Australian Politics Forum - Islam vs other religions

polite_gandalf

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 20027
Canberra
Gender: male

Re: Islam vs other religions
Reply #90 - Jun 19^th, 2017 at 4:19pm

I must confess my ignorance of Shia theology. But isn't the Imanate sect just one of several Shia sects? I understand the Shia to have some quite progressive sects, namely the Alawites and the Houthies - who are currently getting pulverised by American and British bombs in Yemen.

But I can tell you that you don't need a special Iman to obtain subtle and enlightened meaning from the Quran. Reinterpreting the Quran actually has a very rich tradition in Islam - 'Ijtihad' - and it involves using ones intellect and reasoning to look beyond the mere literal meaning of the words. Unfortunately, many muslims consider the doors to ijtihad to be closed - and insist that a medieval canon of Quranic law is fit until the end of time.

The Islamic world doesn't need an Iman, it needs the doors to ijtihad to be reopened - for muslims to think for themselves and use their powers of reasoning to obtain sensible meaning of Quranic law that is appropriate for this day and age.

Back to top

A resident Islam critic who claims to represent western values said:
Quote:

Outlawing the enemy's uniform - hijab, islamic beard - is not depriving one's own people of their freedoms.

IP Logged

Auggie

Gold Member

Offline

The Bull Moose

Posts: 8571

Re: Islam vs other religions
Reply #91 - Jun 19^th, 2017 at 4:28pm

polite_gandalf wrote on Jun 19^th, 2017 at 4:19pm:

I must confess my ignorance of Shia theology. But isn't the Imanate sect just one of several Shia sects? I understand the Shia to have some quite progressive sects, namely the Alawites and the Houthies - who are currently getting pulverised by American and British bombs in Yemen.

But I can tell you that you don't need a special Iman to obtain subtle and enlightened meaning from the Quran. Reinterpreting the Quran actually has a very rich tradition in Islam - 'Ijtihad' - and it involves using ones intellect and reasoning to look beyond the mere literal meaning of the words. Unfortunately, many muslims consider the doors to ijtihad to be closed - and insist that a medieval canon of Quranic law is fit until the end of time.

The Islamic world doesn't need an Iman, it needs the doors to ijtihad to be reopened - for muslims to think for themselves and use their powers of reasoning to obtain sensible meaning of Quranic law that is appropriate for this day and age.

I totally agree. Weren't the Mut'alizites focused on using reasoning and intellect to interpret the Quran?

In fact, my whole previous argument on interpreting the Quran (i.e. my partiality that FD found unique) was that parts of the Quran that go against God's nature cannot be from God, etc., and that if the Quran is God's speech then 'God must have preceded his own speech...' which He did because He revealed the message to other Prophets.

The argument, in my view, was also that because the style of the Quran changes over time, not all of the Quran can't be God's Word: assuming that He is omnipotent and omniscent, then it's rational to assume that God is consistent and speaks with one voice. That he speaks in a poetic manner earlier on in the tradition and then changes toward a more prose-form later on indicates a significant degree of change that rationality cannot explain, unless of course one argues that God is arbitrary (which is then irrational, based on my view).

I see the Medinan verses of the Quran as a kind of 'Quranic aHadith' - supplementary texts that accompany the Quran. If you read the Quran chronologically, you'll find that about part way through it, Muhammad begins to mentioned Kitab (book) compared to Quran (recitation). Does this mean that only those few verses are actually the Quran and that everything else is commentary?

Back to top

The Progressive President

IP Logged

Karnal

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 95279
Gender: male

Re: Islam vs other religions
Reply #92 - Jun 19^th, 2017 at 5:16pm

polite_gandalf wrote on Jun 19^th, 2017 at 1:01pm:

freediver wrote on Jun 19^th, 2017 at 12:10pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Jun 19^th, 2017 at 11:22am:

freediver wrote on Jun 17^th, 2017 at 9:00am:

Muslims cannot actually take the position that slavery is inherently wrong because to do so is to criticise Muhammad. Isn't that right Gandalf?

I take the position that slavery is inherently wrong.

Is that clear enough for you?

So what is your take on Muhammad condoning slavery and using it as a recruiting tool?

You previously described slavery as merciful.

My take is that he 'condoned' slavery only in so far as he didn't seek wholesale abolition of a deeply ingrained practice - but arguably sought to phase it out gradually. Muhammad was not a revolutionary. He was the first leader to regulate the practice, stipulating human rights of slaves that must be respected (not quite a contradiction in terms as you are no doubt thinking), and most importantly, greatly broadened the conditions on which slaves could be freed - in addition to encouraging owners to free their slaves.

Yeheshua condoned slavery: slaves, be true to thy masters.

So I'm curious. Why isn't FD criticising Christianity?

Back to top

IP Logged

Karnal

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 95279
Gender: male

Re: Islam vs other religions
Reply #93 - Jun 19^th, 2017 at 5:26pm

polite_gandalf wrote on Jun 19^th, 2017 at 4:19pm:

I must confess my ignorance of Shia theology. But isn't the Imanate sect just one of several Shia sects? I understand the Shia to have some quite progressive sects, namely the Alawites and the Houthies - who are currently getting pulverised by American and British bombs in Yemen.

But I can tell you that you don't need a special Iman to obtain subtle and enlightened meaning from the Quran. Reinterpreting the Quran actually has a very rich tradition in Islam - 'Ijtihad' - and it involves using ones intellect and reasoning to look beyond the mere literal meaning of the words. Unfortunately, many muslims consider the doors to ijtihad to be closed - and insist that a medieval canon of Quranic law is fit until the end of time.

The Islamic world doesn't need an Iman, it needs the doors to ijtihad to be reopened - for muslims to think for themselves and use their powers of reasoning to obtain sensible meaning of Quranic law that is appropriate for this day and age.

Yes, but you must be aware that this is all taqiyya, shurely.

Out with it, G. Are you trying to trick us into thinking for ourselves so that, when we least expect it, you'll jump out with a bomb and blow us all up?

Please explain.

Back to top

IP Logged

Auggie

Gold Member

Offline

The Bull Moose

Posts: 8571

Re: Islam vs other religions
Reply #94 - Jun 19^th, 2017 at 5:42pm

Karnal wrote on Jun 19^th, 2017 at 5:16pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Jun 19^th, 2017 at 1:01pm:

freediver wrote on Jun 19^th, 2017 at 12:10pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Jun 19^th, 2017 at 11:22am:

freediver wrote on Jun 17^th, 2017 at 9:00am:

Muslims cannot actually take the position that slavery is inherently wrong because to do so is to criticise Muhammad. Isn't that right Gandalf?

I take the position that slavery is inherently wrong.

Is that clear enough for you?

So what is your take on Muhammad condoning slavery and using it as a recruiting tool?

You previously described slavery as merciful.

My take is that he 'condoned' slavery only in so far as he didn't seek wholesale abolition of a deeply ingrained practice - but arguably sought to phase it out gradually. Muhammad was not a revolutionary. He was the first leader to regulate the practice, stipulating human rights of slaves that must be respected (not quite a contradiction in terms as you are no doubt thinking), and most importantly, greatly broadened the conditions on which slaves could be freed - in addition to encouraging owners to free their slaves.

Yeheshua condoned slavery: slaves, be true to thy masters.

So I'm curious. Why isn't FD criticising Christianity?

Incorrect? Paul made that comment, not Jesus?

Back to top

The Progressive President

IP Logged

Karnal

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 95279
Gender: male

Re: Islam vs other religions
Reply #95 - Jun 19^th, 2017 at 6:02pm

Auggie wrote on Jun 19^th, 2017 at 5:42pm:

Karnal wrote on Jun 19^th, 2017 at 5:16pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Jun 19^th, 2017 at 1:01pm:

freediver wrote on Jun 19^th, 2017 at 12:10pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Jun 19^th, 2017 at 11:22am:

freediver wrote on Jun 17^th, 2017 at 9:00am:

Muslims cannot actually take the position that slavery is inherently wrong because to do so is to criticise Muhammad. Isn't that right Gandalf?

I take the position that slavery is inherently wrong.

Is that clear enough for you?

So what is your take on Muhammad condoning slavery and using it as a recruiting tool?

You previously described slavery as merciful.

My take is that he 'condoned' slavery only in so far as he didn't seek wholesale abolition of a deeply ingrained practice - but arguably sought to phase it out gradually. Muhammad was not a revolutionary. He was the first leader to regulate the practice, stipulating human rights of slaves that must be respected (not quite a contradiction in terms as you are no doubt thinking), and most importantly, greatly broadened the conditions on which slaves could be freed - in addition to encouraging owners to free their slaves.

Yeheshua condoned slavery: slaves, be true to thy masters.

So I'm curious. Why isn't FD criticising Christianity?

Incorrect? Paul made that comment, not Jesus?

Thanks, Augie, you're right. Paul condoned slavery.

Paul created Christianity. He was so responsible, early Christians were called Paulinians.

So why not criticise Christianity for condoning slavery?

Back to top

IP Logged

Auggie

Gold Member

Offline

The Bull Moose

Posts: 8571

Re: Islam vs other religions
Reply #96 - Jun 19^th, 2017 at 6:34pm

Karnal wrote on Jun 19^th, 2017 at 6:02pm:

Auggie wrote on Jun 19^th, 2017 at 5:42pm:

Karnal wrote on Jun 19^th, 2017 at 5:16pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Jun 19^th, 2017 at 1:01pm:

freediver wrote on Jun 19^th, 2017 at 12:10pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Jun 19^th, 2017 at 11:22am:

freediver wrote on Jun 17^th, 2017 at 9:00am:

Muslims cannot actually take the position that slavery is inherently wrong because to do so is to criticise Muhammad. Isn't that right Gandalf?

I take the position that slavery is inherently wrong.

Is that clear enough for you?

So what is your take on Muhammad condoning slavery and using it as a recruiting tool?

You previously described slavery as merciful.

My take is that he 'condoned' slavery only in so far as he didn't seek wholesale abolition of a deeply ingrained practice - but arguably sought to phase it out gradually. Muhammad was not a revolutionary. He was the first leader to regulate the practice, stipulating human rights of slaves that must be respected (not quite a contradiction in terms as you are no doubt thinking), and most importantly, greatly broadened the conditions on which slaves could be freed - in addition to encouraging owners to free their slaves.

Yeheshua condoned slavery: slaves, be true to thy masters.

So I'm curious. Why isn't FD criticising Christianity?

Incorrect? Paul made that comment, not Jesus?

Thanks, Augie, you're right. Paul condoned slavery.

Paul created Christianity. He was so responsible, early Christians were called Paulinians.

So why not criticise Christianity for condoning slavery?

Yes, I agree, however, the FDs and like compare the teachings of Muhammad with the teachings of Jesus. And there, I'm afraid is a clear distinction.

Islam and Christianity are separate issues.

Back to top

The Progressive President

IP Logged

freediver

Gold Member

Offline

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 48833
At my desk.

Re: Islam vs other religions
Reply #97 - Jun 19^th, 2017 at 9:19pm

polite_gandalf wrote on Jun 19^th, 2017 at 1:01pm:

freediver wrote on Jun 19^th, 2017 at 12:10pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Jun 19^th, 2017 at 11:22am:

freediver wrote on Jun 17^th, 2017 at 9:00am:

Muslims cannot actually take the position that slavery is inherently wrong because to do so is to criticise Muhammad. Isn't that right Gandalf?

I take the position that slavery is inherently wrong.

Is that clear enough for you?

So what is your take on Muhammad condoning slavery and using it as a recruiting tool?

You previously described slavery as merciful.

My take is that he 'condoned' slavery only in so far as he didn't seek wholesale abolition of a deeply ingrained practice - but arguably sought to phase it out gradually. Muhammad was not a revolutionary. He was the first leader to regulate the practice, stipulating human rights of slaves that must be respected (not quite a contradiction in terms as you are no doubt thinking), and most importantly, greatly broadened the conditions on which slaves could be freed - in addition to encouraging owners to free their slaves.

Crap. There were plenty of regulations regarding the condition of slaves prior to Muhammad.

Would you mind quoting where Muhammad talked about human rights? How exactly do you respect a person's human rights while denying them every human right by enslaving them? This is just more Islamic spin-doctoring, trying to polish a turd by redefining human rights, respect etc.

Muslims freed slaves who converted because it was yet another way to compel people to adopt Islam. And the idea of "freeing" a female slave after she bears her owner a son is about as cynical as it gets.

Are you now saying that Muhammad condoned something you consider to be inherently wrong?

polite_gandalf wrote on Jun 19^th, 2017 at 1:13pm:

freediver wrote on Jun 19^th, 2017 at 12:27pm:

Gandalf likes to draw a very long bow and paint the Muslims as the victims and the genocide as an act of self defence, for example by accusing the Jews (without any evidence at all, even by Muslim standards) of conspiring the genocide of Muslims

More nonsense from FD.

The Banu Qurayza conspired with the people who were laying siege to Medina. This you don't dispute. That the Quraysh were threatening "genocide" with their 10 thousand strong army who were attempting to overrun Medina is my assessment - and I don't think its an unreasonable one. Certainly more reasonable than calling the execution of a few hundred warriors for treason as "genocide".

You accused them, several times, of conspiring to commit genocide. You lied. You made the whole thing up. And now you are trying to tapdance around it. Muhammad committed genocide. The Jews did not. They did not conspire to commit genocide. They were not a mindless collective. These are all just lies you tell yourself to make you feel better about adopting an evil religion.

polite_gandalf wrote on Jun 19^th, 2017 at 1:16pm:

Auggie wrote on Jun 19^th, 2017 at 1:02pm:

FD, there's a verse in the Torah of a man violating a girl. God then instructs him to pay 50 shekels and marry her.

Isn't this condoning rape? Ergo, not really different from any other like verse in the Quran?

Shouldn't we acknowledge that both monotheistic traditions are rooted in tribal culture and therefore the rules and norms governing a tribal society are no longer compatible with modern, secular nation states?

Caesar trust me, you won't find any verse in the Quran saying or even suggesting rapists should marry their victims.

FD argues that the Quran allows spousal rape by rhetorically asking me where the Quran condemns such a practice - as opposed to pointing to any passage that condones it.

A legal system without punishment for rape condones rape. Particularly if it considers sex to be a man's right and a woman's responsibility, and also condones wife beating.

polite_gandalf wrote on Jun 19^th, 2017 at 3:51pm:

Auggie wrote on Jun 19^th, 2017 at 3:32pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Jun 19^th, 2017 at 1:16pm:

Auggie wrote on Jun 19^th, 2017 at 1:02pm:

FD, there's a verse in the Torah of a man violating a girl. God then instructs him to pay 50 shekels and marry her.

Isn't this condoning rape? Ergo, not really different from any other like verse in the Quran?

Shouldn't we acknowledge that both monotheistic traditions are rooted in tribal culture and therefore the rules and norms governing a tribal society are no longer compatible with modern, secular nation states?

Caesar trust me, you won't find any verse in the Quran saying or even suggesting rapists should marry their victims.

FD argues that the Quran allows spousal rape by rhetorically asking me where the Quran condemns such a practice - as opposed to pointing to any passage that condones it.

Maybe, but what about the claim that Muhammad had illicit sexual relations with a 9 year old girl?

based on questionable ahadith. More recent scholarship has cast serious doubts on the hadithic age of Aisha at consummation - and estimate she was actually in her late teens/early twenties.

In any case, none of that is mentioned in the Quran.

The "questionable" ahadith is Aisha herself talking about how old she was.

Back to top

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.

IP Logged

Karnal Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 95279 Gender:	Re: Islam vs other religions Reply #98 - Jun 19^th, 2017 at 9:26pm Don't want to say, eh? We understand. We'll need to ask you in a separate thread, no?
Back to top	IP Logged

Auggie Gold Member Offline The Bull Moose Posts: 8571	Re: Islam vs other religions Reply #99 - Jun 19^th, 2017 at 9:29pm Karnal wrote on Jun 19^th, 2017 at 9:26pm: Don't want to say, eh? We understand. We'll need to ask you in a separate thread, no? You talkin' to me? - Robert De Niro (Taxi)
Back to top	The Progressive President IP Logged

Secret Wars Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 3928 Gender:	Re: Islam vs other religions Reply #100 - Jun 19^th, 2017 at 9:39pm Auggie wrote on Jun 19^th, 2017 at 9:29pm: Karnal wrote on Jun 19^th, 2017 at 9:26pm: Don't want to say, eh? We understand. We'll need to ask you in a separate thread, no? You talkin' to me? - Robert De Niro (Taxi) I think so. karnal is just pleased to have someone respond, makes a change.
Back to top	IP Logged

Auggie

Gold Member

Offline

The Bull Moose

Posts: 8571

Re: Islam vs other religions
Reply #101 - Jun 19^th, 2017 at 9:56pm

Karnal wrote on Jun 19^th, 2017 at 9:26pm:

Don't want to say, eh?

We understand. We'll need to ask you in a separate thread, no?

I agree that FD and others should talk about slavery in Christianity and I believe they already have.

The question is about what the followers of the religion believe and how seriously they take the scripture. In the case of Christians, most don't actually believe that it's the Word of God (I can here FD over my shoulder castigating me for 'inventing followers'). Besides, the Bible makes no such claim that it's the literal Word of God; the Quran does.

Makes sense?

Back to top

The Progressive President

IP Logged

Frank

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 44574
Gender: male

Re: Islam vs other religions
Reply #102 - Jun 19^th, 2017 at 10:17pm

Auggie wrote on Jun 19^th, 2017 at 9:56pm:

Karnal wrote on Jun 19^th, 2017 at 9:26pm:

Don't want to say, eh?

We understand. We'll need to ask you in a separate thread, no?

I agree that FD and others should talk about slavery in Christianity and I believe they already have.

The question is about what the followers of the religion believe and how seriously they take the scripture. In the case of Christians, most don't actually believe that it's the Word of God (I can here FD over my shoulder castigating me for 'inventing followers'). Besides, the Bible makes no such claim that it's the literal Word of God; the Quran does.

Makes sense?

Britain led the abolishing of slavery in the West.

It is STILL not abolished in Islam. Muslims have traded far, FAR more slaves than Europeans, for far longer. It's still not unIslamic to trade slaves.
Get back to us when Islam abolishes slavery.

You prove yourself stupider than Brian with every post. And god knows, that is saying something. Are you in competition with him?

Back to top

Estragon: I can’t go on like this.
Vladimir: That’s what you think.

IP Logged

Karnal

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 95279
Gender: male

Re: Islam vs other religions
Reply #103 - Jun 19^th, 2017 at 10:26pm

Auggie wrote on Jun 19^th, 2017 at 9:56pm:

Karnal wrote on Jun 19^th, 2017 at 9:26pm:

Don't want to say, eh?

We understand. We'll need to ask you in a separate thread, no?

I agree that FD and others should talk about slavery in Christianity and I believe they already have.

The question is about what the followers of the religion believe and how seriously they take the scripture. In the case of Christians, most don't actually believe that it's the Word of God (I can here FD over my shoulder castigating me for 'inventing followers'). Besides, the Bible makes no such claim that it's the literal Word of God; the Quran does.

Makes sense?

Not at all, Augie. I was taught as a kid that the Bible is the "living" word of God, the absolute truth, and the essence of Christianity is to believe this.

You will find numerous pronouncements to back this up, from the Nicean creeds to various Catholic encyclicals to the works of Calvin and Luther.

I have no idea who's telling you Christians don't believe the Bible is the word of God. In some places, this would have you shunned or hunted down.

Back to top

IP Logged

Karnal

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 95279
Gender: male

Re: Islam vs other religions
Reply #104 - Jun 19^th, 2017 at 10:27pm

Frank wrote on Jun 19^th, 2017 at 10:17pm:

Auggie wrote on Jun 19^th, 2017 at 9:56pm:

Karnal wrote on Jun 19^th, 2017 at 9:26pm:

Don't want to say, eh?

We understand. We'll need to ask you in a separate thread, no?

I agree that FD and others should talk about slavery in Christianity and I believe they already have.

The question is about what the followers of the religion believe and how seriously they take the scripture. In the case of Christians, most don't actually believe that it's the Word of God (I can here FD over my shoulder castigating me for 'inventing followers'). Besides, the Bible makes no such claim that it's the literal Word of God; the Quran does.

Makes sense?

Britain led the abolishing of slavery in the West.

It is STILL not abolished in Islam. Muslims have traded far, FAR more slaves than Europeans, for far longer.

Apart from the Greeks and Romans, of course.

You're always right, old boy.

Back to top

IP Logged