Islam - What's your view on it?

[prisonermonkeys]

Do you mean Quran? If I take your post on the face value, then what? Converting him to "right" religion is a good way?

Sounds suspiciously like The Merchant of Venice, where Shylock is forced to convert to Christianity as a condition of his sentence.

 

[DLR_Mysterion]

Heh, I think it's more tongue in cheek than anything. Guy goes around preaching death to the infidels in a Christian country and is rewarded with the Bible as his only reading material. Same could apply to Israel giving Torahs or Saudi Arabia punishing Christian extremists with the Koran.

 

[mustafur]

I think a Book on how to act like a decent human being would be a better fit.

 

[mister dog]

Not for conversion, but for ample punishment for a devout, and dangerous radical Muslim.

I think a copy of penthouse will be more effective

 

[Carbonox]

25,000 Ahmadi Muslims condemn extremism in Toronto, however it speaks volumes about the much bigger mainstream Sunni community that they'd never do anything of this magnitude.

Then again, their treatment of the "heretical" Ahmadi all over the world is basically oppression by definition, so perhaps I'm expecting too much from them.

 

[Scaff]

25,000 Ahmadi Muslims condemn extremism in Toronto, however it speaks volumes about the much bigger mainstream Sunni community that they'd never do anything of this magnitude.

Then again, their treatment of the "heretical" Ahmadi all over the world is basically oppression by definition, so perhaps I'm expecting too much from them.

This again.

Yes they have, repeatedly and in many forms.

http://mediamatters.org/research/2014/08/21/muslim-leaders-have-roundly-denounced-islamic-s/200498

However I take it that you are also in favour of all Christian sects and followers doing the same for the actions of Christian terror groups?

Personally I think it's absurd to keep claiming that people (of any faith) need to do this, but not as absurd as to comdem them for not doing something they already are.

 

[DLR_Mysterion]

What I don't get is that the abrogation isn't just limited to the Koran. If indeed Mohammad was the "final prophet" it makes things all the more confusing. It doesn't get off to a great start when it is said that one of the only two historically verified events in Jesus's life didn't actually happen (His death, which in Islam didn't happen either because Judas took his place or he was raised into Heaven before dying).

I'll just pick two examples:

First is probably one of the more famous of Jesus's teachings: "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone".
What Mohammad taught? "Let's go back OT style and stone adulterers"

Second is to do with scripture. The OT (and presumably NT) maintain that it was Isaac, the son of Abraham and Sarah who was offered as a sacriface to God. The Koran changes this story making it so ambiguous that now many Muslims believe it was actually Ishmael, the son of Abraham and the slave Hagar who was offered.

I think it would be fine if there was a clear reason for the changes, but going from killing, to peace, back to killing just doesn't make much sense.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

However I take it that you are also in favour of all Christian sects and followers doing the same for the actions of Christian terror groups?

Don't be silly - Christians can't be terrorists!

 

[FoRiZon]

After what happened on my place recently, I just cant hold up anymore . Really dissapointed . I dont like how religion is being combined with politics. Its basically death sentence .

This video explains best. Im not agreed with its channel as a whole nor I'm a conservative . But I agreed with this video.

 

[TenEightyOne]

First is probably one of the more famous of Jesus's teachings: "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone".

At her. You missed an important bit. You also missed the fact that the woman couldn't have been judged without the man also being produced for stoning. As is consistent with Jesus' presence at the scene for the purposes of teaching Torah he wouldn't allow the judgement to go ahead incorrectly - both people should have been stoned and, according to the law, those "without sin" (the Temple elders) should have cast first. This teaches that mob justice was not allowed in the temple, not that the judgement itself was unsound.

What Mohammad taught? "Let's go back OT style and stone adulterers".

See the previous statement; there is no effective difference.

Selective quote-mining can do that to an argument.

I think it would be fine if there was a clear reason for the changes, but going from killing, to peace, back to killing just doesn't make much sense.

Well, it does if you consider religion as framework for contemporaneous social order. The difference between Islaam and christing is that the former explicitly defines that the laws of the land where the religion is practised must be obeyed. That's one of the reasons for so-called Islaamic State's vision; by providing a fundamentalist legal framework they're allowed full fundamentalist practice. Without it Islaam in its fundamentalist interpretation is neutered. Christing offers no such caveats and therefore allows fundamentalist interpretations to overarch law in any dominion.

 

[Castrol96]

Is there a thread on Christianity, or Judaism?

 

[Dotini]

Is there a thread on Christianity, or Judaism?

There's a "Do You Believe in God" thread. Most don't.

And we also have an "Aliens" thread, which most people do believe in.

 

[Barracuda413]

I believe racing against Muslims angers my CPU
while racing against Jews displeases my RAM
and racing against Christians gives my HDD indigestion

P.S. please note, l have tried to keep this reply as non console denominational as possible

P.P.S. my USB has trouble recognizing Hindus

 

[LeMansAid]

P.S. please note, l have tried to keep this reply as non console denominational as possible

That's very PC of you.

 

[Johnnypenso]

There's a "Do You Believe in God" thread. Most don't.

And we also have an "Aliens" thread, which most people do believe in.

 

[Carbonox]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...efuse-to-have-sex-with-husbands-a7402386.html

Behold, the bumbling words of a man who cannot consensually get any, and is desperately clinging on to an outdated religion with the hopes of it granting him power over women he so obviously deserves.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Behold, the bumbling words of a man who cannot consensually get any, and is desperately clinging on to an outdated religion with the hopes of it granting him power over women he so obviously deserves.

Hard to disagree... but is it the only religion with the word "obey" in the vows, laws and teaching? I think not

 

[mister dog]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...efuse-to-have-sex-with-husbands-a7402386.html

Behold, the bumbling words of a man who cannot consensually get any, and is desperately clinging on to an outdated religion with the hopes of it granting him power over women he so obviously deserves.

I think that's a big factor for 'converts' sometimes.

 

[FoRiZon]

@Smurfybug @ECGadget Any last words? I think everyone hates you at this point.

 

[DLR_Mysterion]

At her. You missed an important bit. You also missed the fact that the woman couldn't have been judged without the man also being produced for stoning. As is consistent with Jesus' presence at the scene for the purposes of teaching Torah he wouldn't allow the judgement to go ahead incorrectly - both people should have been stoned and, according to the law, those "without sin" (the Temple elders) should have cast first. This teaches that mob justice was not allowed in the temple, not that the judgement itself was unsound.

That.....That is what you got from Jesus's teaching. That he would have allowed both of them to be stoned to death?
That's really what you think that passage is about.

See the previous statement; there is no effective difference.

Selective quote-mining can do that to an argument.

You think....there was no difference. This is trolling right? Right....?

 

[TenEightyOne]

That.....That is what you got from Jesus's teaching. That he would have allowed both of them to be stoned to death?
That's really what you think that passage is about.

He spared her as she had not been condemned in accordance with the law. It's a very famous part of the scriptures and, arguably, a late addition to them.

You could think of these later interpretations of the original gospels as being comparable to hadith, later teachings that accompany the original text.

If a man is found lying with a woman married to a husband, then both of them shall die — the man that lay with the woman, and the woman; so you shall put away the evil from Israel. If a young woman who is a virgin is betrothed to a husband, and a man finds her in the city and lies with her, then you shall bring them both out to the gate of that city, and you shall stone them to death with stones, the young woman because she did not cry out in the city, and the man because he humbled his neighbor’s wife; so you shall put away the evil from among you.

Jesus forgives her "sin" in illustration of the dichotomy of christianity and does not allow her to be stoned. Where in the passage do you see anything that says he wouldn't have allowed it if, in accordance with the law, the couple had both been taken from the gate?

You think....there was no difference. This is trolling right? Right....?

Right back atcha... does it occur to you that there's a reason for the great similarities in the abrahamic scriptures?

 

[TenEightyOne]

That.....That is what you got from Jesus's teaching. That he would have allowed both of them to be stoned to death?
That's really what you think that passage is about.

He spared her as she had not been condemned in accordance with the law. It's a very famous part of the scriptures and, arguably, a late addition to them.

You could think of these later interpretations of the original gospels as being comparable to hadith, later teachings that accompany the original text.

If a man is found lying with a woman married to a husband, then both of them shall die — the man that lay with the woman, and the woman; so you shall put away the evil from Israel. If a young woman who is a virgin is betrothed to a husband, and a man finds her in the city and lies with her, then you shall bring them both out to the gate of that city, and you shall stone them to death with stones, the young woman because she did not cry out in the city, and the man because he humbled his neighbor’s wife; so you shall put away the evil from among you.

Jesus forgives her "sin" in illustration of the dichotomy of christianity and does not allow her to be stoned. Where in the passage do you see anything that says he wouldn't have allowed it if, in accordance with the law, the couple had both been taken from the gate?

You think....there was no difference. This is trolling right? Right....?

Right back atcha. Does it occur to you that there's a reason for the great similarities in the abrahamic scriptures?

 

[ECGadget]

@Smurfybug @ECGadget Any last words? I think everyone hates you at this point.

Last words? No. But as to everybody hating me? Bad way to go forward. I know plenty of Americans who like me. Lovely people. Keep company of those who help you grow. Who treat you well. Not those who wish to divide you. Everybody who hates me right now probably hated me yesterday. And last week. And last month. So, do I have anything to say? Plenty. But not just yet.

 

[FoRiZon]

- Redundant -

 

[Smurfybug]

@Smurfybug @ECGadget Any last words? I think everyone hates you at this point.

Just gotta wait till January.

 

[Johnnypenso]

@Smurfybug @ECGadget Any last words? I think everyone hates you at this point.

This is very sad. I hope you are joking.

 

[mustafur]

After what happened on even my place recently, I just cant hold up anymore . Really dissapointed . I dont like how religion is being combined with politics. Its basically death sentence .

This video explains best. Im not agreed with its channel as a whole nor I'm a conservative . But I agreed with this video.

This video is pretty much exactly how I see it, alot of people are taking a blind eye to this in order to not offend.

But at some point everyone must stand their ground, and address the issue and conflicts we face today.

 

[DLR_Mysterion]

Right back atcha. Does it occur to you that there's a reason for the great similarities in the abrahamic scriptures?

Forgive me if I'm a bit slow, but you are saying this:

2 And early in the morning he came again into the temple, and all the people came unto him; and he sat down, and taught them.

3 And the scribes and Pharisees brought unto him a woman taken in adultery; and when they had set her in the midst,

4 They say unto him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act.

5 Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou?

6 This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him. But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground, as though he heard them not.

7 So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.

8 And again he stooped down, and wrote on the ground.

9 And they which heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, even unto the last: and Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst.

10 When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee?

11 She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.

Is the same as this:

Narrated 'Abdullah bin 'Umar : The Jew brought to the Prophet a man and a woman from amongst them who have committed (adultery) illegal sexual intercourse. He ordered both of them to be stoned (to death), near the place of offering the funeral prayers beside the mosque."

this:

Narrated Jabir bin Abdullah Al-Ansari: A man from the tribe of Bani Aslam came to Allah's Apostle and Informed him that he had committed illegal sexual intercourse and bore witness four times against himself. Allah's Apostle ordered him to be stoned to death as he was a married Person.

this:

'Abdullah b. Buraida reported on the authority of his father that Ma'iz b. Malik al-Aslami came to Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) and said: Allah's Messenger, I have wronged myself; I have committed adultery and I earnestly desire that you should purify me. He turned him away. On the following day, he (Ma'iz) again came to him and said: Allah's Messenger, I have committed adultery. Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) turned him away for the second time, and sent him to his people saying: Do you know if there is anything wrong with his mind. They denied of any such thing in him and said: We do not know him but as a wise good man among us, so far as we can judge. He (Ma'iz) came for the third time, and he (the Holy Prophet) sent him as he had done before. He asked about him and they informed him that there was nothing wrong with him or with his mind. When it was the fourth time, a ditch was dug for him and he (the Holy Prophet) pronounced judg- ment about him and he was stoned. He (the narrator) said: There came to him (the Holy Prophet) a woman from Ghamid and said: Allah's Messenger, I have committed adultery, so purify me. He (the Holy Prophet) turned her away. On the following day she said: Allah's Messenger, Why do you turn me away? Perhaps, you turn me away as you turned away Ma'iz. By Allah, I have become pregnant. He said: Well, if you insist upon it, then go away until you give birth to (the child). When she was delivered she came with the child (wrapped) in a rag and said: Here is the child whom I have given birth to. He said: Go away and suckle him until you wean him. When she had weaned him, she came to him (the Holy Prophet) with the child who was holding a piece of bread in his hand. She said: Allah's Apostle, here is he as I have weaned him and he eats food. He (the Holy Prophet) entrusted the child to one of the Muslims and then pronounced punishment. And she was put in a ditch up to her chest and he commanded people and they stoned her. Khalid b Walid came forward with a stone which he flung at her head and there spurted blood on the face of Khalid and so he abused her. Allah's Apostle (may peace be upon him) heard his (Khalid's) curse that he had huried upon her. Thereupon he (the Holy Prophet) said: Khalid, be gentle. By Him in Whose Hand is my life, she has made such a repentance that even if a wrongful tax-collector were to repent, he would have been forgiven. Then giving command regarding her, he prayed over her and she was buried.

And this:

https://wikiislam.net/wiki/Qur'an,_Hadith_and_Scholars:Stoning

 

[Scaff]

You do know the difference between the Koran and Hadiths?

However cherry-picking examples can be used to make either look the worse, what you need to do is compare the entire contents of both. Fortunately that has been done, unfortunately for your cherry-picking the Bible takes the prize.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=124494788

http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/cruelty/bible_quran.html

http://uk.businessinsider.com/someo...o-see-which-was-more-violent-2016-2?r=US&IR=T

 

[TenEightyOne]

Forgive me if I'm a bit slow, but you are saying this:...is the same as this...

No. The passage you quoted is a late one which post-dates Deuteronomy (obviously) and, according to many scholars, post-dates the gospel by several hundred years. If you go back to Deuteronomy then you find that it's effectively the same as the 7th Century hadith that you quoted.

If you then return to the bible chapter that you quoted you'll see that he releases the woman because she hasn't been judged correctly (When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee?").

Returning to the Moses reference Jesus says "It is also written in your law, that the testimony of two men is true". He then goes into the celebrated "own witness" spiel.

I get the feeling that you're trying to change the interpretation of that late biblical addition to say that Jesus cancelled the punishment for adultery when he clearly did not. It's interesting parts of the hadith you used and the bible addition you used are quite likely contemporaneous.