM's earlier messages, I will have to bump that older thread, and I can answer all questions in that one.

What's wrong with disliking an ideology is that he has formed a new religion, in his own head, and labels it Islam, and then applies such beliefs against Muslims and Islam as it is in reality.

That's the biggest issue here.
He's not inventing it. He is talking about an aspect of Islam which exists. Whether or not it is a common expression of Islam, or if it only a small picture of how people believe, is up to you to decide....
 

SRG01

Member
I skipped over a bunch of posts (I'll come back to it in a bit), but I'm wondering if the versions of translations should be noted since I've heard that the Quran can be wholly different depending on who did the translation. Is this right?
 

SRG01

Member
BocoDragon said:
He's not inventing it. He is talking about an aspect of Islam which exists. Whether or not it is a common expression of Islam, or if it only a small picture of how people believe, is up to you to decide....

Right. The conundrum is whether or not the world (or Islam in this case) is entirely made of special cases, or if there's some fundamental shared trait to be isolated and defined.

To bring my own experiences to this discussion, it is similar to trying to define what Buddhism is after over two millenia in existence.
 

Macam

Banned
Even though I clicked this thread before and was aware of the thread, as exhausted as I am, I misread the thread title as "Imus demands Ayaan Hirsi Ali death in pennsylvania." Man, that would've been another pointless week of news.
 

BocoDragon

or, How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Realize This Assgrab is Delicious
SRG01 said:
To bring my own experiences to this discussion, it is similar to trying to define what Buddhism is after over two millenia in existence.

An excellent comparison... it sounds like we've come to similar conclusions on that. There are so many types of "Buddhists" out there, from zen monks, to sunday worshippers of deity-Buddhas, to post-modern western philosopher-hippies, to cambodian warriors, to Tibetan and Indian supernaturalists.... It certainly is both philosophy and religion, one or the other, or perhaps both, depending on where you look.

This was a remarkably "self aware" religion that nonetheless became many things over the years.... This informs us that we should avoid painting each religion with broad strokes. (though even this fact has implication for certain religions, especially the ones which urge you to view the totality of adherants as one holy movement)
 

m0dus

Banned
PhlegmMaster said:
The opposite is true. Islam seen as being dictated by the Quran alone is somewhere between what fundies like the Imam and moderates like RiZ think it is, and Islam seen as including the dictates of the Hadith and the Sharia is much worse than that.

Yeah, no. You're understanding of Islam is filtered through a seive, and frankly, pulling isolated verses off the internet (translated into english, no less. by whom? for what purpose? Who's interpretation?) without any sense of context for their meaning does none of us a favor. The Quran, taken out of the context and verse of the original Arabic, is spurious for your citations, at best, and not even acknowledged as being the authentic verse. If I recall correctly, if a page is lost from a quran, the entire book must be burned so that the incomplete message is not spread.

You seem to have a twisted sense of what Muslims see as 'religious decree,' and 'suggestions for behavior.' I won't be foolish enough to attempt to change your perspective--you've made up your mind, and that's apparent. But whatever religion it is you profess to speak against, it is wholly foreign to the one I have lived with all my life. And that includes everyone from my closest family, to distant relatives, ancestors, and acquaintances.
 

Macam

Banned
btw, has anyone read Infidel? I've been itching to read it while it's still relatively timely and popular, but haven't gotten around to it yet. Just curious as to people's thoughts on it, whether it's any good, etc.
 

Diafel

Banned
Phlegmmaster, you don't know the history of TRUE Islam. I do.

tomiy2.jpg
 

HokieJoe

Member
Chairman Yang said:
I think it's more accurate to say that he's an Islam hater. But what's wrong with disliking an ideology, exactly?


Hmm, harkening back to another thread I got the impression that he just hated religion or the idea of God. I could be wrong though, so do clarify if I'm incorrect Phlegm.
 

FightyF

Banned
BocoDragon said:
He's not inventing it. He is talking about an aspect of Islam which exists. Whether or not it is a common expression of Islam, or if it only a small picture of how people believe, is up to you to decide....

My issue is that even Muslims who are radical in their beliefs, don't use the same verses he does, to base their beliefs on. A great example is post #27, where PM claims that it encourages violence against non-Muslims, when all Muslims see that as God promising Hellfire for mischievous (as defined in those verses, as those religious leaders who devour the wealth of those who depend on them) religious leaders of Christians and Jews (who were, according to Islam, favoured by God and expected to preach the Word of God).

He also makes the false claim that these verses do not favour religious freedom and belief, when obviously it doesn't even speak about the subject.

Even the most hardline radical Muslims believe that Christians and Jews should live under Muslim protection, in a Muslim nation.

Those are just a few examples. I'll have respond to an earlier topic before I can respond to this one though.

In the earlier topic, Phlegm conceded that his understanding was incorrect, so I am happy to respond to his other concerns as it shows me that he's actually paying attention and is open to learning.
 

BocoDragon

or, How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Realize This Assgrab is Delicious
Fight for Freeform said:
My issue is that even Muslims who are radical in their beliefs, don't use the same verses he does, to base their beliefs on. A great example is post #27, where PM claims that it encourages violence against non-Muslims, when all Muslims see that as God promising Hellfire for mischievous (as defined in those verses, as those religious leaders who devour the wealth of those who depend on them) religious leaders of Christians and Jews (who were, according to Islam, favoured by God and expected to preach the Word of God).

He also makes the false claim that these verses do not favour religious freedom and belief, when obviously it doesn't even speak about the subject.

Even the most hardline radical Muslims believe that Christians and Jews should live under Muslim protection, in a Muslim nation.

Those are just a few examples. I'll have respond to an earlier topic before I can respond to this one though.

In the earlier topic, Phlegm conceded that his understanding was incorrect, so I am happy to respond to his other concerns as it shows me that he's actually paying attention and is open to learning.

While I'm sure you might interpret it in this way... don't you think that some Muslims in the world probably do believe what PM asserts?

I still think it is like the Christian Bible. We have some debatably peaceful passages. we have some debatably violent passages. People of different mindsets will cherish different parts and interpret passages differently. Many will not read the holy book at all, but will adopt the assumptions of their immediate culture, a "popular" interpretation of their religion....

I just don't think there is one Islam. Perhaps your interpretation is the correct viewpoint of the Quran, but don't you think other Muslims are just as capable as making the same "mistake" as PM?
 

FightyF

Banned
BocoDragon said:
While I'm sure you might interpret it in this way... don't you think that some Muslims in the world probably do believe what PM asserts?

Some of what he asserts, yes. But some of his assertions, such as the one where Islam looks at children being enemies of parents, doesn't exist at all in any Muslim denomination.

I still think it is like the Christian Bible. We have some debatably peaceful passages. we have some debatably violent passages. People of different mindsets will cherish different parts and interpret passages differently. Many will not read the holy book at all, but will adopt the assumptions of their immediate culture, a "popular" interpretation of their religion....

I just don't think there is one Islam. Perhaps your interpretation is the correct viewpoint of the Quran, but don't you think other Muslims are just as capable as making the same "mistake" as PM?

You have to realize that there are volumes and volumes written on the many subjects that Islam, as a belief system, covers. I'm not arguing my personal interpretation, but widely regarded interpretations. I'm reading a book on Islamic Penal code, and none of it is my interpretation. I've just reiterated what I've read in this thread.

There are many actions and habits of Muslims in Muslim nations that they claim they are doing "in the name of God", but there is absolutely no evidence in scripture for their actions. To blame Islam for that, is nonsensical. It has nothing to do with interpretations, as there was nothing to interpret. These ideologies and such, spawned on their own. Here's an example, in Bangladesh, there is an issue where some Muslims go to graves, and create shrines there. They often pray at these shrines, and revere these dead people more than what is considered acceptable in Islam. Sometimes, these dead people are prayed to for guidance. It has nothing to do with scripture, or Islamic teachings, but these people feel that this is their religious duty. Now, imagine some non-Muslim looking at Quran and Hadith, and then claiming that these actions are based on scripture. It would be silly since the Mullahs and Imams that promote this ritual don't use scripture at all, but rather they have their own line of logic, that, in their minds is sufficient evidence to perform such rituals.

A very clear example is the religious rulings (fatwas, you are probably familiar with the term) on the part of Hamas regarding suicide bombings. They claim that it is a legitimate tactic, not supported by scripture, but rather their own "logic" and "reasoning". They themselves word it as "a lesser evil" as compared to watching their fellow people be oppressed. Whereas in the Quran it is clear that suicide is forbidden, and in Hadith it's clear that in a war, women and children cannot be killed, and secondly that even nature itself must not be destroyed.

Many actions on the part of Muslims, that they consider to be a "religious" teaching, aren't based on scripture in the first place. Honour killings and female circumcision are other examples. The people doing them think that it's a religious ritual, but there is no evidence for that. So it has nothing to do with interpretations.

There are issues with interpretations, and again, volumes have been written on these subjects with all the various views. An example would be if whether or not Muslims can wear perfume with alcohol in it. Some scholars say no, that there are alternatives so why bother and that scripture suggests alternatives (musk), and other say yes, because scripture says we cannot consume alcohol, but nothing against touching or wearing it.

There are many issues in Muslim nations, some apparent to the West, and some aren't (like racism). To claim that they are based on scripture when 1) one hasn't even read the scripture to begin with, 2) don't understand how lengthy of a process it is to derive interpretations and how much context and background information is brought to each and every verse, and 3) that the fundamental and basic teachings of Islam contradict such accusations, is very frustrating for Muslims because most of it is based on ignorance, and not based on any understanding of the religion.
 

FightyF

Banned
RiZ III said:
This is news to me..

There isn't any Muslim denomination, or movement (ie. Tabligh, Brotherhood, Salafi, Wahhabi), that believes that Jews and Christians should be wiped out, or any of that sort. They all agree that in Muslim nations, they are under the Muslim's protection.

-addendum-
I apologize for my abuse of the comma in the post above this one. :p
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom