Conversation with a Muslim on Youtube (Long ranty post)

[monitoradiation]

I'm sure we all have been through this at one point or another; someone on youtube says something that's deemed decent but there's a flaw, you want to ask them about it... It's just something I wanted to share. This is the comment that I originally had some problems with:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UzK4FvwDuSo

Arabs are no better than a non-arab. Only the pious are better, and only our creator knows who is pious.

I said I had a problem with that because by definition unbelievers have zero level of piety and hence muslims didnt need the creator to know that they're "better" than unbelievers. It forms a substitute superiority complex such that they can claim that they're not racist, but they're better on other grounds.

Then before you know it, some 3rd party budges in claiming to know everything and that you know nothing; you hold their hands through why you think that way, and they call you a bigot.

This is pretty much the way it went down:

Me: Quotes 4:34 and 4:113 and 4:89; (beating women, don't have unbelieving friends, kill unbelievers)
Him: Says that it's no longer practical to beat women.
Me: Noting that he applies contemporary morality and historical interpretation. Asks why he claimed (before) that the quran was "impossible to misinterpret". Quote quran 4:89, having read the entire 4th surah, asking whether or not unbelievers should be killed.
Him: Claims I'm quote mining.
Me: Telling him that I've read the entire surah.
Him: Claims I'm still quote-mining.
Me: Quotes the entire 4:88-93.
Him: Reluctantly describes the peaceful bits 4:90-91 "don't kill unbelievers if they're not attacking you" but doesn't explain killing unbelievers anyway in 4:89.
Me: Explaining that that's picking and choosing, quote mining his own quran to say what he wants it to say.
Him: Claims he's already explained everything.
Me: Re-iterate what my question was.
Him: Calls me a bigot and an islam hater.

Like, wtf? Actually, the wtf part came in WAY earlier when he used the no-true-scotsman fallacy and says that fundamentalists are not HIS PROBLEM. He says that if muslims don't follow the peaceful interpretation of the quran then he's not a muslim and that's THEIR PROBLEM. How is that even possible? I couldn't believe that when I heard it.

Now he refuses to reply to the comment section altogether, and someone starts to thumbdown all my comments.

Is this what happens when you argue with a muslim? So peaceful, right?

 

[Otokogoroshi]

That's what anyone who is trying to defend an indefasable point does. If they can't distract you they eventually point a finger at you scream that you are hateful and run off diclaring victory to themselves.

 

[monitoradiation]

What pissed me off the most though isn't that he's so defensive about it. What pissed me off was that he doesn't think that Muslim fundies are his problem.

Its not our problem becuz they dont follow Qur'an. i recite Qur'an regularly. I havnt thought about slaping or kiking non-muslims ever. thy r creation, of Allah/God.
Qur'an cant be misinterpreted. a person who read it but do something else dsnt mean he has misinterpreted it. it means he is not following it.
true muslims dont leave garbage , we are not responsible to clean mess of other. else ud be needing to spend all ur life to clean the garbage of which comes from ur side.
Peace "

What really makes me mad is that one of these days if the fundies take over, the religious moderates are also in line on the chopping block. They must deal with the moderates if they're to establish themselves as leaders of their religion. And then there're these people who think that fundies are somehow unbelievers and it's our problem to deal with fundies. How absurd is that?! What do you even SAY to someone like that?

 

[Raistlin Majere]

There really is nothing to say to them. I've yet to have a conversation with a Muslim that has not pulled the no true scotsman fallacy. After that comes the cries of abuse and outrage and then of course the censorship. It's pretty much the same bullshit every time.

 

[Epicion]

There really is nothing to say to them. I've yet to have a conversation with a Muslim that has not pulled the no true scotsman fallacy. After that comes the cries of abuse and outrage and then of course the censorship. It's pretty much the same bullshit every time.

I've yet to meet two people who believe in something to believe in exactly the same thing. Not just religiously, but anything. Any title, name it. Emo? Goth? Each one has their own interpretation and each one claims they are the correct one. You have to be the most blindest person in the world not to know the logical fallacy in invoking the "true scotsman fallacy" whenever someone mentions this. It's the most oldest, and the most cowardly tactic used by Atheists till this day.

Tell me, How would you feel if someone said "You believe something came from nothing" I know, its an annoying creationist question which is baseless, but assume someone asks you that. You answer "that's not what I believe" and he says "Aha! no true scotsman fallacy!" It gets retarded. So sorry, I show no sympathy, nor any respect for someone mindless enough to believe that is an excuse for being unable to comprehend or understand theology or what a creationist is saying, Infact it shows to me the person who believes in such a fallacious excuse should not bother dabbling in these matters without further education in it.

Now, on to the topic.

Baba Ali is an idiot. I'm surprised you even spoke to him. You will not speak to Kirk Cameron about deeply religious matters, You'd speak to a priest or pastor. Speaking to a spokesman for a religion is ridiculous in the highest degree. Baba Ali knows about as much about Islam as he knows about practical life.

Have you seen his videos? They are utter garbage, and I deeply encourage everyone to actually make videos against that damn fool. He openly says "Guys fool girls" and "guys and girls can't be best friends" There is no equality at all, infact if a guy is in contact with a girl, he is after her sexually according to him. This guy is one of the few muslims who actively annoy me.

Anyway, Let me give you the typical apologetic bull to your claims.

Me: Quotes 4:34 and 4:113 and 4:89; (beating women, don't have unbelieving friends, kill unbelievers)

Mistranslation on 4:34, IS meant to say "leave" instead of "beat", similar word used else where with the translation "leave" and not "beat". regarding not befriending non muslims, it was given at a time when muslims were enemies with christians and pagans, therefore for protective reasons, this commandment was given. Kill unbelievers was given during the water when an ultimatum was given to the pagans to stop killing their people or else they will attack back. This verse was revealed during the war that they were NOW allowed to fight back, before they were not and were mercilessly slaughtered for their belief.

Do you understand that your copy/pasting tactics are of no use? or would you like to continue? Spend your time in actually learning about Islam rather than copy/pasting things in an attempt to overthrow someone. Islam is a whole different ball game from Christianity.
Alot of history is needed in order to actually explain half this stuff. Almost no westerner actually knows how the Quran was recieved, I believe their understanding ends at "Some angel came and told this stuff to the Prophet" but do you actually know that it was written over a period a decade or so? Not to mention verses were taken out and replaced? I doubt it, but I'm sure one of you may know.

He says that if muslims don't follow the peaceful interpretation of the quran then he's not a muslim and that's THEIR PROBLEM. How is that even possible? I couldn't believe that when I heard it.

Same argument, Someone fills garbage down someone else's throat. It's labelled under the title of, lets say being "Escalonion", a few days down the line you meet someone who criticises you, and lo and behold. what the person is criticising is not what YOU believe. So what do you do? Infact what are you even arguing about?

No true scotsman fallacy, in itself IS a fallacious point to ever make in an argument. Thats why you don't jump in with "Explain this" you ask "is this what you believe?" No muslim, Christian or of ANY form of group believes exactly the same thing, therefore the No True Scotsman fallacy is a coward's way out of leaving a debate and losing it due to lack of preperation and crying about it on a forums criticising others when its evident that his lack of information is what caused his withdrawal.

Now he refuses to reply to the comment section altogether, and someone starts to thumbdown all my comments.

Is this what happens when you argue with a muslim? So peaceful, right?

It's Baba Ali, Do you even KNOW anything about it? His greatest accomplishment was to make a damn board game, and he lives under the title "game designer". The man is made of utter bull crap. How the hell would you feel if I told you "omg I just debated Kent Hovind! This is crap!" Every one knows Kent Hovind is an ass. Same goes for Baba Ali. Waste your time on someone more meaningful so I can bother to reply and even help you. Otherwise its a waste of time.

-L

 

[Sando]

Without getting in on any of that other stuff, I'd just like to point out that the "No true scotsman" argument isn't a fallacy on it's own. The problem lies in people misusing it. This is the classic example:

C: "No Christian has ever killed in the name of christianity!"
A: *brings up for example the Inquisition*
C: "They did not follow the Bible correctly and weren't real Christians."

You make a statement and only accept facts that back up that statement, others are ignored as irrelevant. It's like saying "All pink trees are pink", but you hide it in order to justify something outside of that statement.

What you described was a situation where the first part makes a false assumption about what the person believes and/or thinks. It's a different thing, as the person accused of "no true scotsman" isn't suggesting anything at all. He's simply correcting the statement to get in line with the facts. Different thing.

It's a very narrow argument, and it's especially narrow against atheists where there's an abscence of dogma.

 

[Epicion]

What you described was a situation where the first part makes a false assumption about what the person believes and/or thinks. It's a different thing, as the person accused of "no true scotsman" isn't suggesting anything at all. He's simply correcting the statement to get in line with the facts. Different thing.

According to creationists, All Atheists criticising their holy book are making the wrong assumption and therefore the no true scotsman can never really be used.

-L

 

[Sando]

According to creationists, All Atheists criticising their holy book are making the wrong assumption and therefore the no true scotsman can never really be used.

-L

That wouldn't be a situation when you'd use a "no true scotsman" anyway. It's not about proving god's existence or anything like that, but can only be used in situations about the believers themselves.

 

[Epicion]

That wouldn't be a situation when you'd use a "no true scotsman" anyway. It's not about proving god's existence or anything like that, but can only be used in situations about the believers themselves.

Well, Then thus far, I've seen a pretty poor use of the No True Scotsman fallacy.

-L

 

[monitoradiation]

I've yet to meet two people who believe in something to believe in exactly the same thing. Not just religiously, but anything. Any title, name it. Emo? Goth? Each one has their own interpretation and each one claims they are the correct one. You have to be the most blindest person in the world not to know the logical fallacy in invoking the "true scotsman fallacy" whenever someone mentions this. It's the most oldest, and the most cowardly tactic used by Atheists till this day.

The problem at the core is that people identified within the same group, reads the same books, comes to vastly different conclusions, acts on their conclusions, all of them claiming that their individual conclusions are correct. As someone who doesn't believe, I'd like to know how that can happen.

I understand that identification by the same group does not mean that everyone within the group is identical. What I was asking is that I don't understand how one section of the group can be so substantially different from another on something as simple as the basic tenants with regards to how they treat people who're not labeled the same; and why these differences somehow aren't a concern for this particular muslim commentor.

Tell me, How would you feel if someone said "You believe something came from nothing" I know, its an annoying creationist question which is baseless, but assume someone asks you that. You answer "that's not what I believe" and he says "Aha! no true scotsman fallacy!" It gets retarded.

Actually, I would feel that they're misled. Generally, people who shove words into my mouth don't know what I believe in. I would then be willing to tell them what I believe. However, the question that I posed wasn't strictly pertaining to what the quran said, but how people are supposed to interpret it. It was a way to show that his blatant claim that "the quran cannot be misinterpreted" is practically senseless, leading to calling him out on the no-true-scotsman fallacy, since he assumed that anyone who disagreed with his interpretation of the quran is not a muslim.

The original discussion came about because I was wondering how one was supposed to uphold the whole "Islam is a religion of peace and equality" thing by asking how one is supposed to think about those passages that I quoted, and how is it that fundamentalist muslims exist. Ultimately, the question wasn't about the religion itself, but about how moderate muslims seem to be indifferent regarding fundamentalist muslims seem to be dragging the entire name of their religion through mud.

So sorry, I show no sympathy, nor any respect for someone mindless enough to believe that is an excuse for being unable to comprehend or understand theology or what a creationist is saying, Infact it shows to me the person who believes in such a fallacious excuse should not bother dabbling in these matters without further education in it.

I'm presuming you're talking about me, or at least Raistlin, because I had said that DoubbleClick was making an excuse via no-true-scotsman fallacy to not have to deal with fundamentalist muslims.

You have committed a serious error. What you're doing is conflating two separate issues. The issue isn't that two sections of the same group believe in different things. That's a given. The issue is that these two sections of the same group believe in different outlooks on how to treat the nonbelievers/women, and one group doesn't seem all that concerned about the discrepancy at all.

This is totally different than if someone asked me if I "believed something came from nothing" and I told them I didn't. They would simply be mistaken and that'd be that. There's no actual fallacy in there, as Sando correctly pointed out.

Secondly, I'm not posting this for your sympathy/respect, and I don't need any of it from you.

Baba Ali is an idiot. I'm surprised you even spoke to him. You will not speak to Kirk Cameron about deeply religious matters, You'd speak to a priest or pastor. Speaking to a spokesman for a religion is ridiculous in the highest degree. Baba Ali knows about as much about Islam as he knows about practical life.

Have you seen his videos? They are utter garbage, and I deeply encourage everyone to actually make videos against that damn fool. He openly says "Guys fool girls" and "guys and girls can't be best friends" There is no equality at all, infact if a guy is in contact with a girl, he is after her sexually according to him. This guy is one of the few muslims who actively annoy me.

I was previously unaware of who the guy is. It's precisely because of what he said in one of his videos that I commented on it, leading to this post.

Me: Quotes 4:34 and 4:113 and 4:89; (beating women, don't have unbelieving friends, kill unbelievers)

Mistranslation on 4:34, IS meant to say "leave" instead of "beat", similar word used else where with the translation "leave" and not "beat". regarding not befriending non muslims, it was given at a time when muslims were enemies with christians and pagans, therefore for protective reasons, this commandment was given. Kill unbelievers was given during the water when an ultimatum was given to the pagans to stop killing their people or else they will attack back. This verse was revealed during the war that they were NOW allowed to fight back, before they were not and were mercilessly slaughtered for their belief.

This is pretty much what DoubbleClick said. I told him that I was under the impression that the quran was supposed to be timeless and perfect. That we're having a discussion at all about this tells you quite a lot about how timeless and perfect the quran is. I've heard your apologetics before; it only addresses the quran's view on unbelievers and women on the surface and says nothing about potential interpretations. But I'll have it pass, since it wasn't actually the question anyway. (for reference, I was asking why 4:89 and 4:90-91 seem to suggest different things)

The question that I posed to DoubbleClick, was in regards to his comment that the quran was impossible to misinterpret. This sets him up for the no-true-scotsman fallacy, not because there are different interpretations of what the quran says.

Do you understand that your copy/pasting tactics are of no use? or would you like to continue? Spend your time in actually learning about Islam rather than copy/pasting things in an attempt to overthrow someone. Islam is a whole different ball game from Christianity.

Alot of history is needed in order to actually explain half this stuff. Almost no westerner actually knows how the Quran was recieved, I believe their understanding ends at "Some angel came and told this stuff to the Prophet" but do you actually know that it was written over a period a decade or so? Not to mention verses were taken out and replaced? I doubt it, but I'm sure one of you may know.

I understand the these writings are timepieces. They're to be interpretted; and obviously no matter how vehemently my fundamentalist friends tell me, I would imagine that the quran had been somewhat altered.

I can tentatively accept your interpretation and it's not the first time I've heard it, so you can save your condescension for someone else. I was asking a question, not trying to "overthrow" someone. You could do without that superior attitude.

How is it that a person's no longer even allowed to ask a question without being told that they're trying to "overthrow someone without proper education"? It's a question, not having the proper information is a pre-requisite to asking a question.

Same argument, Someone fills garbage down someone else's throat. It's labelled under the title of, lets say being "Escalonion", a few days down the line you meet someone who criticises you, and lo and behold. what the person is criticising is not what YOU believe. So what do you do? Infact what are you even arguing about?

This is a different situation altogether. I was asking a moderate muslim how it is that different interpretations of the quran exist within the same identification; it wasn't a direct criticism. If they can defend their beliefs, then that's fine. He couldn't, and that's not exactly a fault of mine.

Pertaining to being Escalonion, I'd be happy to identify the problem for whoever was asking, but when asked about other Escalonions believing in fundamentally different things, I would hesitate to call them non-Escalonions. I would explain my perception of the major basis for the identification of whatever it is that distinguishes Escalonions from non-Escalonions, and that I don't know for sure that these characteristics are true descriptions of what makes one an Escalonion, and that I would be truly troubled by the prospect of having divergent views on something very simple from others who claim to be Escalonions. That's an honest answer.

No true scotsman fallacy, in itself IS a fallacious point to ever make in an argument. Thats why you don't jump in with "Explain this" you ask "is this what you believe?" No muslim, Christian or of ANY form of group believes exactly the same thing, therefore the No True Scotsman fallacy is a coward's way out of leaving a debate and losing it due to lack of preperation and crying about it on a forums criticising others when its evident that his lack of information is what caused his withdrawal.

Not exactly. The no-true-scotsman fallacy is one where the assertion in the claim is determined ad hoc to fit with your conclusion. Strictly speaking, it's not always a fallacy, as pointed out by Sando. For the most part, it's not properly employed simply because of the nature of discussion. Someone is usually called for employing the no-true-scotsman fallacy for retroactively redefining a previously-agreed upon term, or that one side of the argument tries to define the terms of the discussion such that the actual reason for the discussion cannot be discussed.

As for your accusation that the no-true-scotsman fallacy is a coward's way out, you're making another mistake.

Calling people on their fallacies or what you perceive to be a fallacy is merely an attempt to get them to clarify their position. If you'd actually had interest in conversing with people who don't share your views, being told that you might have committed a fallacy is an invitation to proper discourse, not one side trying to save face. Especially not since the original question was an honest one, and where one side had acknowledged inadequate information regarding the topic at hand and was asking for more information.

It's Baba Ali, Do you even KNOW anything about it? His greatest accomplishment was to make a damn board game, and he lives under the title "game designer". The man is made of utter bull crap. How the hell would you feel if I told you "omg I just debated Kent Hovind! This is crap!" Every one knows Kent Hovind is an ass. Same goes for Baba Ali. Waste your time on someone more meaningful so I can bother to reply and even help you. Otherwise its a waste of time.

Thanks, I guess? I don't suppose you read my original post. You don't seem to know that I wasn't in a conversation with Baba Ali, but with a 3rd party named DoubbleClick. Oh, who am I kidding? You didn't read my post anyway.

 

[Epicion]

What I was asking is that I don't understand how one section of the group can be so substantially different from another on something as simple as the basic tenants with regards to how they treat people who're not labeled the same; and why these differences somehow aren't a concern for this particular muslim commentor.

Education

Actually, I would feel that they're misled. Generally, people who shove words into my mouth don't know what I believe in. I would then be willing to tell them what I believe. However, the question that I posed wasn't strictly pertaining to what the quran said, but how people are supposed to interpret it. It was a way to show that his blatant claim that "the quran cannot be misinterpreted" is practically senseless, leading to calling him out on the no-true-scotsman fallacy, since he assumed that anyone who disagreed with his interpretation of the quran is not a muslim.

Precisely, but you have to understand. No muslim has their own personal interpretation. They come from 3 to 4 scholars currently in the media.

Zakir Naik
Yusuf Estes
Bilal Phillips
Ahmad Deedhat (Deceased)

These people are who actually propagated/propagate Islam. If you want to know what the modern muslim believes, You listen to one of these people. No muslim, can interpret the Quran in their own way because 3/4 of the muslim population dont "understand" arabic. They aren't born arab basically. No one truly learns HOW to speak arabic, only read it. Similar to how an english man can say a phrase in french but not understand what it is.

Anyone who disagree's with the interpretation of these men, automatically becomes a "non muslim" in the eyes of any young muslim today. Add a person like "Harun Yahya" who is a dogmatic fundie and you have the backing of psudo science.

My main point? their sheep.

The original discussion came about because I was wondering how one was supposed to uphold the whole "Islam is a religion of peace and equality" thing by asking how one is supposed to think about those passages that I quoted, and how is it that fundamentalist muslims exist. Ultimately, the question wasn't about the religion itself, but about how moderate muslims seem to be indifferent regarding fundamentalist muslims seem to be dragging the entire name of their religion through mud.

Your quotations were incorrect as I pointed out earlier in my previous post. A knowledge of Islam is actually necassary to understand it. Quoting a part of it is invalid as it was written at different times. Forexample, Read Ezekie chapter 18, compare it to Isaiah. The entire point of Isaiah is that someone will save people from their sins. Ezekiel chapter 18:23 says every man is responsible for their sins. If you quote Ezekiel 18:23 it breaks the false concept of Original sin. But at the same time, These books were written at different times. Ezekiel 18 was written when the jews were driven off from their lands by invaders etc. In its correct context, the actual book is providing morale for the people and not theological ideas at all.

You have committed a serious error. What you're doing is conflating two separate issues. The issue isn't that two sections of the same group believe in different things. That's a given. The issue is that these two sections of the same group believe in different outlooks on how to treat the nonbelievers/women, and one group doesn't seem all that concerned about the discrepancy at all.

Unarmed men don't preach to people with guns.

This is pretty much what DoubbleClick said. I told him that I was under the impression that the quran was supposed to be timeless and perfect. That we're having a discussion at all about this tells you quite a lot about how timeless and perfect the quran is. I've heard your apologetics before; it only addresses the quran's view on unbelievers and women on the surface and says nothing about potential interpretations. But I'll have it pass, since it wasn't actually the question anyway. (for reference, I was asking why 4:89 and 4:90-91 seem to suggest different things)

... "Kill every non believer you see but if they surrender then take them to safety" Your asking essentially why "Kill every non belier you see" is different from "If they surrender then take them to safety". And I've explained above and I'll do it again. Picking a verse from context and portraying it as a seperate point from the rest of the sentence is a invalid point already.

But, The verse was revealed during a war in which non believers e.g pagans were at war with the muslims. It was sent down to order the muslims to fight back. Also, The fact that if any one surrendered and gave up should be taken away from the battle field is somewhat a good thing rathe than it saying "no prisoners" and killing them.

the word "Apologetics" used by Atheists tend to be correct on psudo science, but when it comes to theology I always find them lacking in alot of areas. Thus I strongly urge you to educate yourself on the history of Quran and be more questioning rather than assertive in your statements.

The question that I posed to DoubbleClick, was in regards to his comment that the quran was impossible to misinterpret. This sets him up for the no-true-scotsman fallacy, not because there are different interpretations of what the quran says.

Regarding misinterpretations. The book I admit "IS" misinterpreted by Atheists. It's true. Certain verses from the Bible are misinterpreted by Atheists too. Atheists tend to go to sites attacking religion rather than studying it in an institution. Most they would do is go into a bible group where you can share ideas, but memorising common interpretation is pointless when people are always changing them. One needs to understand the hstory and message of a religious book before commenting on it.

Forexample, I can tell you right now. Islam is peaceful in terms of the fact it does not kill innocent people. It doesnt dictate it anywhere unless you take 5 words out of the entire book. But, At the same time. IT is harmful in the sense that it allows the keeping of slaves, It does dismiss some rights to women. It does allow for muslims to attack a non muslim country or government upon the slightest of threat.

The list continues, but some things I'm dictating are so sublte that it takes years to actually find the sources for this information.

I understand the these writings are timepieces. They're to be interpretted; and obviously no matter how vehemently my fundamentalist friends tell me, I would imagine that the quran had been somewhat altered.

It had, but not as your thinking of. Verses from the Quran was removed all the time and replaced. Additions, etc. Example, The punishment for adultery changed several times. Women were put into homes without food and abandoned forexample, Death came later etc.

I can tentatively accept your interpretation and it's not the first time I've heard it, so you can save your condescension for someone else. I was asking a question, not trying to "overthrow" someone. You could do without that superior attitude.

If I crush ants while I walk, Can I be to blame?

It's not about interpretations when it comes to certain things. A spade is a spade, a spoon, is a spoon. You can be tantilisingly creative and make a spade a symbol of someone digging a grave or a spoon being a form of symbol for the ability to feed the world. But at the end, Wild exagerations are endless. When you get down to theological arguments, Some things are set in stone or else there would be nothing to argue or debate about.

What I'm telling you, is set in stone. To claim it as my own personal interpretation is to put any arguments against you as invalid. Which is not healthy nor is it for anyone's benefit.

How is it that a person's no longer even allowed to ask a question without being told that they're trying to "overthrow someone without proper education"? It's a question, not having the proper information is a pre-requisite to asking a question.

It's simple. Try copying pasting some of the discovery institute's "proof" for the existence of an intelligent creator. Paste it in these forums, and lets see what kind of response you get?

The moment you made the typical refuted points like "Women beating" or "kill non believers" you established yourself as someone uneducated in the religion you were speaking about. Similarly you would establish yourself as uneducated, if you actually placed what the discovery institute had to offer as a valid point.

This is a different situation altogether. I was asking a moderate muslim how it is that different interpretations of the quran exist within the same identification; it wasn't a direct criticism. If they can defend their beliefs, then that's fine. He couldn't, and that's not exactly a fault of mine.

Were never his beliefs.

Different interpretations of the Quran exist because not many people know arabic. Those who do, are willing to twist words. Imagine someone telling you that "water" is from outer space according to this holy book. Your translation might say other wise, but his credentials of knowing arabic would establish his word over yours automatically in the eyes of any creationist. Therefore his interpretation will be taken over yours.

All these different interpretions of Sunni/shia etc didnt come about by every individual doing their own thing and finding a certain sect to be correct. They just follow an imaam who thought of a certain interpretation and due to the authority i told you above, people followed him. The others follow due to family ties and nothing else.

Basic stuff.

-L

 

[monitoradiation]

Precisely, but you have to understand. No muslim has their own personal interpretation. They come from 3 to 4 scholars currently in the media.

Zakir Naik
Yusuf Estes
Bilal Phillips
Ahmad Deedhat (Deceased)

These people are who actually propagated/propagate Islam. If you want to know what the modern muslim believes, You listen to one of these people. No muslim, can interpret the Quran in their own way because 3/4 of the muslim population dont "understand" arabic. They aren't born arab basically. No one truly learns HOW to speak arabic, only read it. Similar to how an english man can say a phrase in french but not understand what it is.

Anyone who disagree's with the interpretation of these men, automatically becomes a "non muslim" in the eyes of any young muslim today. Add a person like "Harun Yahya" who is a dogmatic fundie and you have the backing of psudo science.

My main point? their sheep.

When you say that they dont "understand" arabic, what exactly do you mean? That muslims who speak arabic don't understand their own language? Or did you mean that the versions spoken and written in by modern muslims are more contemporary whereas the version used for writing the quran is more archaic?

Your quotations were incorrect as I pointed out earlier in my previous post. A knowledge of Islam is actually necassary to understand it. Quoting a part of it is invalid as it was written at different times. Forexample, Read Ezekie chapter 18, compare it to Isaiah. The entire point of Isaiah is that someone will save people from their sins. Ezekiel chapter 18:23 says every man is responsible for their sins. If you quote Ezekiel 18:23 it breaks the false concept of Original sin. But at the same time, These books were written at different times. Ezekiel 18 was written when the jews were driven off from their lands by invaders etc. In its correct context, the actual book is providing morale for the people and not theological ideas at all.

I love how you keep going back to "quotations were incorrect". I was asking a question; the question itself might be flawed, but the quotations themselves certainly cannot be "incorrect", because I wasn't using the quotations to make a point. It was a question.

I understand this historical interpretation stuff that you constantly bring up as if I didn't already know. It's the same with all literature throughout antiquities. For example, the Romance of the three kingdoms and the Spring and Autumn Annals were each written in an ancient chinese dialects and were influenced by their times. So some interpretation is bound to be required. There's no objection here. I'm not sure if there's any disagreement, and hence I don't know why you keep bringing it up. You know more of the quran, but that's not the point of contention neither.

As I'd already stated, the point I was making at DoubbleClick wasn't that these surahs and verses must be interpretted. Both of us knew that. And I wasn't using those passages to say "you believe that unbelievers must be killed! You are EVIL!".

I'm not really sure why I'm explaining my conversation with someone else to you again and again when it was made rather clear in my original post that the problem I had in the conversation isn't about the content of the quran, but rather why DoubbleClick disagrees that its his problem at all that people are using his holy book to justify immoral deeds.

Unarmed men don't preach to people with guns.

Who said anything about preaching? There're moderate muslims all over the world, and the only method they have is to preach? How about calling for a worldwide trade embargo? (unrealistic, I know, but it's at least more realistic than preaching to people with guns)

... "Kill every non believer you see but if they surrender then take them to safety" Your asking essentially why "Kill every non belier you see" is different from "If they surrender then take them to safety". And I've explained above and I'll do it again. Picking a verse from context and portraying it as a seperate point from the rest of the sentence is a invalid point already.

But, The verse was revealed during a war in which non believers e.g pagans were at war with the muslims. It was sent down to order the muslims to fight back. Also, The fact that if any one surrendered and gave up should be taken away from the battle field is somewhat a good thing rathe than it saying "no prisoners" and killing them.

I wasn't breaking up one sentence like you're implying. I was referring to 3 sentences, 2 of which I found a bit contradictory, and those are the ones I wanted explained by DoubbleClick. He then insisted I was quote-mining, as are you. I'm going to explain why I quoted it, but keep in mind that the discrepancies I'm perceiving has no real impact on the discourse.

The verses that I'm referring to are these, and I got them from Skeptics annotated quran, so if you have a better version, let me know. I'm going to include 4:88 here too, for completion sake.

4:88 What aileth you that ye are become two parties regarding the hypocrites, when Allah cast them back (to disbelief) because of what they earned? Seek ye to guide him whom Allah hath sent astray? He whom Allah sendeth astray, for him thou (O Muhammad) canst not find a road.

4:89 They long that ye should disbelieve even as they disbelieve, that ye may be upon a level (with them). So choose not friends from them till they forsake their homes in the way of Allah; if they turn back (to enmity) then take them and kill them wherever ye find them, and choose no friend nor helper from among them.

4:90 Except those who seek refuge with a people between whom and you there is a covenant, or (those who) come unto you because their hearts forbid them to make war on you or make war on their own folk. Had Allah willed He could have given them power over you so that assuredly they would have fought you. So, if they hold aloof from you and wage not war against you and offer you peace, Allah alloweth you no way against them.

4:91 Ye will find others who desire that they should have security from you, and security from their own folk. So often as they are returned to hostility they are plunged therein. If they keep not aloof from you nor offer you peace nor hold their hands, then take them and kill them wherever ye find them. Against such We have given you clear warrant.

So the way I read these is:

"What causes you to be concerned about unbelievers, when allah made them into unbelievers (not sure if that's what it's supposed to mean)? Are you trying to help them? You can't help them find their way (I'm not sure whether or not this means spiritually, or help in the physical sense), because allah confused them."

"Unbelievers want you to become like them. Don't be friends with unbelievers until they convert. If they turn back (this can either mean apostacy or aggressive ie war to me) then you're allowed to kill them, and don't be friends with them."

"Except if unbelievers are seeking refuge with your allies, or if they don't want war between you and unbelievers. If allah wanted he could've had them fight against you. So if they stay away and is peaceful, allah forbids you from killing them."

"There're other people who don't want to be killed by you nor unbelievers; but if you attack them they'll attack back (that's how i read it). If they dont offer you peace or stay neutral, then kill them."

I don't think it needs further explaining that I know these verses state to not harm innocents. What I perceived to be a contradiction was in 4:89 and 4:90, in the meaning of the terms. In 4:89, I wasn't sure whether or not the unbelievers must be waging war to be killed as the verse could also be read to mean in the case of apostacy. In that case, apostates can be killed, regardless of whether or not they're peaceful/innocent.

In the end, like I'd said. The content within these quotes has little to do with the question I was trying to ask. So responding to how I'm interpretting these passages and my historical understanding essentially mean nothing. The point was that if you're unconcerned what people are doing in the name of your religion, there's something wrong with you, because even unbelievers have a problem with that. It's called fraud. It's the reason why we dislike Kent Hovind and what he does. Everyone who cares about truth and honesty should be concerned about it.

the word "Apologetics" used by Atheists tend to be correct on psudo science, but when it comes to theology I always find them lacking in alot of areas. Thus I strongly urge you to educate yourself on the history of Quran and be more questioning rather than assertive in your statements.

I strongly urge you to re-read my first post, because I don't need a history lesson in how the quran was written to ask why a muslim is unconcerned about fundamentalists. The question is ultimately about his concern for the well-being of others, including unbelievers, and not about his religion.

Do you need to go to a seminary and study theology to ask your pastor, if he were to express the sentiment that he's not concerned about pedophile priests, why he feels that way?

Regarding misinterpretations. The book I admit "IS" misinterpreted by Atheists. It's true. Certain verses from the Bible are misinterpreted by Atheists too. Atheists tend to go to sites attacking religion rather than studying it in an institution. Most they would do is go into a bible group where you can share ideas, but memorising common interpretation is pointless when people are always changing them. One needs to understand the hstory and message of a religious book before commenting on it.

Oooooh, the "message". Brrrrr.

I don't know how many times I'd carefully stressed in my previous post that the point is not about islam, but about its adherents. You seem to have miss this point entirely. I thought I'd put it in there no less than 5 times, that that was what I was talking about.

Forexample, I can tell you right now. Islam is peaceful in terms of the fact it does not kill innocent people. It doesnt dictate it anywhere unless you take 5 words out of the entire book. But, At the same time. IT is harmful in the sense that it allows the keeping of slaves, It does dismiss some rights to women. It does allow for muslims to attack a non muslim country or government upon the slightest of threat.

The list continues, but some things I'm dictating are so sublte that it takes years to actually find the sources for this information.

And your point is, what, exactly? Are there values in there that are superior, in your eyes, that cannot have arisen by secular reason? If, at the end of your studying and interpreting of the quran, you end up with contemporary and modern morality that can be arrived at by other, less intensive means, then what good is it to have studied it? If I can distill the basics of taoism and buddhism down to basics and strip it of the supernatural, I'm quite sure we'll get similar values.

If I crush ants while I walk, Can I be to blame?

That's an inept comparison, depending on how you look at it. If you meant to step on the ant when you didn't have to, then the comparison is appropriate and you're simply being a jerk to the ant. If you can't help it, then the comparison is ridiculously poor (unless, of course, you're a jerk by nature. Then by all means).

I've never been overtly condescending towards people when they're asking a question. Inflections and connotations can be controlled, and you chose intonations that are reflective of a rather rude attitude without understanding the question. Silly.

It's not about interpretations when it comes to certain things. A spade is a spade, a spoon, is a spoon. You can be tantilisingly creative and make a spade a symbol of someone digging a grave or a spoon being a form of symbol for the ability to feed the world. But at the end, Wild exagerations are endless. When you get down to theological arguments, Some things are set in stone or else there would be nothing to argue or debate about.

That made no sense, because everything can be "debatable", both for things that are set in stone and things that are not. I don't know why you even added that in. It made your paragraph worse.

Secondly, spades are a label we give to things of a certain shape; likewise a spoon. Therefore, the labeling and the commonly accepted shapes that characterizes a spade or a spoon may be interpretted wildly. In those cases we generally make new labels. Like a spork. It's about effective communication.

What I'm telling you, is set in stone. To claim it as my own personal interpretation is to put any arguments against you as invalid. Which is not healthy nor is it for anyone's benefit.

Oh, is it? So had it been set in stone prior to Zakir Naik, Yusuf Estes, Bilal Phillips, and Ahmad Deedhat? Are you saying that before these 4 people were alive, there was no agreed-upon interpretation of the quran? Fascinating. I guess we must be living in a golden age of islam, then.

Jokes aside, I think what you really meant was the interpretation that is most accepted within contemporary society, and hence no one muslim can claim their own personal interpretation. I've never claimed that any one person can have their own personal interpretation - that would be ludicrous. There must be some general groupings of interpretations that are coherent and became popular and accepted.

It's simple. Try copying pasting some of the discovery institute's "proof" for the existence of an intelligent creator. Paste it in these forums, and lets see what kind of response you get?

Except that's not what I'd done. I'd like you to actually read what I wrote. I was trying to, at that time, to show DoubbleClick that people can look at verses and come to different conclusions, thereby nullifying his point that the quran was impossible to misinterpret. This would've ultimately led him to answer me as to why he was unconcerned over fundamentalists.

What I wrote was more along the lines of "how can there be christians who were unconcerned that Kent Hovind was lying through his teeth?"

The moment you made the typical refuted points like "Women beating" or "kill non believers" you established yourself as someone uneducated in the religion you were speaking about. Similarly you would establish yourself as uneducated, if you actually placed what the discovery institute had to offer as a valid point.

The moment you stopped reading what I wrote to the muslim and why I wrote it was when you established yourself as someone uninterested in answering the actual question that I'd posed to him and began to answer a different question altogether and then pretending that you're somehow justified in your snarky remarks because you'd answered an imaginary question. This is what we call a red herring, but since you seem to be of the opinion that you're on topic, I'll put my original point here just for your reference.

"He says that if muslims don't follow the peaceful interpretation of the quran then he's not a muslim and that's THEIR PROBLEM. How is that even possible?"

To your credit, you DID sort of answer it by saying that "they're sheep". But I'm not sure if you'd intended on answering it. It was a foregone conclusion, in any case; and since the question posed was a personal one, and one that was supposed to cause introspection rather than looking for an actual answer, I didn't expect DoubbleClick to answer it, himself nor would I expect it of you to answer it for him.

This is a different situation altogether. I was asking a moderate muslim how it is that different interpretations of the quran exist within the same identification; it wasn't a direct criticism. If they can defend their beliefs, then that's fine. He couldn't, and that's not exactly a fault of mine.

Were never his beliefs.

You seem to have misread. I'd said that if DoubbleClick can defend his own beliefs, then it's fine. I don't know who's beliefs you were referring to so the rest of what you wrote below was inapplicable.