Minister beaten after clashing with Muslims on his TV show

Dada, you're just as bad as basso/texxx/TJ when it comes to Islam. You simply refuse to accept that Islam inherently is not violent. No matter how many times different people counter your plain argument that Islam is/teaches violence, you won't hear them out or take any of it into account. I think you turn a blind eye on it BUT I can understand why though (and I sincerely hope your beliefs on Islam are not from that dude on Austin public TV who babbles on and on about how Islam is a false religion).

Problem here isn't that you think it's fiction or not. Nobody is holding that against you. It's your wing-nut type belief that Islam teaches violence or is violent that people are trying to debate here.

 

I hate debating religion, but the idea that Christianity in particular (won't comment on others because I'm not familiar enough) was created to control people or to make profit is so bogus it drives me crazy.

The payment for the early people who followed Christianity was death or violence. Profit and control did not become things the church could utilize until much, much later, and they were the result of corrupt people corrupting the faith, not the faith being adhered to.

 

You believe Rushdie because... he just said what he said. Even if you believe that Muhammad PBUH is just an author of some sort, clearly, he has garnered more praise and support than Rushdie.

But you won't believe this because.....?

Anyways, FYI, the link just says "if you read the entire chapter from the beginning, then the claims made regarding the verse are clearly idiotic." Surely if you've believed this whole time that Muhammad PBUH gave us that verse, then he gave us the rest of the chapter himself too right?

Let's be clear here. You're selecting what to believe based on what suits you. Which is fine, and a lot of people do that, and you probably (logically) believe that everyone else has done that. But let's call a spade a spade. You are handpicking what to believe and, as evidenced by your "sources", your foundation for assessing the Qura'an (and hence Islam) is sub-par even for the average non-Muslim.

 

I didn't say Islam is violent, I said it has a mixed message which some people use to promote violence and bastardize it's overall message.

I think Islam has major discrepencies in it's text which people politicize and use against it.

I would say the same thing about Christianity and the "Jesus Camp".....

People are using religion to preach hatred, and to prop themselves up.....and I find it all downright maddening.

DD

 

I never said I believed Rushdie, I just don't believe Mohammed was anything more than a man seeking political gain by creating a religion.

I believe Mohammed spoke these things and they were written down for him, yes. I also believe him speaking them was no different than any other man starting a religion for political gain.

I disagree, I would say I know a great deal more about it than the average non-believer because I found it interesting.

However, once I got a little into it, I found it lacking in believability.....

Again, just my opinion.

It is a circular argument, you guys clearly believe, which is fine, but there is no evidence that he was talking to Gabriel, other than his word, which to me, is a bit much....so I fall on the "Don't believe it" side of the equation.

Tell ya what....a more interesting discussion might be...."Why you believe it"....

"How you came to the conclusion that it was real" and not made up which is what I think.

DD

DD

 

Regarding this, we don't differ in our belief. He may have screwed up. The only difference is that I believe he was corrected. I also believe that it is a KEY lesson in showing that Muhammad PBUH is human.

You don't believe the Devil exists or that the Prophet was corrected. You believe that he took back what caused so much irrational happiness (allowing them to believe in idols) and decided that it's best to retract it and create tons of enemies at a time when he was NOT in power.

I suppose that is rational to you, although I'm sure you'd appreciate that I find it impossible to rationalize. But I appreciate you reading that post and I think it would really help more people understand where you're coming from if you acknowledge your sources. Just for example, I understand you more now that I know you read my post and still came to the same conclusion.

Thanks for reading it. I'm not sure why you ask for explanations if you have predetermined that you won't believe aything that comes from Muslims (the only people keeping records of this), but I'm happy to explain what I can when I can if I can.

 

Points taken. Here are my thoughts:

1) Muhammad PBUH had a political agenda and no Muslim can deny this. This agenda arrived after the Qura'an though. Politics fall under the umbrella of Islam, which is not the case for all religions so I understand it's not easy to comprehend.

To clarify, Islam does not recognise jurisdiction. There is no such thing, really, as countries. There is the earth, which is owned by God and being "rented" by us. There are leaders to manage assets and keep things in check.

Therefore, if you view Islam as a country (which is the closest way to describe it) then yes, you are correct that just like the united States now, Russia before it and Germany before that, a goal is to become the most technologically advanced, the wealthiest, the most socially responsible, etc etc.. You will see this as threatning but it is no different than, say, China or japan wanting to be the "best" country in the world.

However, Islam is not allowed to go forward with the sword unless prompted. So, things like trespassing, stealing oil for example, terrorist attack, etc etc.. This can cause an attack from the Muslim side. No different than the United States of America.

Should Islam rule the world, we are not allowed to convert people into islam by force, EVER. The Prophet never did this and anyone who did in the name of Islam was wrong. Humans make mistakes.

So, did he engage in any political actions? Absolutely. It was his duty as the leader of the United Islamic Nation to have a political side.

Whether this was his motive for "creating" Islam or whether it became his duty later is where we differ. I'm not sure how a caravan manager suddenly becomes ruler of the known world just because he wanted to be and he found some creative writers.

I'm truly interested in where you think he received the words from. Remember, this guy is a caravan manager (after a promotion). No such leaders exist in the history of humanity (to my knowledge).

2) I'd love to discuss why I believe it's the truth. If you're really interested, please start a thread, and I'll answer whatever questions you have. I'm aware that religious debates don't really end, but I would be happy if I learned one thing from you and you learned anything from me.

 

this is a very good post, and i thank you for it.

Christianity was founded off the alleged experiences of lots of different people. It was instantly attacked by the establishment because it was largely anti-establishment. It was a new form of radical Judaism...at the very east it embraced a lot of those concepts. This put it at odds with those in power immediately. It would be 300 years before you'd point to the Church having any sort of worldly power.

 

I think he made them up based upon stories he had heard before from other religions, because it got people to do things for him.

If you want to create a religion, find an impoverished or beaten down people, promise them a great afterlife, add water, and wallah !

There are tons of cases throughout history of people claiming to speak to God, or are doing his work, most of them came and went, some stayed for a while then went. I don't think any religion that is going on now is any different.

Mathloom,

We may not agree on religion, but I think you are a great poster....in the vein of MadMax from the Christian side.

I don't agree with his takes either...BTW.



DD

 

Except about yao and the existence of God

 

Yes true, I do believe in God, and Yao.



DD

 

personal question you don't have to answer if you don't want: why do you believe in God?

 

1) I think God finds the people who need him. We have a saying in Islam. If you take one step towards Allah, he takes 1,000 steps towards you. Other than being an extremely trustworthy person (hence his nickname, trusy or Al Amin), Muhammad PBUH was unimpressive in his early life. He did absolutely nothing noteworthy other than being known as Al Amin (which means trusty). This is in spite of being from the ruling family.

2) Based on what I've seen of MadMax, I take that as a huge compliment and thank you. We will never all agree, but we should all be able to listen to each other without bias or prejudice. Putting all the race, technology and money issues aside, I thinkt he most important thing as a human race is that we're able to understand each other. Nothing will help us more tha the ability to receive and transmit information, and for that to happen, there are walls which need to be broken down. I just hope that everyone on both sides of each wall is trying to break them down rather than playing a game of Jenga.

 

I think the creation of all this life and universe would require divine intervention.

I also see that most people are inherently good, also something I find God like.

But, I could be wrong...I freely admit that.

DD

 

Good try, but no. Atleast you're admitting you are accustomed to spouting off about topics regarding which you are willfully ignorant.

That is a terrible analogy. The authenticity of Islam isn't relevant to this present discussion so I don't really care whether you think 'Peanuts' is fictional or not. Your arguments have been with respect to the apparent text, and an objective assumption of the falsity of Islam in no way impacts an assessment of these alleged claims of inconsistency. But as usual, you shift the scope of the discussion.

To put it simply for you, from an academic perspective, your problem isn't that you don't believe what they believe, but rather that you are ignorant of what they believe, yet you're critiquing what they believe from a position of admitted ignorance. It would be funny if it wasn't so painful to endure.

This has already been debunked numerous times, yet as usual, you choose to selectively ignore.

Not sure how this is such a difficult concept to grasp for you. The analogy to foreign policy is relevant because the "sword verses" were revealed within the context of warfare. These weren't timeless injunctions. The text was responsive and adaptive to the evolving dynamics of that community.

As usual, you shift the scope of the discussion. The debate isn't about the authenticity of the religion. The debate here is with regards to these alleged 'inconsistencies' in the text - it doesn't matter if this was revelation from God, for the purposes of this discussion. We can even assume theoretically that Muhammad wrote the Quran, for logical purposes.

The progression was from a small band of oppressed followers facing the threat of total annihilation to a full fledged quasi-empire in the Arabian peninsula. The Quran is a piecemeal compendium of ethical, spiritual, social, legal, and political injunction addressed as corresponding to the formative period of Islam. Whether you think that shouldn't be the case (which predictably would likely be your response) is irrelevant. That's what the text is, so the analogy is completely appropriate. It's not only a manual on ethics and spirituality but also a military code as befitting the circumstances of it's revelation/composition.

Do you seriously think that the American colonies were in a position to invade Iraq shortly after the Revolution or that the present empire would retreat to a timid stance in foreign affairs? Unless you're committed to this logic, it's difficult to understand why you're so perplexed by this evolutionary theme within the Quran.

Uhh, why? If the medium of transmission as claimed is that one man, why would it not be tied to his 'station on earth.' Should it be tied to the happenings in China? Again, it's not relevant whether you think he actually received revelation, for purposes of this critique of these alleged inconsistencies. If accepting the other variables, why wouldn't revelation be in coordination with his circumstances?

As usual, you shift the scope of the discussion. I don't think anyone gives a rat's ass whether you believe it or not - I certainly don't. The whole point of this discussion is the claim of these alleged inconsistencies in the text. Noone's asking you to believe in the religion.

As usual, you shift the scope of the discussion. You somehow jump from a critique of the inherent nature of the religion to a critique of its present interpretation/manifestation. Last I checked, noone is denying that the faith is 'being undermined to kill people and create terror all over the world. That doesn't impact the inherent nature of the text.

Perhaps you're not familiar with the word 'undermine', but your usage of the term flies contrary to your claims of an inherent depravity. How is the religion being undermined if, as you claim, it was inherently flawed from its textual conception? Don't worry, I'm not expecting a substantive response.

Ending all of your posts with a self-construed adage doesn't increase their profundity (or coherence), contrary to what you are probably thinking.

 

I am not critiquing what anyone believes, to each his own. I am just telling you what I believe, whether you like it or not.

And I am citing history as to what others have believed before, and shown where they too have gone out of vogue, which I expect will happen for all the current religions too.

It is relevent to everything in this discussion.

I get that you are saying it is perfectly fine that his message changed throughout his life, to me that is an impossible conclusion.

God is god, I don't think his message would change because of an alleged chosen messanger is somehow more powerful.

And I get that you find no inconistencies in the Koran, yet many others have....fine, you believe, I don't.

And I am not shifting any discussion, it is all germain....but no worries...I know you and I don't get along........especially on this topic....fine..

That is what you want to debate, I get that.....

And I guess some would say there are inconsistencies, because there sure are a fair amount of mullahs preaching hate and using the Koran as the message, now isn't there?

If you are saying that there are no inconsistencies then how are all these religious leaders getting it wrong?

DD

 

But if you are tarring religion for being the cause of great ills I think it is fair to point out that many secular movements have caused great ills too.

You're free to have that position but others are free to point out that your position is based on rather limited information and your claim of understanding is based on rather limited information.

 

i think u all suck but thecabbage is one cool nick!

btw are u a lawyer man? cause ur argumentation style is da shiat

 

The Old and New Testaments of The Bible are inconsistent just like the Koran. However, the teachings of Jesus are remarkably consistent. Mohammad, as DaDakota demonstrates, is terribly inconsistent. That's why I attempt to follow in the path of Jesus and pretty much ignore Mohammad.

BTW, if you "read any holy book once or twice," then why wouldn't you accept the definition and substance of what is clearly written? Otherwise, how can anything written be understood, when another person cavalierly says "oh, that's what it says but that's not what it means." That kind of blows contract law out of the water if that were so.

 

ok so let me get this straight,

first you dismiss me as a "sweet kid"
then you go all "articulate" on my a$$ throwing sophisticated words and artistically crafting your response as to perplex me/let me know who's boss in here on this issue..

well, I appreciate your knowledge and your excellent response to DaDa pal, but this ain't no apologetic revisionism, this is literal interpretation of the holy book with the "sword" and "subordination" verses taken in their correct historical and political context.. bottom line is: islam clearly prohibits taking a human being's life unless he/she has done the same to your people (ie: killed someone) or uterred/preached blasphemous and disrespectful notions toward the almighty... also: taking the life of a "believer" (ie: monotheistic religion follower like christians and jews) is a major sin punishable by, for the lack of a better expression, going to hell .. the interpretation for what constitutes for a good excuse to take the life of someone vary (hence the insane extremists), but it's pretty much clear cut for the most part..

apologetic revisionism my buttock