CIVIL RELIGIOUS DISCUSSION: All things Islam...

[T.Lex]

What does that mean - "being a Muslim makes a person a risk"? Are you saying every Muslim should be considered a risk of becoming a suicide bomber? Or is this where you play games again about "real" Muslims?

T.Lex, what sort of game is it? If being something requires that you fall under that definition, how is it a game to say a thing pertaining to all people claiming that title?
View attachment 56185

Its your game, you tell me what kind it is. From my vantage, it is a game in which you get to say sweeping statements that are demonstrably untrue, then draw no practical implications from them from fear of revealing opinions that are unpopular and possibly even embarrassing.

Until you can articulate the goal of generalizing all Muslims as dangerous, that opinion is worthless. It has no value because it is empty of action. If you think you know something others don't, then act on it.

Knowing and not doing is the same as not knowing.

Incorrect, but very telling. Did you adopt a religion to act a certain way? I'm sure most do, so it's quite relevant to the discussion.

What way did you want to act that made Catholicism attractive? Was it a cultural thing? What way do people want to act that makes Islam attractive?

While I'm sure you think I should be flattered with your attention and unsupported expressions of opinion that you may or may not actually hold, this thread is about Islam. Not me, not Catholicism, and not your narcissism. Well, sometimes it is about that last one....

 

[hog slayer]

The Quran was revealed to Prophet Muhammad who was an illiterate man who claimed to be a prophet just like Abraham, Moses and Jesus.
The question is how do we know he was telling the truth? He was either Lying, deluded or telling the truth:


1. Lying

Before he claimed to be a prophet, he was nicknamed “Al Amin” The trustworthy" one as he was never known to lie. People would lie to get material gain however he was offered wealth, position and women to leave his message but he rejected this and instead lived a life of struggle.
This is not the profile of a liar.
[video=youtube;SLplKvhEKok]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SLplKvhEKok[/video]


.2. Deluded

He might think he is a prophet but is not.However someone who is deluded could bring about a miraculous book like the Quran. The Quran could not be produced by a human so for it to be revealed to Mohammad shows that he was not deluded.

[video=youtube;2ZrJLSDhKUQ]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ZrJLSDhKUQ[/video]

3. Speaking the truth

So therefore when we look at the life and character of Muhammad pbuh we see he was telling the truth and that he is what he claims which is a prophet of God.

I like the war of the YouTube. Hope you read the thread first.

What is sharia? As I understand it, it is the guidance that Muhammad gave us in his perfect example

 

[ATM]

...While I'm sure you think I should be flattered with your attention and unsupported expressions of opinion that you may or may not actually hold, this thread is about Islam. Not me, not Catholicism, and not your narcissism. Well, sometimes it is about that last one....

Or, perhaps I always wanted to talk about deceptions and truths and we're finally getting around to it.

Get ready, you know I'm going to ask cui bono of these various "systems" at some point. Who benefits from Islam?

 

[hog slayer]

Its your game, you tell me what kind it is. From my vantage, it is a game in which you get to say sweeping statements that are demonstrably untrue, then draw no practical implications from them from fear of revealing opinions that are unpopular and possibly even embarrassing.

Until you can articulate the goal of generalizing all Muslims as dangerous, that opinion is worthless. It has no value because it is empty of action. If you think you know something others don't, then act on it.

Knowing and not doing is the same as not knowing.



While I'm sure you think I should be flattered with your attention and unsupported expressions of opinion that you may or may not actually hold, this thread is about Islam. Not me, not Catholicism, and not your narcissism. Well, sometimes it is about that last one....

I don't understand.

I have no opinions here that I've attempted to hide. I'm not embarrassed. I'm not afraid of judgement. What is popular is not always right, and what is right is not always popular. I'm married. Popularity went out the window some time ago.

The action that I could take; what could that look like?
I'm astounded that you have not attempted any further counter than that not all Muslims are suicide bombers or members of Isis. And then you tell me I've done little to substantiate my position that if Allah is the source of the Quran, the unerring word of god, sent via Angel to Muhammad, a self-centered warlord as documented in the hadith, and that we are to use Muhammad as out example in every area of life. And I also provide definitions and text from the Quran to substantiate all of this. And somehow there is supposed to be room for someone to consider themselves Muslim and not follow Muhammad and his deplorable example, as laid out in the history books.

What am I missing? I am struggling to understand how you would come across as avoiding a real and solid argument when it seems completely uncharacteristic from posts of yours in other threads.

I've got to be overlooking something

 

[ATM]

...I've got to be overlooking something

What you're overlooking is that the field is full of actors.

 

[Think]

I like the war of the YouTube. Hope you read the thread first.

What is sharia? As I understand it, it is the guidance that Muhammad gave us in his perfect example

Actually, I just have time to see the last 2 pages

Regarding Sharia, it refers to the values, code of conduct, and religious commandments or sacred laws of Muslims which gives guidance for different areas of life. It's characterized by flexibility depending on the context and the people interpreting it. Muslims believe Christians and Jews had their own sharia/laws too.

Here is a brief explanation of it: Sharia in the U.S. - Islamic Center of St. Joseph | Northwest Missouri

 

[T.Lex]

I don't understand.

I have no opinions here that I've attempted to hide. I'm not embarrassed. I'm not afraid of judgement. What is popular is not always right, and what is right is not always popular. I'm married. Popularity went out the window some time ago.

The action that I could take; what could that look like?
I'm astounded that you have not attempted any further counter than that not all Muslims are suicide bombers or members of Isis. And then you tell me I've done little to substantiate my position that if Allah is the source of the Quran, the unerring word of god, sent via Angel to Muhammad, a self-centered warlord as documented in the hadith, and that we are to use Muhammad as out example in every area of life. And I also provide definitions and text from the Quran to substantiate all of this. And somehow there is supposed to be room for someone to consider themselves Muslim and not follow Muhammad and his deplorable example, as laid out in the history books.

What am I missing? I am struggling to understand how you would come across as avoiding a real and solid argument when it seems completely uncharacteristic from posts of yours in other threads.

I've got to be overlooking something

Two things:
1 - You can answer the "what is to be done" without regard to any rebuttal of your opinions. Yet you don't. From that, I can only glean that you don't want to, for some reason.

2 - I posted, I believe directly in response to a post of yours, a rebuttal of your mis-characterization of your Koran cite from an actual Muslim. I don't believe you posted a response. I believe it was in the Ariana Grande thread. But, I will admit, I lost track. I can probably re-post. In fact, probably better to post it in this thread.

Now I just have to find it...

 

[jamil]

What does that mean - "being a Muslim makes a person a risk"? Are you saying every Muslim should be considered a risk of becoming a suicide bomber? Or is this where you play games again about "real" Muslims?

T.Lex, what sort of game is it? If being something requires that you fall under that definition, how is it a game to say a thing pertaining to all people claiming that title?
View attachment 56185

This argument is facile, and I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt with that. You ignore the fact that Islam, or really any system of belief, is not binary, wherein you either accept all of it, or none of it. People don't all believe the same things, not even within a particular religious sect. People don't tend to believe all or nothing. They generally take into belief the parts they like while discarding what doesn't ring true for them. Most people like to have their beliefs ala carte. There is ample evidence of this. If you apply this reasoning as strictly to your own religion as you have to Islam, then you must condemn everyone who calls themselves Christians, but does not believe exactly everything that you do. That's the standard you're applying to Muslims.

Rather, in Christianity, and every other religion, or even every other belief system, the histogram looks much like a bell curve, where at the center, the highest part of the curve, is the core beliefs, and then belief tapers off into the fringes of belief. This is why the argument that 1.8 billion aren't beheading non-Muslims, is a valid indicator on the real-world, core beliefs of Muslims. The portion of muslims who are violent represent a small portion of that 1.8 billion. They are by definition, towards the fringes.

But don't misunderstand what I'm saying. While those violent Muslims are towards the fringe, I am not saying they are insignificant. I am not saying they are not dangerous. They are dangerous, and they are apparently growing as they radicalize more Muslims. I am only saying that you have not established that it's all of them. You've given no empirical evidence to back up that claim. You've only provided rigid definitions selectively favorable to your conclusion.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

To consider all Muslims dangerous... you'd also have to believe all Christians behave like the Westboro Baptist Church. Is that a fair comparison?

 

[hog slayer]

Actually, I just have time to see the last 2 pages

Regarding Sharia, it refers to the values, code of conduct, and religious commandments or sacred laws of Muslims which gives guidance for different areas of life. It's characterized by flexibility depending on the context and the people interpreting it. Muslims believe Christians and Jews had their own sharia/laws too.

Here is a brief explanation of it: Sharia in the U.S. - Islamic Center of St. Joseph | Northwest Missouri

please allow me to sidestep sharia for s moment. This caught my attention in the article provided. Can you provide me something other than the authors opinion to support this paragraph? Something from the guiding texts?

The charge of taqqiya is often deployed by "Sharia threat" advocates when confronted with evidence that refutes their thesis. Under this methodology one cannot trust any practicing Muslim. Even if a Muslim preaches and practices non-violence, these individuals would say that person is either not a true Muslim or is practicing taqiyya. While providing a mechanism for critics to ignore any disconfirming evidence, adopting such an interpretation of taqiyya would almost certainly result in every observant Muslim being branded a liar or suspect simply by virtue of being Muslim.

 

[ATM]

To consider all Muslims dangerous... you'd also have to believe all Christians behave like the Westboro Baptist Church. Is that a fair comparison?

All humans have the capacity to be dangerous, why limit the claim to Muslims, or even limit it to actions based on deceptions?

Muslims are not the problem, humans are not the problem, truth is not the problem - deception is.

 

[hog slayer]

Two things:
1 - You can answer the "what is to be done" without regard to any rebuttal of your opinions. Yet you don't. From that, I can only glean that you don't want to, for some reason.

2 - I posted, I believe directly in response to a post of yours, a rebuttal of your mis-characterization of your Koran cite from an actual Muslim. I don't believe you posted a response. I believe it was in the Ariana Grande thread. But, I will admit, I lost track. I can probably re-post. In fact, probably better to post it in this thread.

Now I just have to find it...

I can accept this. I've posted things while missing others posts in the past. I very likely missed an important one from you. Likewise, I've posted the only ethical solution I can come up with: do nothing with regard to the borders. Allow profiling. Those two things. That's it.

 

[jamil]

I don't understand.

I have no opinions here that I've attempted to hide. I'm not embarrassed. I'm not afraid of judgement. What is popular is not always right, and what is right is not always popular. I'm married. Popularity went out the window some time ago.

The action that I could take; what could that look like?
I'm astounded that you have not attempted any further counter than that not all Muslims are suicide bombers or members of Isis. And then you tell me I've done little to substantiate my position that if Allah is the source of the Quran, the unerring word of god, sent via Angel to Muhammad, a self-centered warlord as documented in the hadith, and that we are to use Muhammad as out example in every area of life. And I also provide definitions and text from the Quran to substantiate all of this. And somehow there is supposed to be room for someone to consider themselves Muslim and not follow Muhammad and his deplorable example, as laid out in the history books.

What am I missing? I am struggling to understand how you would come across as avoiding a real and solid argument when it seems completely uncharacteristic from posts of yours in other threads.

I've got to be overlooking something

What you are missing is what I stated above. Not every Muslim believes every belief you've ascribed to them. Not every Muslim interprets their Quran the way you have. The "not 1.8 billion muslims are terrorists" argument is an adequate, empirical rebuttal of your theoretical argument. A theory ain't **** if its rubber can't meet the road.

 

[foszoe]

To consider all Muslims dangerous... you'd also have to believe all Christians behave like the Westboro Baptist Church. Is that a fair comparison?

How many people have they killed?

 

[Kutnupe14]

Actually, I just have time to see the last 2 pages

Regarding Sharia, it refers to the values, code of conduct, and religious commandments or sacred laws of Muslims which gives guidance for different areas of life. It's characterized by flexibility depending on the context and the people interpreting it. Muslims believe Christians and Jews had their own sharia/laws too.

Here is a brief explanation of it: Sharia in the U.S. - Islamic Center of St. Joseph | Northwest Missouri

That is an excellent point... and honestly, it's completely true. However, I think over time those types of Christian groups, while they still exist, have been pushed to the fringes. It is common believed, that as far a Islam and Sharia (of the oppressive variety), the sentiment is that it still a strongly held belief by an unsettling large amount of followers.

 

[Kutnupe14]

How many people have they killed?

Playing Devil's Advocate, WBC should be replace with simple "Americans."

 

[hog slayer]

To consider all Muslims dangerous... you'd also have to believe all Christians behave like the Westboro Baptist Church. Is that a fair comparison?

No. That's an uneducated comparison.
Here we go. Follow the leader:
Muhammad or Jesus. The west Boro Baptist church is insignificant because no Christian church accepts our condones what they do. They become an island. Not a representative.

 

[jamil]

How many people have they killed?

I think it's meant as an application of a principle, that if you can extrapolate from one particularly troublesome sect of a religion to apply to all, then it works the same way across different religions. It is notable that the most troublesome sect in Christianity is all show and no go. They're not tossing gays off of buildings. They're just standing around exercising their freedom of speech, holding up signs proclaiming their god hates fags.

 

[hog slayer]

What you are missing is what I stated above. Not every Muslim believes every belief you've ascribed to them. Not every Muslim interprets their Quran the way you have. The "not 1.8 billion muslims are terrorists" argument is an adequate, empirical rebuttal of your theoretical argument. A theory ain't **** if its rubber can't meet the road.

Thank you four the best response I've read yet.

Not this one. This one sucks. Really, we just passed each other unbeknownst

 

[T.Lex]

I can accept this. I've posted things while missing others posts in the past. I very likely missed an important one from you. Likewise, I've posted the only ethical solution I can come up with: do nothing with regard to the borders. Allow profiling. Those two things. That's it.

Fair enough.

In terms of the borders, I actually disagree. We can always improve processes (in a Six Sigma sense/continuous process improvement) in vetting. The enemy always changes tactics, we should, too. Now, I think we do a solid job, but can build on it.

In terms of profiling - profile all Muslims? That's going to be a labor-intensive goal that would divert valuable resources to millions of people who aren't risks. If you mean profile Muslims who view certain sites, listen to certain imams, or visit certain countries? That's not profiling, that's law enforcement.