Shari'ah and Afghanistan

[Justanatheist]

"You fail to understand the inherent and many differences between the various Abrahamic religions and how they govern themselves."

"As I believe you do.'

Yes now where do I say you do not understand Judaism?

 

[Rival]

Yes now where do I say you do not understand Judaism?

If I didn't, how could I possibly say it's not the same as Islam and Christianity? The way many people think Judaism works is not how it actually works. The three laws are very different, but people who have a hate on for Abrahamic religions only want to lump them together because they can't seem to see any nuances at all because they're too busy focusing on 'They all hate the gays and won't let women have abortions!!'

There is so much more to these religions than that, but it's a continuous barrage of non-Abrahamics pointing out what they don't like about those religions in a way that is needlessly hostile and not open to any actual meaningful discussion on the ins and outs of these religions. If they were so horrible they would have long faded away. As it is, Christianity has stood the test of 2,000 years, Islam 1,4000 years and Judaism over 3,000 years. Yet all we hear from the other side are nitpicks like 'They won't marry same sex couples!' when for millennia this has simply not been an issue for any of these religions. It was the non-believers who brought that up.

If many of these people really wanted to learn about how Abrahamic religions work, there are thousands of books if only they'd read them. Piles upon piles of Biblical and Qur'anic commentaries, as well as Baha'i ones I imagine. But this isn't what the other side seems to want. They only want to demonise believers in these religions for not being as with current social mores as they are. As if this is the only thing that Abrahamics are known for. A more nuanced view would help facilitate a good discussion, but those are few and far between. @Augustus seems to be a rare example of a person who doesn't seem to outright hate these religions because they do some things current culture doesn't like.

 

[Justanatheist]

If I didn't, how could I possibly say it's not the same as Islam and Christianity? The way many people think Judaism works is not how it actually works. The three laws are very different, but people who have a hate on for Abrahamic religions only want to lump them together because they can't seem to see any nuances at all because they're too busy focusing on 'They all hate the gays and won't let women have abortions!!'

There is so much more to these religions than that, but it's a continuous barrage of non-Abrahamics pointing out what they don't like about those religions in a way that is needlessly hostile and not open to any actual meaningful discussion on the ins and outs of these religions. If they were so horrible they would have long faded away. As it is, Christianity has stood the test of 2,000 years, Islam 1,4000 years and Judaism over 3,000 years. Yet all we hear from the other side are nitpicks like 'They won't marry same sex couples!' when for millennia this has simply not been an issue for any of these religions. It was the non-believers who brought that up.

If many of these people really wanted to learn about how Abrahamic religions work, there are thousands of books if only they'd read them. Piles upon piles of Biblical and Qur'anic commentaries, as well as Baha'i ones I imagine. But this isn't what the other side seems to want. They only want to demonise believers in these religions for not being as with current social mores as they are. As if this is the only thing that Abrahamics are known for. A more nuanced view would help facilitate a good discussion, but those are few and far between. @Augustus seems to be a rare example of a person who doesn't seem to outright hate these religions because they do some things current culture doesn't like.

So I did not say that you did not understand Judaism, thanks for confirming that.

 

[Rival]

So I did not say that you did not understand Judaism, thanks for confirming that.

Nice how you just ignored the rest of my post. See what I mean? No interest in actual meaningful discussion on religion.

 

[Justanatheist]

Nice how you just ignored the rest of my post. See what I mean? No interest in actual meaningful discussion on religion.

No I just wanted to point out your strawman not continue arguing the strawman you created, that is the thing with strawman arguments people get sucked into them and end up arguing points they never even made.

 

[Rival]

No I just wanted to point out your strawman not continue arguing the strawman you created, that is the thing with strawman arguments people get sucked into them and end up arguing points they never even made.

I was trying to push the conversation in a more meaningful direction away from this 'he said she said' nonsense, but I see you are not interested. I don't know what this discussion is even about anymore other than anti-religious people trying to crash and burn Christianity. I'm not interested in that.

 

[Justanatheist]

I was trying to push the conversation in a more meaningful direction away from this 'he said she said' nonsense, but I see you are not interested. I don't know what this discussion is even about anymore other than anti-religious people trying to crash and burn Christianity. I'm not interested in that.

No, I just do not understand why religious people cannot take out the antiquated parts of their religious texts, well I do understand, they do not want to because they consider them gods words, which gets us back to my point that at their core they are the same.

Lets look at gays, all three religions say homosexuality is wrong,

A Jew attacks a gay pride march citing gods will
Islamist's throw gays of roofs citing gods will
Christians in Uganda kill a LGBT activist citing gods will

Now before you say it is all about the interpretation, how about if the words did not exist in the first place, god was wrong, admit it.

 

[Rival]

god was wrong, admit it.

These are not the words of my God. And this last part tells me you are still not interested in good faith discussion, so I'm done here.

 

[Justanatheist]

These are not the words of my God. And this last part tells me you are still not interested in good faith discussion, so I'm done here.

Fine, but they are the words of the Jewish god,

Sexual intercourse between two men, Leviticus 20:13

So Judaism could either say, those are not gods words, get rid of them or say god was wrong, get rid of them, because while they remain there will always be some extremist who will interpret those words as a justification to attack a homosexual, and it is the same for Christianity and Islam.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Fine, but they are the words of the Jewish god,



So Judaism could either say, those are not gods words, get rid of them or say god was wrong, get rid of them, because while they remain there will always be some extremist who will interpret those words as a justification to attack a homosexual, and it is the same for Christianity and Islam.

The Bible and the Qur'an are not open for editing. There will always be cranks and violent extremists twisting things to suit their own egos. That will never change. All we can do is educate people first.

 

[Augustus]

No, I just do not understand why religious people cannot take out the antiquated parts of their religious texts, well I do understand, they do not want to because they consider them gods words, which gets us back to my point that at their core they are the same.

It is Islamic Orthodoxy that the Quran is actual word of God and thus was uncreated. The Bible is viewed quite differently in Christianity as it may be inspired by God but is mediated via fallible humans. The difference is not trivial.

Also, if you look at the Eastern Med from Greece to Lebanon to Israel, in classical antiquity these were part of the Roman Empire and culturally quite similar. Part of these areas later became Islamic.

If these religions are 'all the same' why do you think the cultures of the Christianised parts are quite different from the Islamic parts?

 

[Shakeel]

I, too, like honesty, sincerity, straight forwardness and consistency; so, maybe you would be kind enough to answer some of my questions about Islam and the Qur'an?

Sure.

Do you believe that the Qur'an is God's revelation to Muhammad?

Did Muhammad accurately recite the Qur'an in Arabic just as it was revealed to him by the Angel Gabriel?

Is there only one true version of the Qur'an in Arabic?

Yes, yes, yes

If there is only one true version of the Qur'an, why do scholars find it so difficult to offer an interpretation that satisfies the worldwide brotherhood of Muslims?

No one is supposed to look for interpretations that fit all people who call themselves Muslim. That's how you treat the Bible. That's not how the Qur'an is implemented.

Surely Muhammad must have explained how to follow the law that God had revealed to him and to mankind?

Yes. There is the sunnah.

What is the point of having only one true version of the Qur'an if there are a thousand interpretations?

That's silly. As if, if there were thousands of interpretations the book should be corrupted for I don't even know what purpose.

I don't know what you mean by a thousand interpretations. Do you mean the number of people interpreting or the number of interpretations to any specific thing or..? The Prophet ﷺ actually interpreted it for us.

 

[Redemptionsong]

Sure.

Yes, yes, yes

No one is supposed to look for interpretations that fit all people who call themselves Muslim. That's how you treat the Bible. That's not how the Qur'an is implemented.

Yes. There is the sunnah.

That's silly. As if, if there were thousands of interpretations the book should be corrupted for I don't even know what purpose.

I don't know what you mean by a thousand interpretations. Do you mean the number of people interpreting or the number of interpretations to any specific thing or..? The Prophet ﷺ actually interpreted it for us.

Help me to understand this correctly. The Sunnah is not a revelation from God, but the Qur'an is a revelation. Yet the Sunnah must be used to interpret the Qur'an.

In the Bible, the prophecy of one prophet, such as Moses, is supported, or corroborated, by other prophets and writers. Which other prophets support the prophecy of Muhammad, or does the Qur'an stand alone?

 

[Shakeel]

The Sunnah is not a revelation from God

Yes it is.

53:3 "Nor does he speak from [his own] inclination."

53:4 "It is not but a revelation revealed,"

In the Bible, the prophecy of one prophet, such as Moses, is supported, or corroborated, by other prophets and writers

You mean other prophets living with him? There were none as far as I know.

Which other prophets support the prophecy of Muhammad

I don't know what you mean by supporting prophecy.

or does the Qur'an stand alone?

I don't know what you mean here either.

 

[Shakeel]

The Bible and the Qur'an are not open for editing

It would be awkward to edit the Bible now with the Internet and all, but it has been edited in the past.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

It would be awkward to edit the Bible now with the Internet and all, but it has been edited in the past.

The canon of books, yes.

 

[Redemptionsong]

Yes it is.

53:3 "Nor does he speak from [his own] inclination."

53:4 "It is not but a revelation revealed,"

You mean other prophets living with him? There were none as far as I know.

I don't know what you mean by supporting prophecy.

I don't know what you mean here either.

Jesus said, 'l can of mine own self do nothing: as l hear, l judge: and my judgment is just; because l seek not my own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent me.
If l bear witness of myself, my witness is not true.
There is another that beareth witness of me; and l know that the witness which he witnesseth of me is true.
Ye sent unto John, and he bare witness unto the truth.' [John 5:30-33]

So the prophet John (Yahya) witnesses to the coming of Jesus Christ.

Which prophet bears witness to Muhammad? As Jesus says, 'lf l bear witness of myself, my witness is not true.'

Moses lived alongside Joshua, whose life and works are found amongst the former prophets of Israel. Joshua witnesses for Moses, as do many other prophets.

 

[Augustus]

I find it kind of amusing and saddening that in a thread about Sharia all we got to was 'Christianity is evil and led to the Dark Ages', as usual on RF.

It's a core part of the Humanist origin mythology; their fall and redemption arc.

And a different manifestation of their Satan is still Satan all the same.

Be kind, you can't expect them to think rationally about something so emotionally important to them


(Semi) joking aside, it is quite remarkable how many self-identified Rationalists who put such a premium on being 'factually correct' believe the most abject nonsense about the history of religion that they could correct with a cursory 5 mins Googling and how fiercely they defend being wilfully ignorant about it. Not specifically people here, but public intellectuals who make Science and Reason their entire schtick and write books with this kind of **** in it.

Actually, it's not remarkable, it's quite predictable if indeed it is part of a religious style mythos that they subscribe to rather than a rationally held position developed through the impartial acquisition of knowledge

 

[firedragon]

No, I just do not understand why religious people cannot take out the antiquated parts of their religious texts, well I do understand, they do not want to because they consider them gods words, which gets us back to my point that at their core they are the same.

Lets look at gays, all three religions say homosexuality is wrong,

A Jew attacks a gay pride march citing gods will
Islamist's throw gays of roofs citing gods will
Christians in Uganda kill a LGBT activist citing gods will

Now before you say it is all about the interpretation, how about if the words did not exist in the first place, god was wrong, admit it.

I think you should consider your approach to a discussion other peoples theology. If what a Jew did is how you judge the theology, the murder of millions by atheists would be the criteria to judge atheism as a whole. No more discussion needed. Before you make any apologetics I say again, this the standard that you are practicing.

 

[Muffled]

I believe it would be like the RCC re-introducing the inquisition.