Support NeoGAF

[crazy monkey]

I wish Hitchens would make a movie/documentary on theology. He seems to be a bit more respectful to religion than Dawkins while still giving it guff.

are this two guys god for atheist or something?

 

[crazy monkey]

No. Though, I honestly think some of their patronizing borders on religiosity and theology - almost - in the way they sometimes take a blind approach to their beliefs. Same with their supporters. But a lot of what they say is important and has truth to it. I suggest divulging their material even if you're a theist.

um I did read up and have watched some shows.

 

[Anaxagoras]

I wish Hitchens would make a movie/documentary on theology. He seems to be a bit more respectful to religion than Dawkins while still giving it guff.

Collision: Christopher Hitchens vs. Douglas Wilson
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fkGPceR-pIs

I watched it, nothing new but it was still ok, I expected a lot more from him to be honest.

Here is a new interview by Richard:
Richard Dawkins Interviews Creationist Wendy Wright (Part 1/7)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YFjoEgYOgRo

I think that you will change the image that you have of him after watching this one, he was very polite, patient, careful and didn't attack whenever he got a chance to.
If you don't have time then at least watch part 7/7, it wont spoil anything really but you will understand what I mean about his attitudes as a scientist and as an atheist.

I will be watching the Aljazeera English program on Islam in America after I grab myself another two beers, so thanks for the links!

 

[Ashes]

stuff about creation

I thought using the word day was not as accurate as to call it a period of time:
[041:009] Say, “Do you dare to disbelieve in the One Who created the earth in two periods of time? Do you dare to set up others as His equal? It is the Lord of the universe (you have dared to disobey)!”
[041:010] He firmly fixed mountains on the earth, that rise high above its surface, and He blessed the earth. He made arrangements to supply the nourishment needs (for all life forms ever to exist on the earth) in four periods of time. Without exception, (He apportions food) to all who ask for it.

And also how do you account for god being outside the realm of time? I suppose it was up to the interpreter to make the best of what he was dealt with.

 

[Anaxagoras]

They're not really "god". They don't tell anyone how their moral code should be. THey're just figureheads.

btw,"Warning: Visiting this site may harm your computer!"

I get that when I enter this thread. wtf.

They are the Gods of the Godless.

Its probably a gif or an ad try f5, I can't see anything here, chrome.

 

[Shanadeus]

There are other schools of thought. I'm lazy.. google came up with this:

http://www.submission.org/women/mis.html

That doesn't really cast islam in a better light, the following is directly quoted from the website:

[4:34] The men are made responsible for the women, and GOD has endowed them with certain qualities, and made them the bread earners. The righteous women will cheerfully accept this arrangement, since it is GOD's commandment, and honor their husbands during their absence. If you experience rebellion from the women, you shall first talk to them, then (you may use negative incentives like) deserting them in bed, then you may (as a last alternative) beat them. If they obey you, you are not permitted to transgress against them. GOD is Most High, Supreme.

...According to 4:34 even if the husband has a good reason, he is not allowed to lay a hand on his wife until he has passed all the previous steps.

It doesn't matter how many steps it takes (3), the very existence of the last step is an abhorrence.

[ 2:282] O you who believe, when you transact a loan for any period, you shall write it down. An impartial scribe shall do the writing. ........ Two men shall serve as witnesses; if not two men, then a man and two women whose testimony is acceptable to all. Thus, if one woman becomes biased, the other will remind her. It is the obligation of the witnesses to testify when called upon to do so.

Financial transactions are the ONLY situations where two women may substitute for one man as witness. This is to guard against the real possibility that one witness may marry the other witness, and thus cause her to be biased. It is a recognized fact that women are more emotionally vulnerable than men.

Oh how sexist, it's not like a male witness can marry the other witness right?

This is one of the most common misconceptions about Islam (Submission.) Quran strongly discourages polygamy. Polygamy was a way of life until the Quran was revealed 1400 years ago. It was advocated and practiced by the followers of the previous scriptures. Quran came to put the first scriptural limit on polygamy and discourages it as much as possible. Please see; Polygamy, the right way In all the scriptures, the men were allowed to have more than one wife and not vise verse, since the idea of polygamy then was to populate the earth. As we know a woman can be pregnant only once a year even if she is married to four men but one man can have four children in the process at the same time if he is married to four wives. Polygamy was never meant to be abused for sexual pleasure or prove superiority. The emotional make up of a man makes him acceptable to polygamy and the opposite is true for women who prefer a monogamous relationship.

I fully understand the way they reason, it's just a sexist reasoning that has no place in the modern world. What kind of drivel is that last part?
I'm pretty sure that there are a bunch of women that have the emotional make up to be acceptable to polygamy.

[2:222] They ask you about menstruation: say, "It is harmful; you shall avoid sexual intercourse with the women during menstruation; do not approach them until they are rid of it. Once they are rid of it, you may have intercourse with them in the manner designed by GOD. GOD loves the repenters, and He loves those who are clean."

The first part of this verse teaches us that it's harmful to have sexual relations during menstruation. If you ask any doctor, Muslim or not, about having intercourse during this period, he or she will tell you that it's harmful for both the man and the woman.

Blatant lies, having intercourse during the period has actually been shown to relieve menstrual cramps and pains as well as help expel the menstrual blood more rapidly, thus ending a woman's period sooner than if she had not had sex.

 

[Ashes]

There are other schools of thought. I'm lazy and sleepy. Try google. :lol

 

[Anaxagoras]

I thought using the word day was not as accurate as to call it a period of time:
[041:009] Say, “Do you dare to disbelieve in the One Who created the earth in two periods of time? Do you dare to set up others as His equal? It is the Lord of the universe (you have dared to disobey)!”
[041:010] He firmly fixed mountains on the earth, that rise high above its surface, and He blessed the earth. He made arrangements to supply the nourishment needs (for all life forms ever to exist on the earth) in four periods of time. Without exception, (He apportions food) to all who ask for it.

And also how do you account for god being outside the realm of time? I suppose it was up to the interpreter to make the best of what he was dealt with.

I didn't need to quantify what the period or day stands for in order to reach this conclusion.
The verses do actually show the sequence of the creation so no matter what you consider the period to be the earth will still be the oldest mass object in the universe according to the Quran:

قُلۡ أَٮِٕنَّكُمۡ لَتَكۡفُرُونَ بِٱلَّذِى خَلَقَ ٱلۡأَرۡضَ فِى يَوۡمَيۡنِ وَتَجۡعَلُونَ لَهُ ۥۤ أَندَادً۬ا‌ۚ ذَٲلِكَ رَبُّ ٱلۡعَـٰلَمِينَ

Say (O Muhammad, unto the idolaters): Disbelieve ye verily in Him Who created the earth in two Days, and ascribe ye unto Him rivals? He (and none else) is the Lord of the Worlds.

وَجَعَلَ فِيہَا رَوَٲسِىَ مِن فَوۡقِهَا وَبَـٰرَكَ فِيہَا وَقَدَّرَ فِيہَآ أَقۡوَٲتَہَا فِىٓ أَرۡبَعَةِ أَيَّامٍ۬ سَوَآءً۬ لِّلسَّآٮِٕلِينَ

He placed therein firm hills rising above it, and blessed it and measured therein its sustenance in four Days, alike for (all) who ask;

ثُمَّ ٱسۡتَوَىٰٓ إِلَى ٱلسَّمَآءِ وَهِىَ دُخَانٌ۬ فَقَالَ لَهَا وَلِلۡأَرۡضِ ٱئۡتِيَا طَوۡعًا أَوۡ كَرۡهً۬ا قَالَتَآ أَتَيۡنَا طَآٮِٕعِينَ

Then turned He to the heaven when it was smoke, and said unto it and unto the earth: Come both of you, willingly or loth. They said: We come, obedient.

فَقَضَٮٰهُنَّ سَبۡعَ سَمَـٰوَاتٍ۬ فِى يَوۡمَيۡنِ وَأَوۡحَىٰ فِى كُلِّ سَمَآءٍ أَمۡرَهَا‌ۚ وَزَيَّنَّا ٱلسَّمَآءَ ٱلدُّنۡيَا بِمَصَـٰبِيحَ وَحِفۡظً۬ا‌ۚ ذَٲلِكَ تَقۡدِيرُ ٱلۡعَزِيزِ ٱلۡعَلِيمِ

Then He ordained them seven heavens in two Days and inspired in each heaven its mandate; and We decked the nether heaven with lamps, and rendered it inviolable. That is the measuring of the Mighty, the Knower.

I mean I don't know who created me, I don't even know if I was created intensionally by a God in the first place, but what I know is that there are different answers to these questions and they all contradict each other, so they can't be all true at the same time.
So in order to know what is true from what is false we have to rely on reason and science, and in this case science has proven these verses to be false and thus the whole trust system that is built by the Quran has cracked and I no longer can consider it to be the truth.

 

[crazy monkey]

same nizar

universe before universe. time before time. Creation before creation. hologram before object.

 

[Ashes]

...

I suppose what I was getting at was 'time'.

Yours is one interpretation. Sure. But you appear to imply that it is the only interpretation- and by conjecture all of it is false.
You are aware of course that there are other schools of thought? The word 'then' appears to be the problem here. There are other interpretations. And you can keep in 'days' if you like.

Yusuf Ali:
Moreover He comprehended in His design the sky, and it had been (as) smoke: He said to it and to the earth: "Come ye together, willingly or unwillingly." They said: "We do come (together), in willing obedience."

Here, it could mean the environment here on earth. And not about the universe at the moment after the big bang. I'm playing the part of conjecturer just like you are. And you can point to me and say that it is wrong.

and following the above:
Yusuf Ali:
So He completed them as seven firmaments in two Days, and He assigned to each heaven its duty and command. And We adorned the lower heaven with lights, and (provided it) with guard. Such is the Decree of (Him) the Exalted in Might, Full of Knowledge.

We have seven heavens now. Seven layers of heaven? Seven universes? or seven celestial things like planets etc that critics have alluded to. or something else.
You can say that this version is incorrect. You can say that.
But for the Muslim, the search for the truth carries on if he believes in it.

 

[gumshoe]

I suppose what I was getting at was 'time'.

Yours is one interpretation. Sure. But you appear to imply that it is the only interpretation- and by conjecture all of it is false.
You are aware of course that there are other schools of thought? The word 'then' appears to be the problem here. There are other interpretations. And you can keep in 'days' if you like.

Yusuf Ali:
Moreover He comprehended in His design the sky, and it had been (as) smoke: He said to it and to the earth: "Come ye together, willingly or unwillingly." They said: "We do come (together), in willing obedience."

Here, it could mean the environment here on earth. And not about the universe at the moment after the big bang. I'm playing the part of conjecturer just like you are. And you can point to me and say that it is wrong.

and following the above:
Yusuf Ali:
So He completed them as seven firmaments in two Days, and He assigned to each heaven its duty and command. And We adorned the lower heaven with lights, and (provided it) with guard. Such is the Decree of (Him) the Exalted in Might, Full of Knowledge.

We have seven heavens now. Seven layers of heaven? Seven universes? or seven celestial things like planets etc that critics have alluded to. or something else.
You can say that this version is incorrect. You can say that.
But for the Muslim, the search for the truth carries on if he believes in it.

Yeah, the Quran isn't a science book or something like that. We are supposed to reflect on how the world is in order.

The descriptions of creation in the Qur'an are not intended as dry historical accounts, but rather to engage the reader in contemplating the lessons to be learned from it. The act of creation, therefore, is frequently spoken of as a way of drawing the reader into thinking about the order in all things, and the All-Knowing Creator Who is behind it all.

http://islam.about.com/od/creation/a/creation.htm

 

[Aurora]

Yeah I really don't see how polygamy being reserved for the man can ever be justified in a modern world.

I once heard a Muslim cleric justify it on grounds of population, saying that since more women exist in the world than men it is only natural that men should have more partners. Surely this nonsense wouldn't convince anyone with half a brain cell.

 

[gumshoe]

Yeah I really don't see how polygamy being reserved for the man can ever be justified in a modern world.

I once heard a Muslim cleric justify it on grounds of population, saying that since more women exist in the world than men it is only natural that men should have more partners. Surely this nonsense wouldn't convince anyone with half a brain cell.

:lol :lol

It has to do with the fact that God created men and women differently. Each gender has its strengths and flaws. Women have strengths that Men don't and vice versa. When it comes to marriage a man is the one that is supposed to support his family, and a woman can obviously help out. A man is physically stronger than a woman and he can endure the responsibilities of taking care of a family (and in many cases a woman can do that too), but imagine if you have to take care of two or more families. I can see a man doing that with no problem if he has the money and the will. But for a woman... I don't know if I can see that happening. She would have to go around from one husband to the other, different set of kids, etc... It would be more of a burden than a blessing for her. It would be both emotionally and physically draining. And we also have to take into consideration that one of the men she is married to might be married to another one (see where this is going??).

I can go into more detail about why women can't marry more than one man (at a time), but I really have to study. :lol It is not that Islam is trying to put them down. It is the opposite. We are not trying to overburden them with responsibilities. God knows that men and women have weaknesses (He created them afterall) and there is a reason why He created them this way, otherwise He would have created one gender.

Also, polygamy in Islam isn't encouraged. But it is very useful at a time of crisis (war, disasters, etc..) It is a way for us to protect and provide for families without a father, vulnerable widows, old ladies.

 

[RustyNails]

Yeah, the Quran isn't a science book or something like that. We are supposed to reflect on how the world is in order.

I don't know why people can't understand this. In fact, during the time of a famous Muslim philosopher, some of his students asked him about the astronomy verses which at the time they thought were far fetched. Heavens and earth being joined at one point? Big bang? Stars having their own light? Earth, Planets and stars all moving around? etc. The Muslim philosopher rightly told them that there is much in the Universe we do not know and for the time being, we should accept the verses as they are and focus on the part of reflecting the creation. I forgot where I read this.

 

[Prine]

I suppose what I was getting at was 'time'.

Yours is one interpretation. Sure. But you appear to imply that it is the only interpretation- and by conjecture all of it is false.
You are aware of course that there are other schools of thought? The word 'then' appears to be the problem here. There are other interpretations. And you can keep in 'days' if you like.

Yusuf Ali:
Moreover He comprehended in His design the sky, and it had been (as) smoke: He said to it and to the earth: "Come ye together, willingly or unwillingly." They said: "We do come (together), in willing obedience."

Here, it could mean the environment here on earth. And not about the universe at the moment after the big bang. I'm playing the part of conjecturer just like you are. And you can point to me and say that it is wrong.

and following the above:
Yusuf Ali:
So He completed them as seven firmaments in two Days, and He assigned to each heaven its duty and command. And We adorned the lower heaven with lights, and (provided it) with guard. Such is the Decree of (Him) the Exalted in Might, Full of Knowledge.

We have seven heavens now. Seven layers of heaven? Seven universes? or seven celestial things like planets etc that critics have alluded to. or something else.
You can say that this version is incorrect. You can say that.
But for the Muslim, the search for the truth carries on if he believes in it.

This is the important part, as many astronomers and scientists with islamic belief used this as motivation to continue to doubt conventional understanding of the world, which lead them on to new discoveries. Did you by any chance watch BBC's documentary Science and Islam?? Theres a detailed report on these scientists approach and their referral to the Quran.

 

[Shanadeus]

:lol :lol

It has to do with the fact that God created men and women differently. Each gender has its strengths and flaws. Women have strengths that Men don't and vice versa. When it comes to marriage a man is the one that is supposed to support his family, and a woman can obviously help out. A man is physically stronger than a woman and he can endure the responsibilities of taking care of a family (and in many cases a woman can do that too), but imagine if you have to take care of two or more families. I can see a man doing that with no problem if he has the money and the will. But for a woman... I don't know if I can see that happening. She would have to go around from one husband to the other, different set of kids, etc... It would be more of a burden than a blessing for her. It would be both emotionally and physically draining. And we also have to take into consideration that one of the men she is married to might be married to another one (see where this is going??).

I can go into more detail about why women can't marry more than one man (at a time), but I really have to study. :lol It is not that Islam is trying to put them down. It is the opposite. We are not trying to overburden them with responsibilities. God knows that men and women have weaknesses (He created them afterall) and there is a reason why He created them this way, otherwise He would have created one gender.

Also, polygamy in Islam isn't encouraged. But it is very useful at a time of crisis (war, disasters, etc..) It is a way for us to protect and provide for families without a father, vulnerable widows, old ladies.

You are aware of that you are a misogynistic sexist now do you?
If an muslim woman takes care of a certain number of children comfortably, she might just as well take care of the same number even if they're from two different men.
And a system where a man would have several wives and where every wife has several husbands would be just excellent, creating large connected famillies that'd stretch thousands of people, reducing any feeling to bear a sword against them - their own familly members.

It might make perfect sense to allow polygamy 500 years ago or something, the issue is the existance of those verses today in the modern world. They are sexist and does not provide equal opportunity to both genders.

 

[Anaxagoras]

I suppose what I was getting at was 'time'.

Yours is one interpretation. Sure. But you appear to imply that it is the only interpretation- and by conjecture all of it is false.
You are aware of course that there are other schools of thought? The word 'then' appears to be the problem here. There are other interpretations. And you can keep in 'days' if you like.

Yusuf Ali:
Moreover He comprehended in His design the sky, and it had been (as) smoke: He said to it and to the earth: "Come ye together, willingly or unwillingly." They said: "We do come (together), in willing obedience."

Here, it could mean the environment here on earth. And not about the universe at the moment after the big bang. I'm playing the part of conjecturer just like you are. And you can point to me and say that it is wrong.

and following the above:
Yusuf Ali:
So He completed them as seven firmaments in two Days, and He assigned to each heaven its duty and command. And We adorned the lower heaven with lights, and (provided it) with guard. Such is the Decree of (Him) the Exalted in Might, Full of Knowledge.

We have seven heavens now. Seven layers of heaven? Seven universes? or seven celestial things like planets etc that critics have alluded to. or something else.
You can say that this version is incorrect. You can say that.
But for the Muslim, the search for the truth carries on if he believes in it.

No, I wasn't implying that that was the only it can be interpreted.
You are free to interpret it way you want to, you can even claim that these verses speak of the creation of the universe under the the theory of the big bounce:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bounce
Yo u can claim the each ''period'' or ''day'' is a bounce, in each bounce god created and add something, and in the latest god created stars out of the smoke.

This way you make these verses not only sound scientific but you can also claim that it is a miracle that it took scientist so long to reach such a theory when it was in the quran all this time.
You are free to believe that but you won't be fooling anyone but yourself.

Its just like the verse in the Quran where god permits men to beat women if they rebel them:
Quran 4:34:

Men are the managers of the affairs of women for that God has preferred in bounty one of them over another, and for that they have expended of their property. Righteous women are therefore obedient, guarding the secret for God's guarding. And those you fear may be rebellious admonish; banish them to their couches, and beat them. If they then obey you, look not for any way against them; God is All high, All great

And by reinterpreting you can get this:

Critics, like "Koran for Dummies" author Sohaib Sultan, argue that Bakhtiar's translation is a "modern-day revisionist report," saying other well-read translations of the Qur'an have always taken the word daraba to mean something physical. But Bakhtiar says the word has 17 different meanings, the most popular being "to separate."

http://www.beliefnet.com/Faiths/Islam/2007/07/Does-The-Quran-Tolerate-Domestic-Abuse.aspx

If anything at all, this just shows how god's holy message is totally open to interpretation and thus imperfect.

 

[Anaxagoras]

Yeah, the Quran isn't a science book or something like that. We are supposed to reflect on how the world is in order.

I will repost my response from the previous page:
Cooking books aren't science books either but if their claims are to be considered true then they shouldn't contradict with science, and if they did then you have to make the choice of either choosing faith that the books claims are true or choose reason and science which is a lot more reliable when it comes to understanding what is true and what is not.

 

[SmokyDave]

If anything at all, this just shows how god's holy message is totally open to interpretation and thus imperfect.

If I had a pound for every time I'd said that I'd be a rich man indeed.

Edit: Anaxagoras, if you've come in here to preach atheism I suspect you'll be a gone shortly. You should dial it back a bit (or completely).

 

[Anaxagoras]

I don't know why people can't understand this. In fact, during the time of a famous Muslim philosopher, some of his students asked him about the astronomy verses which at the time they thought were far fetched. Heavens and earth being joined at one point? Big bang? Stars having their own light? Earth, Planets and stars all moving around? etc. The Muslim philosopher rightly told them that there is much in the Universe we do not know and for the time being, we should accept the verses as they are and focus on the part of reflecting the creation. I forgot where I read this.

That was just stupid, and you are missing the whole point.

I am not willing to accept any answer to be true just because the question or event can not be explained scientifically.

 

[Anaxagoras]

If I had a pound for every time I'd said that I'd be a rich man indeed.

Edit: Anaxagoras, if you've come in here to preach atheism I suspect you'll be a gone shortly. You should dial it back a bit (or completely).

True, I should keep that in mind, thanks for the warning.

 

[Shanadeus]

True, I should keep that in mind, thanks for the warning.

With that said, showing that the Quran can be sexist and wrong isn't really preaching Atheism. So long as you keep things civil things should be okay.

 

[Kinitari]

I've had a question for a while, and I don't know how to ask it - because every time it gets brought up in GAF, someone gets banned. I don't want anyone to get banned, so I'll ask this as roundabout as I can.

What is the definition of an Islamic Apostate?

 

[Shanadeus]

I've had a question for a while, and I don't know how to ask it - because every time it gets brought up in GAF, someone gets banned. I don't want anyone to get banned, so I'll ask this as roundabout as I can.

What is the definition of an Islamic Apostate?

Apostasy in Islam (Arabic: ارتداد, irtidād or ridda&#8206 is commonly defined as the rejection in word or deed of their former religion (apostasy) by a person who was previously a follower of Islam.

The four major Sunni schools of Islamic jurisprudence (Madh'hab) all agree that apostasy is a sin as long as the individual does not do so in ignorance or under duress.[1][2] They also differentiate between harmful apostasy and harmless apostasy[3] (also known as major and minor apostasy).[1] According to Wael Hallaq nothing of the apostasy law are derived from the Qur'an,[4]

There you go

 

[crazy monkey]

just shows how god's holy message is totally open to interpretation

that is the point.

 

[Ashes]

If anything at all, this just shows how god's holy message is totally open to interpretation and thus imperfect.

You had it about right until there. Every Muslim/non Muslim should challenge the Quran. Of course they should. But to subtly imply that there are no differences in intelligence between one man and the next is incomprehensibly unwise.

 

[SmokyDave]

that is the point.

So if there is no definitive correct interpretation then presumably nobody is 'doing it wrong'?

You had it about right until there. Every Muslim/non Muslim should challenge the Quran. Of course they should. But to subtly imply that there are no differences in intelligence between one man and the next is incomprehensibly unwise.

See this is the bit I don't understand (yes, I confess to my ignorance). How on earth can a muslim challenge the Qur' an?

Presumably to be a muslim you need to believe that the Qur' an is the perfect word of God handed straight from Allah to Mohammed? If you believe that then surely challenging your God is just an invitation to eternal damnation?

Edit: I just want to clarify Ashes that I'm not challenging your assertion, I'm trying to understand it. It's my big islamic black hole, I just don't understand how you can challenge the Qur' an. You either challenge it and concede it's correct or you challenge it and believe yourself to be over and above your god (if you decide the Qur' an is wrong), surely?

 

[Ashes]

well were they not commanded by god to do so?
take ijtihad for instance...

 

[SmokyDave]

well were they not commanded by god to do so?
take ijtihad for instance...

Another concept practised differently by different types of muslim? A concept thats usage has changed throughout time?

That really isn't helping me understand.

 

[Ashes]

rephrase your question please. You've lost me....

 

[SmokyDave]

rephrase your question please. You've lost me....

Perhaps it'd be better to explain my thought process. Take this verse...

The adulteress and the adulterer you shall whip each of them a hundred lashes. Do not be swayed by pity from carrying out GOD's law, if you truly believe in GOD and the Last Day. And let a group of believers witness their penalty.

That is taken directly from the Qur 'an*. The translations do not vary enough to cast the intention of the passage into doubt. Given this, how can anyone interpret the punishment for adultery to be anything other than 100 lashes with a whip?

Yet if an adulteress is whipped 100 times in Saudi Arabia everyone is quick to point out that they are Wahabbi muslims and they're 'doing it wrong'. How can this statement have any more weight than 'they are doing it right' if there is no correct interpretation of the Qur 'an?

By not whipping the adulteress surely you are disobeying your god?

*This translation is Dr Rashad Khalifa Ph. D. but plenty of others are available. The main difference is lashes / stripes / strikes.

 

[Ashes]

Oh I see. You mean when a Muslim goes against the word of god. It has been done many times before.
I've seen it be argued that the point stressed there is not the 100 lashes, but public humiliation.

 

[Anaxagoras]

You had it about right until there. Every Muslim/non Muslim should challenge the Quran. Of course they should. But to subtly imply that there are no differences in intelligence between one man and the next is incomprehensibly unwise.

Challenge the Quran the way I challenge it?

Taram tum dum!
*audience laughs*

What is the point of God's third try at providing us with a perfect copy of his message if it is this open to interpretation? anyone can interpret it to the point that it can justify anything and loose its ''original'' meaning.

If you consider the interpretation of it that you follow to be the true one, I am sure that there are a lot of Muslims who disagree with you on that interpretation.

At the end of the day, there are several different interpretation that contradict one another and thus can not all be true. What a fair and perfect God he is. It looks more like the creation of a man than anything else remotely close to a creation by the ''creator'' of this universe.

If the Quran's imperfection is what makes it perfect to you, then it is perfect only in your mind.

 

[Darackutny]

Yet if an adulteress is whipped 100 times in Saudi Arabia everyone is quick to point out that they are Wahabbi muslims and they're 'doing it wrong'. How can this statement have any more weight than 'they are doing it right' if there is no correct interpretation of the Qur 'an?

*claps*

You and Nizar and both doing a good job at pointing out that there is such a thing as a correct interpretation.

Some verses in there are clear and some really aren't, the Qur'an itself points the out:

3:7 - He it is Who hath revealed unto thee (Muhammad) the Scripture wherein are clear revelations - they are the substance of the Book - band others (which are) allegorical. But those in whose hearts is doubt pursue, forsooth, that which is allegorical seeking (to cause) dissension by seeking to explain it. None knoweth its explanation save Allah. And those who are of sound instruction say: We believe therein; the whole is from our Lord; but only men of understanding really heed.

Furthermore, some of the mutashabih verses are explained elsewhere, as stated here:

41:3 - A Scripture whereof the verses are expounded, a Lecture in Arabic for people who have knowledge,

Scholars believe that this verse is pointing us towards the hadith, because the Qur'an alone contains too many vague passages. Take for example the verses that speak of prayer or the pilgrammage. They don't speak of the specific details like the number of prostrations or how many times one goes around the Ka'aba.

The Qur'an also condemns differences of opinions:

11:118-119 - And if thy Lord had willed, He verily would have made mankind one nation, yet they cease not differing, Save him on whom thy Lord hath mercy...

So, it is pretty strange when one argues that there are many differences of opinion and that this is the beauty of Islam. I believe that the main reason some Muslims here are doing that is because they are playing defensive and would much rather be accepted by the "public" than admit that their religion teaches morals that are seen as "barbaric" or "out dated". You atheists should be proud that some of these Muslims care about your opinions enough that they would twist their views in order to satisfy you.

 

[Anaxagoras]

We call it imperfection, you call it beauty.

 

[kobashi100]

HT calls Ummah to re-establish Khilafah to end tyranny & chaos in Muslim world

London, UK, March 3rd 2010 – Today marks 86 years since the colonialist agent Mustafa Kamal abolished the Islamic Khilafah state in Turkey. Since then, the Muslim Ummah has endured division, occupation, economic stagnation and foreign domination. However, thanks to Allah (swt), evidence points to an unstoppable momentum for change and a greater call for the Shariah, Islam, and Khilafah.

Commenting on this important anniversary, Taji Mustafa, media representative of Hizb ut-Tahrir Britain said, “Since 1924, we have ended up divided into more than fifty weak and insignificant states whose rulers have systematically colluded with colonial powers against their own people, as our brothers and sisters have been massacred in Palestine, Iraq, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Somalia, and elsewhere. Without the Khilafah, we are without a shield, exposed to the most vicious colonialist attacks.“

“However, things are changing across the Muslim world and the signs of Islamic revival are there for all to see. The Ummah can see the failure of global Capitalism as the financial crisis unleashed a disaster upon humanity. The Ummah has seen the false promises of ‘freedom and democracy’ exposed in the prisons of Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo.”

"Re-establishing the Khilafah in the Muslim lands is a collective obligation on this Ummah. In addition to this, many can now see what the absence of this Islamic institution has meant. It is an astonishing fact that the Muslim world possesses approximately 20% of the world’s population, over 60% of the world’s oil reserves and 55% of gas reserves, approximately 37% of the world’s gold reserves, and almost 25% of the world’s defence personnel. Yet, weak, divided and colonised as it is, it possesses little political influence and has no leadership to harness these bountiful resources."

"The Khilafah is the alternative to corruption and tyranny in the Muslim world and it is only the Khilafah that can take power away from the feudal landowners and tyrant rulers, implement a real rule of law, produce economic prosperity for the many and not the few and ensure political decisions on the future of the Muslim world are made in places like Cairo, Istanbul and Islamabad, not London or Washington. It is time we work to re-establish the Khilafah and blow away the suffocation of the past nine decades.”

“Hizb ut-Tahrir is now leading the global call for the Khilafah. The Muslim Ummah has embraced the party and its call is heard all across the Muslim world from Palestine to Islamabad to Jakarta. It is now time for this Ummah, with Hizb ut-Tahrir, to give the final push to remove the corrupt regimes that are the only obstacle to a new leadership and vision for the Muslim ummah.”

Prophet Muhammad (saw) said “Then there will be a rightly-guided Khilafah upon the ways of the Prophethood” [Ahmad]

 

[Ashes]

Oh I think I'm beginning to see what various people are saying here.
There will be a difference between the way a Muslim challenges the Quran, a neutral who seeks the truth, and people who believe that the quran is written by a man.

A Muslim thinks it is the word of god, so he seeks the true interpretation. It is always the perfect word to him; it is man's failure not to understand the correct meaning. And say when treatments about adultery are interspersed in a poem about light, what does this really mean? Is this literal? is this allegorical? symbolic?

A neutral who seeks the truth keeps pointing out the possible mis steps people may be taking. He also step on both sides of the divide it seems. He may point to other schools of thought or even ask how or whether a Muslim can challenge the quran..

And people who believe that the quran is written by man, approach the challenge as if it can only be by man. They don't seek to explore possible meanings but only the ones that matches their ambition. And to be fair all three do this more or less.

 

[AKingNamedPaul]

Just stumbled over this thread and I have a few questions for anyone listening.

1. What do you feel is the point of religion?
2. Do you think that these books are symbolic, much more so than literal?
3. How well do you understand the teachings?
4. What is the origin of Islam?
5. What does it mean to be human being to you?
6. What does god mean to you?

 

[Anaxagoras]

Just stumbled over this thread and I have a few questions for anyone listening.

I guess I can give it a try.

1. What do you feel is the point of religion?

Well, to answer this I would prefer to expand a little bit more on this question.

Back in time people gathered around the fire to share their stories, these stories carried lessons on anything from morals, history, surviving to answers about life and nature, and these stories were passed down from the elderly to the younger generations.
It satisfied their needs of social awareness, and hunger for truth and knowledge.

People at the time tried to explain how and why nature behaved the way it did in different ways but it usually was explained through supernatural means. This knowledge, just like knowing how to start a fir, fish and attract them ladies, often offered its provider a higher social status among his social circle.

People at the time couldn't distinguish between pure coincidence and the cause and the effect, a hunter couldn't properly understand if it was the fact that it was a clear moon night or the fact that he washed his hunting equipment in a specific 'holy' river that made him succeed at hunting that night.

6000 years ago people developed the ability to write and read, and a lot of this 'knowledge' was saved and passed down. A lot of the thinkers disagreed with those books and teachings and gave their own answers, and of course they were rewarded as well with higher social statuses among their followers.

People started trading and some of the successful 'holy' books and other natural and supernatural philosophies were passed around which contributed a lot to what we have today as Holy books.

Some took advantage and merged together their own versions and promised safety and fairness to its followers as well as after life rewards. A lot of these books till this day are considered holy and sacred, their followers have also developed their own rituals and practices to strengthen the society around its followers.

Also, people started to experiment in hopes of becoming more successful hunters and so on, they started developing what we have know today as the scientific method. Their better understanding of nature also allowed them to explain nature without involving supernaturals, and thats how we got the natural philosophers.

So till this day we have conflicts between naturals and supernaturals believers if you can say so.

So to answer your question:
For the writers: higher social status and power.
For the believer: Safety, fairness and comfort.

2. Do you think that these books are symbolic, much more so than literal?

Failed attempts at explaining nature, life and providing moral guidelines, nothing more.

3. How well do you understand the teachings?

Of Islam? As an ex-muslim I would say I have a good understanding, above the average at least.

4. What is the origin of Islam?

Pass.

5. What does it mean to be human being to you?

I don't really know..

6. What does god mean to you?

Pass.

 

[SmokyDave]

Thank you very much Darackutny and Ashes for your responses. I feel I understand the interpretation issue a little better.

HT calls Ummah to re-establish Khilafah to end tyranny & chaos in Muslim world

Commenting on this important anniversary, Taji Mustafa, media representative of Hizb ut-Tahrir Britain said, “Since 1924, we have ended up divided into more than fifty weak and insignificant states whose rulers have systematically colluded with colonial powers against their own people, as our brothers and sisters have been massacred in Palestine, Iraq, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Somalia, and elsewhere. Without the Khilafah, we are without a shield, exposed to the most vicious colonialist attacks.“

The idea of a caliphate disgusts me. Treating people separately according to their religion is something that we're supposed to be fighting against isn't it?

To hear a fellow Brit talking about vicious colonialist attacks is confusing the shit out of me too. Is this person a time-traveller from 1830?

 

[Anaxagoras]

Treating people separately according to their religion is something that we're supposed to be fighting against isn't it?

Not if you get after life rewards!

To hear a fellow Brit talking about vicious colonialist attacks is confusing the shit out of me too. Is this person a time-traveller from 1830?

I think it has a lot to do with what he reads.

 

[AKingNamedPaul]

I guess I can give it a try.


Well, to answer this I would prefer to expand a little bit more on this question.

Back in time people gathered around the fire to share their stories, these stories carried lessons on anything from morals, history, surviving to answers about life and nature, and these stories were passed down from the elderly to the younger generations.
It satisfied their needs of social awareness, and hunger for truth and knowledge.

People at the time tried to explain how and why nature behaved the way it did in different ways but it usually was explained through supernatural means. This knowledge, just like knowing how to start a fir, fish and attract them ladies, often offered its provider a higher social status among his social circle.

People at the time couldn't distinguish between pure coincidence and the cause and the effect, a hunter couldn't properly understand if it was the fact that it was a clear moon night or the fact that he washed his hunting equipment in a specific 'holy' river that made him succeed at hunting that night.

6000 years ago people developed the ability to write and read, and a lot of this 'knowledge' was saved and passed down. A lot of the thinkers disagreed with those books and teachings and gave their own answers, and of course they were rewarded as well with higher social statuses among their followers.

People started trading and some of the successful 'holy' books and other natural and supernatural philosophies were passed around which contributed a lot to what we have today as Holy books.

Some took advantage and merged together their own versions and promised safety and fairness to its followers as well as after life rewards. A lot of these books till this day are considered holy and sacred, their followers have also developed their own rituals and practices to strengthen the society around its followers.

Also, people started to experiment in hopes of becoming more successful hunters and so on, they started developing what we have know today as the scientific method. Their better understanding of nature also allowed them to explain nature without involving supernaturals, and thats how we got the natural philosophers.

So till this day we have conflicts between naturals and supernaturals believers if you can say so.

So to answer your question:
For the writers: higher social status and power.
For the believer: Safety, fairness and comfort.



Failed attempts at explaining nature, life and providing moral guidelines, nothing more.



Of Islam? As an ex-muslim I would say I have a good understanding, above the average at least.


Pass.


I don't really know..


Pass.

I would really like for you to answer to the best of your ability, the questions you passed on, or if you could explain better why you choose not to answer them.

 

[Anaxagoras]

Hello zapages, I missed you to be honest.

Anyway, while browsing through this thread I stumbled upon this post that you made earlier, I don't think that it has been answered properly so I am going to bring back back from the middle ages and respond to it.

I don't know if you changed your opinion or understanding by now but I hope this helps anyway.

How can universe just occur without something triggering, that would be very ignorant for us to think that ways at least in my opinion.

No, to claim and to accept that the universe was created by a God no matter what the evidence suggests or the lack of it is ignorance.
Accepting that we do not know enough to take a position or claim knowledge with certainty is open-mindedness.

If we would think if the universe is the case, then show me how you can make something with nothing. You simply can't... Logically everything has cause and effect. Its simple logic. Therefore something has to trigger it. That something for us is God.

No, here is the fallacy:
Just because we haven't seen anything emerge into existence out of nothing doesn't mean everything that exists has to be triggered into existence by something else.

God is imnicient thing/light or what ever it is. Its something as it has no gender or race. We humans don't know and we are not given the knowledge of it.

I find it funny that you know that it has no gender when you state that we have no knowledge of it in the same sentence, but lets move on.

How can something create God *nowsbilla*, that would be very ignorant of us to think so. Wouldn't it be?

No, again its the other way around. Accepting that a god can not be created with absolute certainty is ignorance.

Now this might sound like I am digging a hole for myself as an atheist, but in reality I am not and I will explain to you why in a second but first I have to point this out:

Theism and atheism are are about beliefs.
Agnosticism and gnosticism are about knowledge.

Theism is the belief in a God, atheism is the lack of belief in a God. Agnosticism is the uncertainty about God's existence, gnosticism is the certainty about God's existence.
Agnostics and most atheists are agnostic atheists and most religious people are gnostic theists.

This means that we agnostic atheists do not claim with certainty that God doesn't exists, but in the practical day to day life situations and in the meaningful practical context we say that he doesn't, just like you say that unicorns don't exists.

As we are taught there is an all knowing and merciful God. The proof is right in front of our eyes, how does everything is balanced. The balance is established through nature, but what controls this nature. There has to be something there.

First, life and nature are not balanced, it only seems to us that it is balanced and fine tuned and that is because we emerged from it under those conditions and evolved and adapted to the changing environment.
If we evolved in a different part of the universe under a totally different environment and in a different life form we would have also believed that nature is fine tuned for us.
The truth is, The vast majority of the universe isn't suitable for our existence.

Second, even if the universe was balanced for our existence, it doesn't mean that it was created by a God or by anything else intentionally for us to live in it.
If anything at all, it only means that it is balanced.

Aside from those facts, the Torah, the Bible, and the Holy Quran can not just be fabricated from thin air.

The possibility that they were man made is there and it is a very probable one.

There is no sufficient reason or evidence to believe that this book has been sent down from God, which makes an irrational belief.
Since we would like to have as many true beliefs and as few false beliefs as possible, we choose not to believe anything to be true unless we have a reason, evidence or proof to believe that it is true.
And this is what the burden of proof is, it is the claim maker's job to prove and support his claim with reason or evidence if he wants others to believe it.
If there is no reason to believe that it is true we consider it a false belief and no I am not claiming here that the absence of evidence is evidence of absence, we do not claim that it is false with certainty, we just do so in the practical sense.
That is why it is called innocent until proven guilty and not guilty until proven innocent.

The similar message within them is live in peace, charity, be good to everyone, etc leading up to the basic ten commandments and then building upon them. Have to come from something. That something has to be God, which is what we are taught and how everything is able to function properly.

That is part of the message yes.
I actually find it a bit offensive that you claim that we humans could not have managed to live health and social lives together peacefully if it weren't for your God. When you think of it its quite degrading of us humans isn't it?

How can people write them, when in the Holy Quran at least it is written that it is God's word.

Just because something says that it was made/written/sent by someone doesn't mean that it has to be true.

I don't know too much about the Torah, but the Bible was corrupted due humans. But the essence was not taken from other sources, we were not there. How can we say that. There's no historical backing for that. All we know is that it was God's words.

Just because there is no evidence that they copied one another doesn't mean that they were sent down from God.
Also, a lot of trading has been going on on that time such it adds to the probability.

Anyway, it took me some time and a couple of cigarettes to write this. I hope it helps and clear misunderstandings in future discussions.

 

[rezuth]

How does praying work? Do you just repeat some text or do you ask for stuff etc?

 

[Shanadeus]

Good stuff

And you kept a civil and respectful tone, better than most people would have replied.

 

[Anaxagoras]

How does praying work? Do you just repeat some text or do you ask for stuff etc?

This video explains and shows how its done:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HNyjePFJDnA

 

[Kinitari]

There you go

I guess I could have just wiki'd it! I actually didn't know about there being minor or major Apostasy, or for that matter, that the stance on Apostates (I am assuming execution of them) is not in the Qu'ran! The more you know.

 

[Cartman86]

This video explains and shows how its done:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HNyjePFJDnA

Do Muslims believe that God can answer prayers?

 

[kobashi100]

Do Muslims believe that God can answer prayers?

Yes we Make Dua.

Allah the Exalted, has said: "And your
Lord says: Pray unto me: and I will hear your prayer" (Quran
40:60), "Call upon your Lord Humbly and in secret" (Quran 7:55),
"When My servants question thee concerning Me, I am indeed close
(to them): I listen to the prayer of every suppliant when he
calleth on Me" (Quran 2:186), "Is not He (best) who listens to
the (soul) distressed when it calls on Him, and who relieves its
suffering." (Quran 27:62)

Aisha radhiallaahu anha said, "No believer makes Dua and it is wasted. Either it is granted here in this world or deposited for him in the Hereafter as long as he does not get frustrated."

Nice Video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sr4j03IiLSw&feature=player_embedded

 

[Chittagong]

Islam GAF - I need a bit of your advice about a possibly controversial album cover I'm designing. It's fine that it's thought provoking but I don't mean it to be offensive.

The track has a girl singing how I think I'm in love / Temperature is rising high / This fever burns because you are so untouchable / You've taken me to the edge of a mountain / I'm addicted by your presence it's all around me / I think I'm in love

The backstory for the cover I designed is inspired by something I saw in London. I saw a girl with a traditional dress quite like this walking hand in hand with a boy who appeared to be of similar origin. I thought this was intriguing since I've come to understand that any public endorsement of affection with the opposite sex is prohibited in Islamic countries - but in London, they were free to be in love - yet it must be a huge cognitive dissonance to them.

Here's a comp of the cover. It's still watermarked since I don't want to produce it before checking. The thinking is to shoot the featuring female artist (not Islamic) for it.

[/IMG]

What's Islam GAF's take on this?