• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Ask About Islam - an independent perspective.

KWED

Scratching head, scratching knee
Did you derive that from your only-correct and objective reading of the Quran, or do you make claims to complete accuracy and objectivity outside those Scriptures as well?
Muhammad ruled an expanding there of influence for several years, including negotiating treaties. He also commanded troops in battle. By definition a political and military leader. Both these things are detailed in the Quran and sunnah.
Not sure how familiar you are with Islam, but one of its major claims is that it is the complete answer, covering not just the spiritual, but also the legal, economic, social and military. As an example, the constitution of Saudi Arabia is the Quran and sunnah.

BTW (as I keep having to repeat), I do not make any claims of truth or interpretation. I am merely answering questions based on the contents of scripture. Any interpretations provided are those of classical scholars.
 

KWED

Scratching head, scratching knee
No, you have chosen a certain context to interpret it in. You can do that.
But so can everybody else, so for truth, how do you know, that your choice is true?
Maybe it's being lost in translation, but I keep saying that I am not providing any interpretations nor making any claims to truth.
Hope this helped
 

mikkel_the_dane

My own religion
Maybe it's being lost in translation, but I keep saying that I am not providing any interpretations nor making any claims to truth.
Hope this helped

So you simply use one possible subjective interpretation method, which is not an interpretation and you call it independent. What is it independent of? And how it is not an interpretation, when you have given the basis for your interpretation up thread?
 

KWED

Scratching head, scratching knee
Neither of you can. Because you will personally choose one over all other one and thus it is not independent of a choice.
Indeed. Which is why I have never made any claim of truth or absolute certainty.

Ironically, however, you keep popping up trying to tell other people they are wrong, despite your whole MO being to tell people that their opinion is worthless. Nice work, tbf.
 

mikkel_the_dane

My own religion
I've just realised who you remind me of. That Jan 6 insurrectionist who kept standing up and saying "I do not recognise the legitimacy of this court!" during his trial.

Yes, I know. You are the International court of the correct understanding of how to subjectively interpret something subjective. Okay! How did you get that authority? So now please go to the police and get me arrested because I am in violation of your authority. We can't have that. That is naughty.
 

muhammad_isa

Well-Known Member
Why didn't you bring this up in the discussion about god's part in belief? So you have personal experience of god deciding who believes and who doesn't, even though you insisted that he doesn't do that. That's naughty.
I have already explained that G-d is a part of each and every ONE of us.
If there is any "good" in a person, then G-d knows it.

G-d does not help the haughty and the proud who ruin their own souls.
 

KWED

Scratching head, scratching knee
Well, you are asking something subjective, so that means there are at least 2 possible ways to choose. How do you independently of your thinking know which one is true?
Please point out where I made a claim of absolute truth.
Perhaps you should try any actually read what I am saying before using your one standard, default response.
"If your only tool is a hammer, every problem will look like a nail" ;)
 

mikkel_the_dane

My own religion
Indeed. Which is why I have never made any claim of truth or absolute certainty.

Ironically, however, you keep popping up trying to tell other people they are wrong, despite your whole MO being to tell people that their opinion is worthless. Nice work, tbf.

No, I tell them that they are subjective and there are no objective standard for wrong. They are neither right or wrong. Nor am I. We just do it differently.
Their opinion are not worthless, as they are worthwhile to them. But they are worthless to me. But that is neither objectively right or wrong. That is subjective in all cases.

We are playing a version of the is-ought problem. You should know this, because you know how the world works in general.
 

mikkel_the_dane

My own religion
Please point out where I made a claim of absolute truth.
Perhaps you should try any actually read what I am saying before using your one standard, default response.
"If your only tool is a hammer, every problem will look like a nail" ;)

Well, sorry. I should stick with this: The question is if your non-interpretation is objectively independent?
 

Secret Chief

nirvana is samsara
If you wanted Tory party policy explained in an objective and independent manner, would a Tory supporter be the best person to consult?
The problem with such partisan sources is that they have a vested interest in the issue.

If I am interested enough in a subject then I want any and all types of sources. It is not a matter of either/or. So that would mean the Quran AND Muslims AND academic/non-partisan sources (or, as you allude to elsewhere regarding Nazism, Mein Kampf). This would give the most rounded view I believe. Regarding your example I very much want to read the Mail Online and talk to Tory supporters. In fact they are my first port of call. (For the avoidance of doubt I have been an active Labour supporter for nigh on 40 years and have a Fire Brigades Union T-shirt signed by Jeremy Corbyn :) ).
 

KWED

Scratching head, scratching knee
So you simply use one possible subjective interpretation method, which is not an interpretation and you call it independent. What is it independent of? And how it is not an interpretation, when you have given the basis for your interpretation up thread?
I didn't call the sources independent, they are obviously all pro-Islam (though that was pretty obvious). I was referring to my presentation being independent of the need to show Islam to be true (which is how such threads usually operate). I will simply present the source material accurately.

Look, I think you have exceeded your allotted stage time, flogging your same old dead horse here. You aren't bringing anything to the table (you never do), so WADR, I will not respond to any further posts unless they are actual questions about Islam in the context of this thread.

If you want to go on and on about how we can't know anything, make a thread to that purpose (although what would be the point, because all you ever say in response to anything is "but how do you know you know?" and as you know you can't know anything, why bother posting it in the first place?)

Good luck in your endeavours.
 

KWED

Scratching head, scratching knee
I have already explained that G-d is a part of each and every ONE of us.
If there is any "good" in a person, then G-d knows it.
You said that you read the Quran and it left you unmoved, until god intervened and guided you. Therefore you were unable to believe without god's intervention.

Anyway, this is for a different thread.
 

mikkel_the_dane

My own religion
I didn't call the sources independent, they are obviously all pro-Islam (though that was pretty obvious). I was referring to my presentation being independent of the need to show Islam to be true (which is how such threads usually operate). I will simply present the source material accurately.

Look, I think you have exceeded your allotted stage time, flogging your same old dead horse here. You aren't bringing anything to the table (you never do), so WADR, I will not respond to any further posts unless they are actual questions about Islam in the context of this thread.

If you want to go on and on about how we can't know anything, make a thread to that purpose (although what would be the point, because all you ever say in response to anything is "but how do you know you know?" and as you know you can't know anything, why bother posting it in the first place?)

Good luck in your endeavours.

That is all fair and well. But it doesn't settle anything. Because your need to be objective as you do it, is not the only human need. That is where it ends.
 

KWED

Scratching head, scratching knee
If I am interested enough in a subject then I want any and all types of sources. It is not a matter of either/or. So that would mean the Quran AND Muslims AND academic/non-partisan sources (or, as you allude to elsewhere regarding Nazism, Mein Kampf). This would give the most rounded view I believe. Regarding your example I very much want to read the Mail Online and talk to Tory supporters. In fact they are my first port of call. (For the avoidance of doubt I have been an active Labour supporter for nigh on 40 years and have a Fire Brigades Union T-shirt signed by Jeremy Corbyn :) ).
Indeed. So far, every AAI thread I have seen has been from a Muslim trying to present Islam in the most favourable light possible, and in doing so cherry-picking and misrepresenting passages. I am providing the balance that you believe is so important.

However, you said that you considered a Muslim to be the best source for information about Islam. A partisan source with a vested interest in promotion is not the best source.
 

Secret Chief

nirvana is samsara
However, you said that you considered a Muslim to be the best source for information about Islam. A partisan source with a vested interest in promotion is not the best source.
I'm probably mostly agreeing with you. A Muslim is the best source (imo) for seeing what Muslims think/say (dependent on assessment of honesty).
 

Link

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Don't understand your question. Which passages are you referring to?

I'm asking is someone who disbelieves in Islam without witnessing miracles, the same as a disbeliever who witnessed miracles in times of Prophets and Messengers or would have had access to a Messenger to be able to ask him for miracles?

Is "disbeliever" one and the same meaning per both of them in context of how Quran talks about disbelievers?
 
Top