Ask About Islam

[TagliatelliMonster]

Who would have thought that a tiny desert community, would have ended up being the basis for a substantial civilisation?

That's very dishonest.
So we are just going to ignore that they were but one factor in a very large pool of factors of influence?
Also, there were, and are, substantial civilizations that have nothing to do with this pool of superstitious people.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

If the sum total of life was just 'brain tissue', then it implies that we aren't really individuals in the true sense of the word.

That doesn't follow at all.
Every brain is unique and thus we are still individuals in the true sense of the word.

It implies that awareness is just an illusion, that is due to electrons in a piece of meat.

Neither electrons or the piece of meat are illusionary. So why would the thing that it produces be?
When we put your brain under a scanner, we can measure the activity.
Not illusionary at all. Instead, very physically real.

You might as well be telling me that "life is just a bowl of All-Bran"

You might. But that would be about as stupid as what many religions say life is.

 

[MyM]

Just as an FYI: the way you are presenting it here, you are like a walking advertisement for people to stay away from your religion.

You should really read up a bit. You don't have to believe evolution. But at least learn what it actually says.
At this point, your intellectual integrity and honesty is pretty much non-existent.

That is your opinion I am in really nice dialogues with some. So you don't like me I get it. And you probably will continue to bash me but to me, that is a "clue" to what kind of person I am discussing with.

You go your way, I will go mine.

 

[MyM]

If you would take a high school course of evolution theory, that stuff likely will be covered in lesson 1 or 2.

and in Islam, it is also for those with understanding

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Funny that..
I wonder why we can all agree on a meaning, if it has no universal connotations.

Well we most certainly don't agree on many things.

But in general, on the "big" things that tend to be somewhat "universal"? Because we are all humans.

 

[KWED]

You might. But that would be about as stupid as what many religions say life is.

It's a lyric from the wonderful Small Faces classic "Happy Days Toytown" from the game changing album "Ogden's Nut Gone Flake"

 

[Spirit of Light]

Indeed. But both prescriptions are clear about the particular rule they are prescribing.
Think about it. What would be the point of having a perfect and final rule for all time that results in death if you break it, but it was worded in such a way that it was impossible to apply with any consistency.

Obviously, but that is not the issue here. It is whether those rules or consequences are clear or ambiguous.
If they are ambiguous then any punishment risks being unjust and unfair.

Nothing you said contradicted my argument. Consider my example of pork being haram again (or perhaps you didn't consider it the first time). It is black and white and unequivocal. There is no room for nuance or context.

My understanding of the rules are a bit different than mainstream muslims

 

[muhammad_isa]

Oh dear. Do you really think I make this stuff up?

"May Allah curse the thief who steals an egg and as a result his hand is cut off, and who steals rope and as a result his hand is cut off. The hand of the thief shall be cut off if he steals a quarter of a Dinar or more." - Sahih Bukhari and Muslim

'A'isha reported that the Quraish had been anxious about the Makhzumi woman who had committed theft, and said: Who will speak to Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) about her? They said: Who dare it, but Usama, the loved one of Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) ? So Usama spoke to him. Thereupon Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) said: Do you intercede regarding one of the punishments prescribed by Allah? He then stood up and addressed (people) saying: O people, those who have gone before you were destroyed, because if any one of high rank committed theft amongst them, they spared him; and it anyone of low rank committed theft, they inflicted the prescribed punishment upon him. By Allah, if Fatima, daughter of Muhammad, were to steal, I would have her hand cut off. - Sahih Muslim

This does not mean that if the thief repents, his hand should not be cut off. It only means that if a person repents after his hand has been cut off and reforms himself and becomes a true servant of God, he will save himself from the wrath of Allah, Who will cleanse him of his sin. - Ala Maududi

Yes, indeed.
Prophet Muhammad, peace be with him, had a great responsibility.
Lot more than the likes of me.

According to my understanding, Islam is a "middle way".
The prophet SAW could not be seen as to punish one with hand amputation, and another with a warning for the same offence .. even if it was his own flesh & blood.
He was impartial, and carried out his duty to the letter.

However, we have been given intelligence.
If we are responsible for law and order, we need a balance.
It is not reasonable to go around cutting people's hands off for every offence of theft, and there are also hadiths that support this.
It is also not reasonable to have a system where people commit theft on a regular basis and are in and out of prison. The righteous suffer from an ineffective system, and we should not be afraid of addressing these issues with the appropriate penalty.
I suppose it is an extension of the capital punishment controversy.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Plus the constant "Worship me or I will torture you forever".

I appreciate that you may feel uncomfortable about the idea of using violence or the threat of violence to get people to embrace Islam, But Allah and Muhammad have no such qualms.

I don't feel uncomfortable in the slightest.
You simply don't know what you are talking about.

You just quote translated verses without proper knowledge and understanding.
You can carry on insinuating that religious people are all hypocrites, and G-d knows best about the intentions of us all.
If you think that your opinions are somehow supposed to promote tolerance and understanding in the world, then G-d save us from such "peacemakers" as yourself.

 

[muhammad_isa]

JYou don't have to believe evolution. But at least learn what it actually says.
At this point, your intellectual integrity and honesty is pretty much non-existent.

A bad argument.
Why should somebody study in depth something that they don't think is true, and only seeks to mislead?

 

[muhammad_isa]

Every brain is unique and thus we are still individuals in the true sense of the word..

..until we die, and then we are just dead meat?

 

[MyM]

Yes, indeed.
Prophet Muhammad, peace be with him, had a great responsibility.
Lot more than the likes of me.

According to my understanding, Islam is a "middle way".
The prophet SAW could not be seen as to punish one with hand amputation, and another with a warning for the same offence .. even if it was his own flesh & blood.
He was impartial, and carried out his duty to the letter.

However, we have been given intelligence.
If we are responsible for law and order, we need a balance.
It is not reasonable to go around cutting people's hands off for every offence of theft, and there are also hadiths that support this.
It is also not reasonable to have a system where people commit theft on a regular basis and are in and out of prison. The righteous suffer from an ineffective system, and we should not be afraid of addressing these issues with the appropriate penalty.
I suppose it is an extension of the capital punishment controversy.

Ya, know, there is something that really no one ever thinks about.
In Matthew 5
17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
29 And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.
30 And if thy right hand offend thee, cut it off, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.

It's to me, the Christians don't really take it seriously. Grace is their salvation so they can do as they please. But many disregard these verses the ones that are really attributed to Jesus in the Bible. I know I overlooked everythin because I felt I was saved and goin to heaven so why can't I sin. Then you read these and it's like ok what is really going on.

It's a big question as to why they don't practice what he taught.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

A bad argument.

Not an argument.

Why should somebody study in depth something that they don't think is true, and only seeks to mislead?

I didn't say he should study in dept.

The dude isn't even aware of the basics of the basics.
And he wishes to argue against the subject. When you wish to argue against a certain subject, the least you could do is make sure you at least have the absolute basics down of said subject?

Otherwise, you might as well be arguing against "dobogglebarakfurblum".

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

..until we die,

Which isn't relevant to the fact that we're individuals.

and then we are just dead meat?

Until the meat decays, at least.

 

[Sheldon]

You truly believe you are treating RF Muslims because of your avertion toward Islam? From what I seen, most of what you do is making conflict between people.

Just an observation....

Another of these tedious posts blaming atheists for debate in a debate forum, and heavy-handedly implying atheists should not participate, lest it upsets theists. I realise for millennia theism has had the whip hand, so to speak, or even quite literally on occasion, but it seems some are finding it hard to adjust to the idea of freedom of speech and expression, especially or specifically when it includes people who don't share their credulity in, and reverence for, the numinous or the supernatural.

If someone doesn't like debate, then the answer is pretty simple, and this site caters for those people who want to "debate" only with like minded people as well, by providing multiple forums that limit access to exclusively either theists or atheists in a variety of forums. If you want an echo chamber then go for it, but this endless whining on a forum designed specifically for "general religious debate" open to theists and atheists alike, whenever anyone dares submit claims and posts to critical scrutiny, is rather pointless.

 

[Spirit of Light]

Another of these tedious posts blaming atheists for debate in a debate forum, and heavy-handedly implying atheists should not participate, lest it upsets theists. I realise for millennia theism has had the whip hand, so to speak, or even quite literally on occasion, but it seems some are finding it hard to adjust to the idea of freedom of speech and expression, especially or specifically when it includes people who don't share their credulity in, and reverence for, the numinous or the supernatural.

If someone doesn't like debate, then the answer is pretty simple, and this site caters for those people who want to "debate" only with like minded people as well, by providing multiple forums that limit access to exclusively either theists or atheists in a variety of forums. If you want an echo chamber then go for it, but this endless whining on a forum designed specifically for "general religious debate" open to theists and atheists alike, whenever anyone dares submit claims and posts to critical scrutiny, is rather pointless.

Oh atheists are welcome to both discussion and debates, there is just one thing some atheists has to learn before it becomes interesting to discuss or debate with them.

To listen to what is actually being said by the believer.

 

[Sheldon]

Oh atheists are welcome to both discussion and debates, there is just one thing some atheists has to learn before it becomes interesting to discuss or debate with them.

To listen to what is actually being said by the believer.

So atheists are welcome, as long as they don't have a different viewpoint, that's an odd idea of debate. Why not just learn to accept that others have very different views, indeed one would assume this is a necessary precursor for debate.

 

[Spirit of Light]

So atheists are welcome, as long as they don't have a different viewpoint, that's an odd idea of debate. Why not just learn to accept that others have very different views, indeed one would assume this is a necessary precursor for debate.

That is not what I said an atheist will have other viewpoints, but often it seems like some atheist does not listen very well.

 

[KWED]

My understanding of the rules are a bit different than mainstream muslims

Ok, so how do you understand the "eating pork is prohibited" rule, and on what grounds do you justify that interpretation?

 

[Sheldon]

A bad argument.
Why should somebody study in depth something that they don't think is true, and only seeks to mislead?

I'm guessing the irony of this is lost on you. The hilarity of that irony aside, science's purpose is to scrutinise and explain the natural physical world and universe, so claiming it seeks to mislead is preposterous, and of course doubly so when you cherry pick the bits to falsely accuse of this, based on unevidenced creation myths it conflicts with.

Would you let a doctor treat you if that doctor denied scientific facts like species evolution and shared ancestry? I'd run a mile myself.

All medical research is predicated on the fact of species evolution. Indeed creationism has caused a massive headache for medical research companies in the US, where they often struggle to recruit enough personnel, precisely because so many US citizens deny the fact of species evolution.