Minister beaten after clashing with Muslims on his TV show

LOL, thecabbage. Nicely put.

 

Ok seriously, this discussion is pointless because you aren't even proficient with the very basics of the religion.

The vast majority of 'hadiths' aren't accepted by Muslims and are acknowledged as fabrications. This is irrespective of any relation to the Quran - I don't know how you made that leap of logic.

This is why debating about religion over the internet is so pointless.

 

This is just not true, sometimes they adapt, other times it is just washed away in time.

Romans, Summarians, Babylonians, Egyptians, Gnostics, Pagans, Greeks, etc..etc..etc..etc...

Most religions go the way of the dodo......very few survive intense scrutiny over long periods of time.

And even if they do, they generally shrink in stature as people are exposed to other ways of thinking.

The major problem with Islam is that for the most part it has been contained and is just now starting to face the scrutiny of the rest of the free thinking world, and in a good number of cases, the leaders of Islam still reside or are based in areas that do not permit or encourage a good hard unbiased look at it in general.

DD

 

Can you point me to a link that says they are not accepted by Muslims, or a discussion about that subject?

I am not saying you are wrong, but there seems to be a good amount of discussion about Hadiths from both the Muslim perspective and the non-believer perspective.

This is the first I have heard that most of them are considered fabrications, and are you also saying the one I quoted is one that is considered as such, because everything I find says it is accepted.

DD

 

I give up. Not a shot at you, but this is utterly futile and why I generally try to avoid these types of threads.

This brings to mind one of my favorite quotes, from the classical jurist, as-Shafiee:

"I debated a scholar and beat him. Then I debated a layman and that layman beat me - he had no knowledge of the principles and texts. I had nothing to say." as-Shafi'ee

 

There is no doubt you know more about Islam than I.

As I started to study it from a historical perspective and thinking of it in the context of the times, it lacked believabilty for me.

I just don't believe at all that Mohammed was anything more than a man.....a political leader of other men.

An influential man, like Ghandi, Jesus and others, but still, to me...just a man...

But even though we accept that you know more about it, that doesn't mean I accept your view about Hadiths as accurate, it is just you saying it...which to me is no more believable than anyone else saying something....without factual backup (sort of why I don't believe religion - no substantive facts).

But you are giving up instead of backing up your claims about Hadiths just as I was getting interested....

Dang.

DD

 

I'm not interested in 'believability.'

Maybe it's not from God, maybe Muhammad made it all up, fine.

That concession of inauthenticity in no way impacts the principles and doctrines as they were constructed. And that's what I am interested in - an assessment of this foundation. Yet, you keep revisiting this strawman discussion regarding the "truth" of Islam. That has no relevance upon the formative period.

LOL, it's not a view, I'm explaining the concept to you. 'Hadith' is simply the term given for the traditions. As it was an oral culture, these narrations were passed on through the generations. Hundreds of thousands of these traditions were in circulation at the time of the classical formative period. This "science of hadith" wasn't even developed until this period.

As would naturally be expected, numerous of these were fabrications pertaining to the political circumstances of the era. Or the chains of transmission were produced backwards. The science sought to determine which were authentic by virtue of subjection to rigorous tests.

Even after this, there are some groups that outright reject hadith as unreliable. Progressive modernist groups fall in this camp. But noone accepts ANY stated 'hadith' as outright valid.

 

DD, the Koran is claimed to be directly from God (told through the prophet), whereas Hadiths are generated from the prophets followers (not from the prophet himself)..... A mjority of Bukari's stuff is well accepted, that's why you should stick to material from him, even then there are hadiths with different levels of acceptance. It's a difficult topic, I don't know enough to really go in details.... I just don't expect someone who hasn't even fully read the Koran to be using Hadiths to disprove a religion. I recommend sticking to criticizing the Koran, cause it is what it is (even though translation can be an issue).

 

DaDakota - what you are essentially doing is taking a topic you admittedly know little about, then trying to debunk opposing claims by fervently throwing darts against the wall, hoping one sticks.

it's like you're saying 'well what about this?', 'well what about this?', 'oh, well what do you say about this?', 'uh huh ok, so how about this then?', with a youtube clip here, or google search mixed in there, all drifting from the initial focus of the discussion, 'your claim that islam was inherently violent in nature'.

then it's revealed that you aren't even familiar with basic terminology. if this was an honest inquiry into the religion on your part, i wouldn't mind, but you've basically already arrived at your own conclusion while attempting to solve for the dependent variable by means of whatever you can find.

this is stupid, exhausting, and a complete waste of time.

 

All religion causes violence IMO, it is the argument about which religion is more right than others.

Just look around the world and see what is causing most of the religious based violence today?

It is Islam.....far and away......if it is such a peaceful religion than why are so many people dying because they believe differently, or 75 year old women getting lashed in Saudi because they broke some Islamic based law, or how the original topic of this thread, that a man was beaten because he criticized Islam, or women being supressed in the name of Islam, or others IPs being monitored to weed out thoughts that are not in-line with Islamic dogma.

I know I am speaking in generalities, but in general, Islam is a much more violent religion these days - just based upon the actions being committed in it's name.

And frankly, I don't care that people find it offensive to point that out.....until Islam moderates itself, as most of the other religions have done....it will continue to get criticized for it's lack of flexibility and contradictions in it's verses.

DD

 

as do family relationships

money

greed

poverty

lack of family

etc.

religion/faith also causes a helluva lot of good things, too.

http://www.imgh.org/seniorservices.htm

http://www.imgh.org/refugees.htm

http://www.imgh.org/ODPR/RHMain.htm

http://www.water.cc/

http://www.chausa.org/Pub/MainNav/ourcommitments/default.htm

http://www.compassion.com/default.htm

http://www.sohmission.org/NetCommunity/Page.aspx?pid=195


There are a ton of good works done in the names of those from various faith traditions...Islam, Christianity and Judaism all command service to the poor.

Religion can be distorted....it has been. It's been awfully twisted to justify all sorts of evil ends.

But if the Church (for example) were to vanish today from the scene in the United States, how many social services would fall away? Do you see secular groups starting up missions to feed the poor? Who is going to them to serve them? And in those secular groups, how many leaders/volunteers are there out of some response to their faith? What if all the money given by Churches to all sorts of non-profits worldwide just vanished away...do you have any idea how much even one major Protestant denomination gives out each year in terms of dollars alone?

I can't speak for Islam and Judaism directly in that regard because I only have experience with it from the Church. But I see over and over again how religion is the source of evil...and death...and destruction. And I don't think that begins to tell 1/2 of the story. There is suffering caused by those who twist religion...true....but there is tons more comfort for the suffering from those in organized faith communities.

 

I concede that there are a lot of faith based organizations that do wonderful things for people.

I wish that was all that was done in the name of religion.

To me, that is what God would want.

DD

 

AMEN! I think I've told you that there's a church in NY that uses a picture of a hand grenade with the words: RELIGION KILLS on it as their symbol. The idea being that they don't believe Jesus is about religion....and that religion has been twisted to be about a lot of things it shouldn't be about.

 

This is where I disagree with you. The inherent nature of Islam is not isolated from its evolution. The two are one in the same. Religion, like any cultural phenomenon, is fluid and dynamic.

 

No, they all adapt. Some don't adapt enough to survive, but they all adapt.

 

People die the world over due to money; let's get rid of it.
People die the world over due to sex; let's get rid of it.
People die the world over due to government; let's get rid of it.
People die the world over due to drugs; let's get rid of them.
People die the world over due to alcohol; let's get rid of it.
People die the world over due to cars; let's get rid of them.

etc.

The point I'm making DaDa is that people die, are killed, or violence is perpetuated in the name of almost everything that man can possibly use. Religion is no different. When humanity, which is inherently sinful/corrupt/worldly/amoral/greedy/lustful/etc. once they begin grouping together, gets their grubby hands on anything, they always do bad things with them in the long run. This should not be a mark against Christianity/Islam/Judaism/Hiduism/etc., but rather a mark against mankind.

 

You forgot guns, transfats and smoking.

 

DaDa,

1) How can you believe the BBC when it is just the words of men?

the Qura'an didn't exist in the form of a book until after the Prophet's death. This is not disputed, but you keep harping on this. What's the significance of this?

One thing I will ever allow myself to do after making the mistake once is to rely on a non-Muslim news source to analyze the Qura'an.

You have shown your misinformation again though. The Hadith was not given to Muhammad PBUH by Allah and it is not the word of God. I have said this several times in this thread alone. Only the Qura'an. Not the Hadith. Hadith is the equivalent of (I mean this purely scientifically) the Bible. It is a collection of stories told ABOUT the Prophet PBUH and which is not infallibe.

2) I believe the Qura'an because I know it. It is not convenient for me.. In fact it is extremely difficult and sometimes I don't see why there are certain things I should do. But given that I know it is so perfect, how can I argue with it with my tiny minuscule brain? How do I dare assume that I will figure out God's universe and THEN decide which is the correct religion? Stupid line of thinking IMO.

Aside from that, just the miraculous things it says and the miraculous format. Can you imagine that over the Prophet's LIFETIME seperate verses were recited, and then one day, without blinking, he recited all the verses in a different order which turned out to be the most linguistically/poetically beautiful and coherent book? I know you can't understand this and I wish you spoke Arabic.

But I've seen scientists convert to Islam with my own eyes, shocked at what they've seen. The Big bang theory? Embryonic development? He couldn't make this **** up, nor did ANYONE in the world know about it at that time.

3) As for the Hadeeth, the word is not joints. It is an Arabic word that can mean joints or bones. Hadeeth is not the word of God, it is the word of Muhammad PBUH, a prophet, a human. Nevermind that a human infant has around 300-350 bones when born. To me, that is downright freaky that he knew this considering his occupation and education. It strengthened my Iman/faith, and I thank you for that.

 

Dada, quit shifting the topic. lol. It's sad to see that you see it as sad that the Government is doing what's best for me and my children. Oh poor me, I can't watch p*rn or read false/misleading information when I'm 12.

Back on topic. Are you going to admit that you were wrong about the bones or dodge the question over and over again?

Just to recap, the Quraan didn't get it wrong (never mentions 360 bones). At least admit that the website is a heap of cow dung.

 

Are you saying the Big Bang Theory origniated with the Quran?