Where did all the Muslims, in RFs, go?!

[dybmh]

Is critical thinking allowed in Islam?

Yes.

 

[Notanumber]

Yes.

Then I wonder what percentage of the Muslim population actually read the Satanic Verses before they took umbrage.

 

[dybmh]

@Wandering Monk ,

Post #275, I reported it.

At this point, I'm going to follow this same procedure.

You misquote misrepresent me. I will report it. I will let you know you are wrong... again... each time. And I will tell you that I reported it, then I will drop it as a matter for the Mods.

Done.

 

[Wandering Monk]

The fact that some Muslim scholars feel it necessary to mitigate the harsher aspects of Sharia is a tacit admission that literal application of Sharia is no longer acceptable to some Muslims.

I see this same phenomenon with the Torah. The sages of the Mishnah and later seem compelled to mitigate the harsher commands of the Torah (yes, I have read the Mishnah and am somewhat familiar with the Talmud Bavli.)

Doesn't all this mitigation suggest that the world is outgrowing fundamentalist interpretives of religion? If deists can accept that fundamentalism needs to go away, they would find close allies with secularists.

 

[dybmh]

Then I wonder what percentage of the Muslim population actually read the Satanic Verses before they took umbrage.

It's an interesting point.

How many Muslims took umbrage, and how many Muslims ( percentage worldwide ) reacted violently.

 

[danieldemol]

Except that there are folks who are irrationally scared of Muslims. List of Islamophobic incidents - Wikipedia

Then let’s call them Muslimphobic, so that the emphasis remains on people and not on ideas, which can and should be subject to scrutiny

 

[dybmh]

The fact that some Muslim scholars feel it necessary to mitigate the harsher aspects of Sharia is a tacit admission that literal application of Sharia is no longer acceptable to some Muslims.

I see this same phenomenon with the Torah. The sages of the Mishnah and later seem compelled to mitigate the harsher commands of the Torah (yes, I have read the Mishnah and am somewhat familiar with the Talmud Bavli.)

Doesn't all this mitigation suggest that the world is outgrowing fundamentalist interpretives of religion? If deists can accept that fundamentalism needs to go away, they would find close allies with secularists.

The point is, that Sharia doesn't change in Islam. There is only 1 Islam, there is only 1 Sharia.

Va'yikra is Va'yikra... the letters on the scroll don't change.

Unless and until this is reflected in the questions posed on surveys, the surveys will misrepresent Islam. And then that misrepresentation is gobbled up and regurgitated without any critical analysis applied... just like you did in this thread.

 

[Notanumber]

It's an interesting point.

How many Muslims took umbrage, and how many Muslims ( percentage worldwide ) reacted violently.

What do you think would be a reasonable percentage?

 

[dybmh]

Then let’s call them Muslimphobic, so that the emphasis remains on people and not on ideas, which can and should be subject to scrutiny

It's just natural rational fear of criminals who have motive and opportunity to do harm

ChristChurch wasn't that long ago. That person was not a Muslim. Islamic Terrorists and this Xenophobic Terrorist in ChristChurch have a lot of similarities.

The common thread is not Islam or being Muslim. That's the flaw in your reasoning.

You're not just missing the target; you're aiming the wrong way.

 

[dybmh]

What do you think would be a reasonable percentage?

Dodge.

no.

you brought it up, the onus is on you. You've dodged almost all of my questions. I asked you politely multiple times " Do you disagree?" in multiple posts. Each of these excluding 1 was ignored.

No.

You can provide the data, or may be just drop it?

 

[icehorse]

But you didn't read the Pew research I provided. If you want to talk in terms of statistics I propose your numbers are all skewed because the sample is not representative of Muslims. It is only representative of a subset of Muslims. That is the beginning of my objection on the basis of statistics. But basically I disagree with the method. If the method is flawed, the conclusions cannot be trusted.

Perhaps I missed something in the links you provided. I did not see questions pertaining to Muslims' belief in the Quran or Muhammad. But as close as I could extrapolate, the links you provided didn't negate my statistical claims at all. If you can point to a statistic in YOUR links that runs counter to my claims, I would like to see it!

Previously you mentioned that in "conversations" with Muslims no one denies that the Qur'an and Muhammad are perfect. That's not statistical at all. It's a very limited subset that is not a statistically valid sample of Muslims worldwide. it's not representative of Islam the religion.

that means it;s not fair to make conclusions about all Muslims based on your conversations and their religious label on RF. Also, it's not fair to claim statistics as the common ground, when you're not using statistics. You're using your own method of conversation with Muslims online ( I presume ) , a parsimonious reading of the Qur'an, and your own innovative approach to cognitive science which is as yet unpublished and not peer-reviewed. Like I said: it's not fair.

not fair is not courteous. do you disagree?

I completely agree that my personal conversations with Muslims do not constitute a statistically meaningful sample. So I'm happy to point back to the large Pew report from 2013 that polled around 40,000 Muslims worldwide. I'd also mention that if you search for "Islam" on the internet, ideas like "the 5 pillars" are very consistent. They clearly represent overwhelming statistical truths about what Muslims believe.

So - for the most part I AM using statistics - I made a single post that discussed my personal conversations, but the overwhelming majority of my posts rely on broad statistical evidence.

As for my cognitive science take on reading the Quran, you can start by studying the work of Eleanor Gibson on perceptual learning. This is not my invention.

 

[Wandering Monk]

@Wandering Monk ,

Post #275, I reported it.

At this point, I'm going to follow this same procedure.

You misquote misrepresent me. I will report it. I will let you know you are wrong... again... each time. And I will tell you that I reported it, then I will drop it as a matter for the Mods.

Done.

Your post 264 followed by your post 271. So you go ahead and report it. I will report you for lying about me and I will send them these quotes below.

So then it's not guilt by association is it??? I have no idea who Dawkins is. he may be knowledgeable, I don;t know. But the video you posted is flawed and you don't know what's in it.

That's the StrawMan... this fellow Dawkins. I never said anything about any of his other work. if he wrote the video... he needs to pull it and update it.

Try again. You look foolish though. So hopefully this next attempt will be something you are familiar with.

Where?

I did not.

I never said the name Dawkins. I don't know what you're talking about. this is a fast moving thread, so it's fine. Just please.

Now this is getting ridiculous.

Earlier in the thread you misrepresented my words... some nonsense about a "free-pass". Now there's this thing about Dawkins.

Please produce it, or roll back that assertion as well. Please.

 

[Notanumber]

It's just natural rational fear of criminals who have motive and opportunity to do harm

ChristChurch wasn't that long ago. That person was not a Muslim. Islamic Terrorists and this Xenophobic Terrorist in ChristChurch have a lot of similarities.

The common thread is not Islam or being Muslim. That's the flaw in your reasoning.

You're not just missing the target; you're aiming the wrong way.

Was the Christchurch madman a follower of an ancient yet current ideology?

 

[dybmh]

Your post 264 followed by your post 271. So you go ahead and report it. I will report you for lying about me and I will send them these quotes below.

You've been misquoting and misrepresenting my words.

i haven't lied about you one time.

you have shown you don't know your own sources. it's easy to show that.

 

[Limo]

We used to have many Muslims here, in RF..

Most of them were sunnis..

Some of them were Wahhabis and extermists..

Some seem to support the terrorists..

However it seems that most of them have left..

I think part of the story has to do with the rise of Islamophobia, around the world, and hence here in our platform..

For me I stayed for two reasons:

Firstly, being a Shia Muslim means that I See all of the Muslim Caliphs, except for Ali and his son (they are the prophet Muhammad cousin and grandson) are corrupt leaders who hijacked Islam..

So, to a degree, I distinguish between Islam as a religion , and the History of the Muslims, throughout which the Shiites have been persecuted..

Secondly, I am very open-minded person, and have no problem talking with people who have harsh opinions about Islam and the Muslims..

So, what is your take on the subject?!!

İt's you who are raising islamofobic view.

What is worse than saying
some of them are (you mean sunnis)w or extremist, or supporting terrorist.

Nevertheless, i don't see that many Muslims have left the forum.

My friend, it's your right to defend your faith but didn't devaluate other's.

 

[dybmh]

Perhaps I missed something in the links you provided. I did not see questions pertaining to Muslims' belief in the Quran or Muhammad.

I'm headed out the door. So i can't right now. But the idea is that many Muslims do not find religion important in their lives at all. They are perhaps accurately described as secular Muslims. Also, most American Muslims don't hold extreme views, that implies that these people would not answer that "Sharia should be the law of the land".

I propose that both of these groups would not agree that the Quran is Perfect and/or that Muhammad is perfect. Do you agree that this proposal is a least reasonable and probable?

I completely agree that my personal conversations with Muslims do not constitute a statistically meaningful sample. So I'm happy to point back to the large Pew report from 2013 that polled around 40,000 Muslims worldwide. I'd also mention that if you search for "Islam" on the internet, ideas like "the 5 pillars" are very consistent. They clearly represent overwhelming statistical truths about what Muslims believe.

OK. good. I can use this to at least explain my POV. I'm not really trying to convince you that I'm right... at least not yet.

This survey is 7 years old. Look at the rate of growth of Islam. That's important. Also, this survey only looked at 60% of Muslims worldwide. That means all the numbers in the survey are actually skewed. They need to be adjusted to accommodate that 40% of Muslims weren't included. Because of geography, it is not illogical to expect these folks to be less rigid in their views. That's how the statistics are skewed:

old data that is not a representative sample.

So - for the most part I AM using statistics - I made a single post that discussed my personal conversations, but the overwhelming majority of my posts rely on broad statistical evidence.

Noted.

As for my cognitive science take on reading the Quran, you can start by studying the work of Eleanor Gibson on perceptual learning. This is not my invention.

Right... thank you. Perceptual Learning... that's probably why I missed it. I will check it out so that we can speak about this on other threads where it is possible more relevant.

Bye for now,

 

[Wandering Monk]

You've been misquoting and misrepresenting my words.

i haven't lied about you one time.

you have shown you don't know your own sources. it's easy to show that.

So quoting you is misrepresenting? You said in 271 that you never said the name Dawkins, yet you certainly did in post 264. How is that misrepresenting or misquoting your words? I used the quote function supplied by this site.

 

[dybmh]

So quoting you is misrepresenting? You said in 271 that you never said the name Dawkins, yet you certainly did in post 264. How is that misrepresenting or misquoting your words? I used the quote function supplied by this site.

Whatever,

I'll go back and confirm that I am not at fault here. If you are saying that I suggested anything negative about Dawkins, I maintain that is false.

here are the 2 misrepresentations:

I never advocated a free-pass, that kept coming up, and you were one of the people doing it. I'll go back and check later to confirm.

Also this thing about guilt by association... that's false... as far as I know. But if I'm wrong I'll admit it. and I'll accept the hit on my credibility if that's the case.

This is literally the best I can do.

 

[Wandering Monk]

Whatever,

I'll go back and confirm that I am not at fault here. If you are saying that I suggested anything negative about Dawkins, I maintain that is false.

here are the 2 misrepresentations:

I never advocated a free-pass, that kept coming up, and you were one of the people doing it. I'll go back and check later to confirm.

Also this thing about guilt by association... that's false... as far as I know. But if I'm wrong I'll admit it. and I'll accept the hit on my credibility if that's the case.

This is literally the best I can do.

I asked if it was guilt by association. I did not assert it.

 

[danieldemol]

It's just natural rational fear of criminals who have motive and opportunity to do harm

ChristChurch wasn't that long ago. That person was not a Muslim. Islamic Terrorists and this Xenophobic Terrorist in ChristChurch have a lot of similarities.

The common thread is not Islam or being Muslim. That's the flaw in your reasoning.

You're not just missing the target; you're aiming the wrong way.

Can you please re read the post you are referring to, because I think you have no idea of what I just said at all