I recently read an article that discussed the true motives of Islam and it lead me to become interested in the religion itself. The most I know about Islam is what I've learned from a Comparative Religions course, though I think it was at most a surface-deep discussion.

I've heard Islam described as "the religion of peace and love." However, it seems far more likely that it is a religion of war and subjugation, at least judging by the majority of passages in the Koran and other important Islamic writings.

If there is anyone more informed about the religion or even an adherent here on the forums, I'd be happy to hear your side of the story. As I said, I don't claim to be particularly knowledgeable about Islam, but I would sure love to close that gap.

Please note that I am not asking about the motives of extremists or terrorists. I'm fully aware that there are many people who would use religion as self-justification for selfish and immoral actions. I am merely asking about the faith of Islam itself and what it means to be a Muslim.

It may be more helpful to present Islam as it contrasts to Christianity, which I'm sure the majority of the people on the forum are more familiar with.

I've encountered three kinds of Islam:
HATE
LOVE and
SCIENCE

But all three of these groups exist for christianity too.
All religions contain the extremists, the manipulated, and the 'enlightened'.
The extremists start wars
the manipulated fight in the wars
and the 'enlightened' sit on the side lines, secretly supporting the war but without getting their hands bloody themselves.

The war can be a debate, an actual war, or any kind of conflict.
The extremists are just the people who create the conflict. The manipulated are just those who feel they have to fight for their belief even if the conflict contradicts their belief. The enlightened see the contradiction, and so refuse to enter the conflict, but still support their side.

I mean no insult when I say this, even atheists have the same three groups.

The problem with Islam is that the science side is inherently flawed (They actually try to prove it - badly)
Another problem is the tilt that Islam rests on. Christianity generally has more passive 'love' or 'manipulated' that are complacent with believing in a god without being people of faith, but islam has a much higher rating of aggressive 'hate' or 'extremist' that are determined to push their belief forward.

Wow now THIS could be an interesting topic! Anyways, I have researched Islam not incredibly in depth but to the point I at least know what I'm talking about. Just so you understand where I am, I'm a Baptist and of course do not support Islam; however, I will try to teach you what I have learned.

The Quran (sometimes spelt Koran) has several very violent passages in it when it comes to unbelievers:



Now its actually quite strange because the Quran seems to contradict itself when it says:


So I'm just giving you some information about the violence and peace part because that is what you asked. If you'd like to know anything else just ask.

I've been studying it for a while (a bit of a while...).

Qur’�n, and hopefully I don't upset anyone, has a lot of violent verses. The Qur’�nic verses are separated into Sura, with a name and a basic well, I dunno how to explain it, so I'll use "description" to the Sura. There is one Sura about women and its well, not really peaceful. :/

The Qur’�n was written as Muhammad spoke -- basically in a lesser way to describe it -- and when he'd say something, he'd have his people write it down, because he was illiterate. The Qur’�n often contradicts itself with one verse, and then again afterward repeating the verse it contradicted before. You can see the same verse repeated in the Qur’�n but slightly different or the same as well....

@Philip:
Hmm...strange, that verse you listed (Qur’�n� 5:32) seems to be a lot different my Qur’�n�s. Would you mind if I asked where you got it?
My Qur’�n�s translates it as "if you kill a believer, its as if slaying the whole people". And for Qur’�n 8:61, there is a verse that goes on to mention that the ones your spare (women as slaves/sex slaves) would pay a tax for being either non-religious or belonging to another religion.

Sorry, but I can't agree with that at all (even for atheists.) Considering the way you are presenting this, it seems as if you are saying, "all ideologies are purely agendas perpetuated by pride." In other words, internal debate does not exist because "everyone is supporting the war." But clearly this is untrue. There is constant debate between different Catholic theologians and, I expect, different atheists.

In fact, I think I stand as a good example that not all Catholics support the same exact things. Truth be told, everyone has their own private philosophy and view on life, and sometimes these views come into conflict, whether the two parties have the same overall beliefs or not.

I'm using the example of Catholics because it's what I'm familiar with, so please don't take what I say out of context. There are extremist Catholics who might start "debate wars" or whatever, but I in no way condone their beliefs just because they claim to be Catholic. Neither do I feel the need to fight their battles because we share the same Catholic faith.

@Philip


Thanks, this was helpful. Though I suspect you might have a bit of a bias against Islam. I value your opinion, but I think a real defense of Islam would really bring life to this topic. I want to know how a devout Muslim might defend these criticisms.

@MagitekElite


Interesting. What I don't understand is if it's so blatantly contradictory, why does anyone believe it? Surely there must be some rational explanations for these contradictions, just as I can rationally explain many perceived contradictions of the Christian bible - which typically end up being caused by mistranslations or undue fundamentalism. I don't buy the reasoning that Muslims lack reason - they are human beings, who by their very nature possess reason.

Muhammad said things to persuaded others to join, all the time. One can think of the Treaty and how he took his own side instead of acting as the "one in charge" as he promised.

The contradictory came because Muhammad would get revelations whenever he needed them, or it seems from the verses of the Ahadith and the Qur’�n. To put it simply as I could describe it and it could become a monster post, Muhammad was a military and political genius, or said to be, and he used his military position and social status to lead others. His contradictory came a lot, even at his death bed. He'd change pieces here and there, to make more join. An example of this, would be about handling the rape of women and how he changed it here and there, but it ultimately lead to stoning.

If that didn't make sense (I'm Dyslexic xD) this is what I meant: Muhammad changed it a lot, to gain more and more followers.

An example of his contradictions again, would be the last words he mentioned before his death in 632.



Interesting.



Muhammad said so much, that he probably forgot about what he said beforehand, or rather, just wanted to change it and then change it back whenever he wanted....?

The above preaches no superiority over other Muslims (doesn't mean for non-muslims) and that they are all equal, yet Muhammad said this before he died:


And lot of people like to claim the Ahadith is faulty, please don't listen to that. As Muhammad himself said:


There is an explanation, a few. Mistranslation is nearly impossible for Arabic, it is the easy language in the world. Soldiers learn it in a day, and master it in three. It just says what it says

Muhammad wanted his people to follow his word and his lifestyle. Sometimes he'd go a little more in detail in the same verse but in a different part in the Qur’�n to better explain what he meant previous.

For example, if he said in the first verse: "Paint the houses purple and green!"

And he meant "paint the houses purple and green when its the seven month!" he could later go on later in the Qur’�n, to fix what he meant or to go into more detail. Or, he'd go into detail for different situations. Like when it involved war, there is a verse separate for when they are attacked first and then there is the most repeating verses about forcing war on others.

The Qur’�n offers a lot of different ways to go about one thing when something is slightly different...if that makes sense.

(a good example of the Bible, while slightly on it, being mistranslated, is when Paul comes into it. Afterall...gah, nevermind xD)

I'm not a Muslim, nor I have extreme knowledge about it, but there are things so wrong there that I really need to reply.


First, Muhammad was illiterate (7.157). Without knowledge of how to read or how to write, scribes had to translate on leather pieces or camel bones the revelations he had. However, it is strongly believed by religion historians that for a while, his words were only memorized and not written - which means oral transmissions, which means mistakes and subjectivity.

Additionally, small sou-rates collections composed during Muhammad's life are in the present day missing. Considering that dots at the end of sentences didn't exist in Arabic at that time, only the oral recitation allowed to describe them.
There is no definitive version of the Revelation when Muhammed dies.

He dies in 632 and it is safe to say that numerous of his followers must have known the Koran by heart. However, in 633 starts the battle with the phony prophet Musaylima which results in the death of many of said followers.
It is Abû Bakr who provides the first "full" version of the Koran by asking Zayd ben Thâbit to research all of the pieces and write them down.
The number of sou-rates, their chronological order as well as their content always has been subject to contradictions and divergences.

Koran is as contradictory as the Bible is, and for the same reasons. You're obviously biased, MagitekElite, but you tend to show it too much to be taken seriously.


Also this. What the hell am I reading? Mistranslation impossible in Arabic? An easy language? The classic Arabic is considered as one of the hardest language in the world, just after traditional Chinese.
For this exact reason, the Koran has been flagged as untranslatable. If, like I said a little earlier, you consider grammatical problems like the absence of punctuation in the old Arabic language, translating the Koran is extremely hard.
The Persian translation written in the 10th century may be the most accurate.

All I said is based on the study of the Pr. Ralph Stehly, an historian of religions.


Because the Bible is not contradictory? We already had this debate Bashar and you yourself admitted that taking the Bible literally was foolish. Well, the same goes with the Koran. Mistranslations, missing verses and the "special" interpretation and how-to-read provided by the fundamentalist salafists groups.

That being said, it doesn't change the fact that Muhammad himself (the historical Muhammed) was a warrior, and as such, part of the Koran (the Medina sou-rates in particular) can be quite violent.

Wow this topic is getting a bit heated LOL! That's why I said it was probably going to be a good one

No matter whether you believe Islam or not it doesn't stop you from making very easy observations about it. It actually seems that the more someone is dedicated and knowledgeable in the religion of Islam the more violent they are (i.e. 9-11 attackers, times square bomber, christmas day bomber, and at least 17 other attempted attacks on US soil ONLY that have occured SINCE the 9-11 attacks and not before). It only goes to reason that as stated by Kread-Ex since the religion's founder was a man of war and pretty much hated other religions then the religion would be as well.

Also, I have come to find out that most people that dive into Islam really don't know too much about it and the Arabs are simply taught it by birth.

As for a defense of the religion I have encountered several defenses of Islam in my studies and one such is that some of the more violent passages were written during a time of war now what they either are ignorant of or just flat out neglect to tell you is Muhammad started the war. Another interesting thing from Islam is Sharia law which has a whole lot of interesting ideas about how women should be treated. Google it if you want to read up on it further.


One last thing before I eagerly await the next response to this topic is if anyone has questions about the Bible I can most certainly answer those. I have been to three years of Bible College and my father is the assistant pastor at a church here in Missouri. (Weird right ) I'd suggest starting a new topic though since this one is suppose to be about Islam! Anyways, happy gaming.

Well it's about common ground.
Two differing opinionated catholics will unite against a different denomination of christianity, and three christians will unite against an atheist.
Even if the first catholic has a spiritual idea of heaven and the second catholic has a physical one, they will use both alternatives to try and prove that heaven does exist.
Or a pantheist who doesn't believe in any religion or heaven may argue that an atheist is dogmatic (or vice versa)
We all choose a 'greater good' and 'greater evil'.
For Islam, it's a loving religion, until you challenge it. The extremists will flame you, the manipulated will troll you, the enlightened will debate you until you outsmart them, at which point they flame you.

I have argued with muslims before, and this is definitely how I've found things to be. It's not much different from arguing with a pantheist or a christian or an atheist. It's all just about defending the position until outsmarted, and then kicking up trouble.
It's quite petty.
(You'll note that atheist is on that list. I've never disproved a religion, but I can disprove any argument for or against god, I just don't like people trying to make concrete arguments)

There's a great deal of ignorance flying about this thread, and a great deal of enlightenment as well.

Furthermore, to state that there are Violent passages in the Koran is as obvious as stating the Sun rises and sets each day.
Guess what, the Bible has violent passages as well (Soddam and Gomorrah ringing any bells?)

The Koran (Qu'ran) contradicts itself.
The Bible contradicts itself - especially from Old to New/Modern Testaments.

As previously stated faith doesn't hinge on words printed on a page. Both the Koran and Bible were written BY MAN/PEOPLE not a divine deity. Therefore, both are full of bias and personal preferences reflecting the authors of their time.

Lots of violent Muslims and Islamics? Then you must be living in an entirely different world.
Every single Muslim person I've ever met (I currently work with a Muslim man) are not much different from others I've met. They're peaceful and respectful of other people's beliefs and have no qualms entering into religious debates - NOT to choke others with their religious views, but to share their views with others and become more educated on other religions.

Let me tell you a story about 9-11.
I remember exactly where I was when I first heard about it. I was in my mum's car on my way to school, we were only a couple blocks from my highschool when it was announced on the radio. Initially the commentators thought it was a joke and were laughing. Once I got into class (Social Studies - ergo known as History - was my first class and we were working on Current Events. Ironic now) I learned that it was no joke. For the following two hours we sat in our class watching the events unfold on a TV taken from the A/V storage and were bombarded with the information and visuals.
Among my classmates was my friend Healah.
When it was announced about halfway through our class that the Taliban(sp?) were responsible for the attack, and were a radical version of Muslims - everyone in the class turned and glared at Healah with animosity - Healah being the only Muslim student in our class. I was the only fucking person that defended her that day, and she left school in tears. Instantly she was branded a Terrorist because she was Muslim.

Not all Muslims or followers of Islam are extremists.
Not all Christians or Catholics are extremists.

There's more than one or two sides to every debate/discussion/war etc.

Speaking as a muslim, the Quran itself cannot be perfectly translated in anyway. We believe it is Allah's word and only he knows the true meaning. There are numerous people who argue about translations of verses in the Quran, and people may hear different translations of continuous verses (ayat) and see that they contradict each other.




And here we go again, Stereotyping.

You obviously don't know what your talking about. Prophet Muhammad has made treaties with his enemy's and have allowed people of other religions to live inside Al-Madinah provided they live in peace. If you researched history, you'll also find that he didn't provoke war unless it was essential (such as taking back goods from Quraish that were originally the muslims). Most of the other wars were provoked by THE enemies and not Muhammad himself.

Also, thank you for saying all that Kread. ^^

@Kread-EX:
I know he was illiterate, I mentioned that xD

Also, Muhammad had "Sahaba" (Using Plural as it would be easier instead of using the Female and Male verses: ṣaḥābiyy & ṣaḥābiyyah.). He spoke and they wrote. He chose these people, after-all. The Sahaba gave their direct contact with Muhammad to Tabi`in, who helped to write what Muhammad told his Sahaba. The Ahadith are important pieces of the Religion.

The Qur'ān was given to Muhammad verbally by Jibrīl (Gabriel) for about twenty (might be twenty-three years) years, up until his death. If such a thing seemed to be a bad thing or a harder way to learn the religion, why do you think Muhammad continued to received and get, verbally mentioned verses? He would have mentioned something about it. So he took from Jibrīl and told his Sahaba.

Wow...I can't believe you just assumed something about me. I'm not biased, you don't even know me. Do not attempt to act as if you do. But let me ask you this. Have you've lived in Isfahan? Did you live in Islamic countries, have Islamic textbooks and the Qur'ān in several translations including one untranslated? I lived a big life around Islamic Countries and around the religion itself. You don't know me, but you jump the gun.

Please do not assume you know me simply because we disagree or that you think, you know what I am and how I feel.

Arabic is an really easy language, quiet easy. Mistranslation is nearly impossible since its an easy language to understand and read. But you can ask Soldiers (I know a few of them) about how "hard" the language is. It can't be so hard when you can learn it in three days. I'm learning it -- waiting for Rosetta stone -- and its really easy so far. And I never said "is impossible" that it is "nearly impossible" considering how easy its been said not only by me, but by countless others.

@literarygoth:
The OT and the New Testament don't contradict each other, the Law of the OT was fulfilled and the New Testament came along. Its not that it contradicts, which I'm not saying it doesn't, but that the OT and the NT are completely different because of the Law was fulfilled.

@Philip:
I don't think I was heated up or anything, I was just answering and then I guess I became a target of some kind simply because of it...

I never meant to offend anyone, I'm sorry if I had. I wasn't trying to...I guess I should just leave the debate, since I only got 1-2 posts in before being basically attacked and labeled.

That's what I said. Which means there is a part of interpretation from them, especially because at first, the sou-rates were only memorized, and written down later.


I don't really see what your point is. Muhammad transmits the religion to his followers. Are you implying that he should have forseen the problems inherent to translation and conservation centuries later? Problems that exist with ANY religion by the way.


When you say blatant bullshit like this...

...or this...

...things that completely contradict the work of linguists and historians and seems to be here only to bash a religion different that your own, yes, you are showing bias. Or ignorance. I just chose the least of the two. If that's a problem for you, then too bad.


I'm passionate about Middle-East in general and study a lot history, including the history of religions. What I said comes from the work of people who dedicated their life and education to the subject.


No, I simply think that it's hard to believe that you really know what you are talking about.


You are deluding yourself. Arabic contains hundreds of various dialects all derivated from the classic Arabic. It's this classic Arabic that linguists consider that hard and that they need to study for decades.
And yet you say you can learn it in three days...

Then shall I begin. Your Acquaintance(lol), if you would be so kind, allow me to bypass the reading of predecessing reply-posts to your educative thread, and perhaps I'd do well to only scratch one concept of this infamous or famous religion.

The Arabic word 'Islam' means 'submission', 'acceptance', or 'surrender', and as the name of the religion founded in 7th century by the Arab religious, political, and military leader Muhammad, it connotively expressly implies submission to deity referred to as 'Allah'(the God) in Arabic and therefore by all Muslims likewise.

An Islamic concept that has come much to the notice of non-Muslims in recent times and events, not the least because of the atrocities committed by band of terrorists in the name of Islam(to be more exact, in the name of Allah) in New York and Washington on 11 September 2001 -events which accelerated some dismally unhappy changes in the world - is jihad, a word that means 'struggle' or 'striving', and is glossed by some Muslim authorities as 'struggling to the utmost of one's power and effort to contend with disapproved objects'. Suitably qualified it refers to matters of morality and faith, as an internal matter; left unqualified it is interpreted as struggle against opponents of the faith and the unbeliever(the kufr). Among Shi'as and Sufis a distinction is drawn between the 'greater jihad' and the 'lesser jihad', meaning the former a spiritual struggle, and by the latter, warfare against enemies. This latter sense has the weight of Islamic jurisprudence behind it, relating not just to struggle against apostates and criminals, BUT to those who REFUSE TO SUBMIT to Islam. No mention of jihad can pass without raising the question of Islam in the contemporary world. It should properly seem odd to ask the question at all, for Islam is major world religion, comprising 20 percent of the world's population, and it is as much a 'Western' religion as a religion specific to any other region such as the Middle East, Pakistan or Indonesia, because there are millions of Muslims in Europe and North America, the majority of them natives of the countries in those areas.



These are incontrovertible indeed. Deny these and the thread will be a flame war. Yeah.. >.<"

@Fetz

*applause*
Thank you. Well said mate, and couldn't have said it better myself.
You want to go looking for religious extremists - you'd be surprised by how many of them are NOT Muslim nor follow the word of Islam. That being said, to try and bash on a religion simply due to the events of 9-11 and subsequent news media information, is complete ignorance; and blatantly shows your lack of true knowledge of the religion. As I said, I was very good friends with a Muslim girl on the day 9-11 happened, and I was a witness to the media's anti-Muslim/Islam fanaticism that was born that day.

Yw pal~ ^^


I agree. Uneducated people tends to state the obvious by extreme ignorance, and overcome by media's madness. Enlightenment counts.


Or perhaps, Kread bro, we are having a rather odd discussion session with someone of top-notch linguistic talents and mastery.


I don't know which god deserves a worship. In all religions, too much hypocrisies. I've given up on...nvm


You remind me of "*****y"(my old username in this site, lost the password) who was so devoted to...nvm.
________________

Sorry for the off-topic gesturic lines. Now to get to the main topic,..choosing to reply to:


For I am in disagreement with this, I must say the following these. For a set of beliefs and way of life to constitute a religion, there has typically to be an element not just of belief in something supernatural and transcendent, and regarded as sacred, but also a practice associated with this something, taken as a response to it, or obedience to it, or worship of it, or conformity with it. This practice is the expression of the religious commitment, and a chief way of individuating different religious traditions, apart from the doctrines distinctive of each, is by the way their votaries act out their observances. Now would you be so kind to rephrase your position in this matter. Is killing people for the devil or god(I'm using this as an alternative for good and evil)? Does blood have to be shed and life have to be taken for the refusal to accept Islam? Does the diplomacy retains peace, or does refusal of Islam sovereignity in one's life and a country's land brings about chaotic rage? Are we seeing any openings of understandings? Should we blame or should we trust the policies, the politics, the dogma's, the 4 Rightoues Caliphs, the rivalries, the sects, the today's believers, the tradition, the environment, the media, the whatever involved in this situation that you can think of,.OR the god(Allah) itself? How far and how deep "love" is defined and expressed in Islam's context, in Muslim's perspective, in Allah's 'loving' grace?
These are not just for Sparrow, but the rest as well.

To answer your question, Fetz, I don't believe that "love" is expressed in any religion.
I already had this debate countless times with Bashar in the case of Christianity, and really, a religious doctrine is just what you choose to make out of it.
Taking the books literally is stupid, because they're full of contradictions (for reasons that I explained above). You just have to take what you want and that's what believers do.
During the middle-age, while Europe was crushed by Christian obscurantism, the Islamic countries were centers of culture and research - we owe them part of our mathematics and medical science.

That's just it really.

Then,. It's a sad life. I long to break out of "this cage"!! Ah well pls ignore me. I'm afraid it's time for me to leave the thread
___
To the main topic:
History will always prove the real situation. I believe it so,.or so I once did. I think, you guys should look into passive aspects of history that's related to Islam. I recommend prophecies. Look into it. I believe you guys, especially beshar, will come to comprehend the internal idiocy of pride and some more aspects of this religion. No offense, but deny this and you will deny some hundreds of years of civilisations.
That's it, I'm outta this thread. I should've used the time on this thread to study Ruby and send Kread dumb questions of it rather than hopping into a vain session of attempting to share. For the last, I'm not Muslim, was Christian, I am anti-religion, but I haven't stopped to long for a service to any Lordship of Entity(s) that will/can help me through.

I think that until we get fresh perspective here this thread won't get very far intellectually. And I'd rather not be discussing the pros and cons of Christianity - we already made threads for that. So please don't use this thread as an excuse to attack another religion... ._.

I'm not sure to understand what you mean. How is it sad to state that a doctrine is what one makes out of it?
In the case of Islam, that simply means that if one interprets the Koran as a tool to improve his life and the other's life, it will be a religion of love. On the other hand, a group interpreting it as a mean of domination will turn it into a religion of violence.
It is not different than what you said yourself, in the end.


In case you didn't notice, the only Muslim that posted in this thread, Amaro, agreed with me.
And currently you are contradicting what you said earlier:

If you read carefully, it's how I explained Islam contradictions - and this explanation is valid for other religions.


That's false. We owe to the Church in artistic departements, but not science - Middle-age europe was underdevelopped. Although my point was not to bash the Christian Church, but emphasize how Islam used to be a religion of knowledge, as opposed to today's fundamentalism.


Come on Bashar, I'm not attacking your religion. *sigh*
I'm one of the few that actually defended it from Seroken's bullshit. You should know my point, by now.

Yes I can't say I really understand that part either. But then again, I know history of religions not the doctrine itself.


I've been unclear. I'm not saying "Christianity is anti-science" and I'm not saying "Islam is pro-science". I don't think the opposite is true as well. I was pointing how a religion is displayed can vary over the course of history.
Fundamentalism always existed and will exist as long as there are religions (unfortunately fundamentalism is not limited to religions either).
As for the specific Islamic Golden Age, it started in the 7th century, until the 13th. There was obviously fundamentalists groups back then, but generally, fundamentalism tend to prosper better when the social and economic level degrades.
As for the good side of Christianity, the Renaissance speaks for itself.
This whole part of my argument was to be added to my answer to Fetz about the personal interpretation of Islam.


I see. I thought your initial post was to determine if Islam was a "religion of peace and love". I gave my opinion based on historical facts but for a debate on pure doctrine, only Muslims would really be able to answer, and there aren't many of them here...
There are specialized forums which may be able to provide a real theological debate, though.

That said, my point has been made so I don't see any reason to continue on the "external" point of view of an atheist.

I understand what you're saying, and I'm not trying to sound like I'm verbally attacking you - so please just read what I have to say without taking it personally. Your perspective isn't that of the author's - the one who wrote the Bible. There are several cases where the Bible states one thing clearly, and later on, states something else entirely. This is a contradiction. Whether you perceive it to be or not, doesn't matter. Take the verse for what it is and in it's context, it's still a contradiction.

As we've hashed out in many other threads, you can't take the Bible literally. Neither can one with the Quran. You open a thread asking Muslims or defenders of Islam to stand up and account for the contradictions in their holy text, yet at the same time try to deny the very same in your own? That in itself is a contradiction, and hypocrisy. (Again this isn't meant as an attack, I'm merely trying to find a level 'playing field')
You clearly state it here:


Now here's something interesting that you've stated as well:



Again, the same can be said for the Bible. Most of the accounts portrayed within the Bible are written (as some would say) from a metaphorical point of view. Some believe it to be from a literal point of view. Add to this discrepancy in beliefs the mistranslations, re-translations, multiple authors with varying opinions....you get the point.
Standing where we are now, some 2000 years (give or take) after the fact, it's ridiculous for anyone to find truth in either text without wading through the contradictions.

There are over zealous Christians and Catholics around the world.
There are over zealous Muslims around the world.

Islam, at it's heart - from the people I know personally (work with, go to school with etc) falls along similar lines as what Christianity and Catholicism are at their hearts as well. A belief system meant to bring structure and harmony to a persons life, give them the sense of togetherness (they're not alone), and that there is a 'higher power' that cherishes all life and will be there with open arms when they've passed on.

Personally, I've met people of various religions over my relatively short life. Living in a multicultural nation, and a very multicultural city has given me exposure to many different peoples. The most closed minded persons I've met have been for the most part staunchly religious Catholics, and some Christians.
The majority of Muslims I've met have been very respectful of other people's beliefs and are very interested in hearing, sharing, and learning about other people's beliefs. The only issue with Muslims that I've encountered is a deep rooted anger, near hostility in some, towards those that instantly brand them as terrorists because they're Muslim. Can you blame them really?

Jihad - as Fetz explained (in terms of Islam) - means struggle. Many Muslims interpret this as their own personal struggle, what they must overcome. There are those (Taliban...?) that take it to another level. They believe it to be a holy war for them to go forth and slaughter those that don't believe.

Ask a Muslim in your area about their beliefs - without mentioning 9-11 and you may very well be surprised at what you'll hear. I say without mentioning 9-11 because most westerners have been so polluted by the imagery and everything surrounding 9-11 that blatant ignorance towards Muslims is a direct result.

All I meant when I said "Allah knows the true meaning" is that not every bit of the Qur'an CAN be translated. There are some Surat that start with the three arabic letters: "Alif Lam Meem", "Those are the verses of the Holy Qur'an." What these three stand for, we don't know (there are numerous speculations), but the rest we can understand (or try to) very normally.

What literary has said is true. We consider our lives as our own personal struggles, our own tests. You can say that based on how we score on this test (Good or Bad), that is how we'll enter Heaven or Hell.

Not saying Islam hasn't created it's flaws as well. A certain era in history after the death of Prophet Muhammad, leaders were appointed (Khulafa') and each one took the position by decision from the people. I'll be brief, after Prophet Muhammad some people believed that Ali was to be pointed the first Khalifa (singular of Khulafa'). Yet, it didn't happen and Abu-Baker took the position instead. The people who believe that Ali was supposed to be first separated themselves from the rest. We now call them Shea'. The rest of us who are on the actual religion are called Sunni (Like the Sunah of the Prophet). Some that live in my area have gone as far as to claim that it was Ali who should have received the Message and not Prophet Muhammad, their strange rituals also creep me out to be honest. ._.

If you want to hear my beliefs, I'll be happy to share. ^-^

@amaro57:

That's very informative, thank you! Please, allow me to continue the conversation...


Just so I understand, you're saying "Alif Lam Meem" means "Those are the verses of the Holy Qur'an?" If so, that just seems like a figure of speech, sort of a preparation for the coming lesson. It could also denote the importance of the coming passage. That's just my own speculation, though.



So would you say good actions negate bad actions, much like Karma? Or is it a different dynamic? How much "good" do you need to enter Heaven and how much "bad" do you need to enter Hell? Is there a place in between? Is there a concept of forgiveness?

Sorry if it seems like I'm asking a lot of questions, but these will lay some basic groundwork for my understanding.



I wouldn't necessarily call that situation a "flaw." That seems more like internal politics than anything. Any institution, religious or not, will experience the same problem - people will question the heir to a throne so long as it affects them negatively.

Please, if you have anything else you'd like to share it would be most welcome.

I have a question. I will try and make it as humble and non-condescending as possible, but it is somewhat critical.

I know a good bit about the early history of Islam, and have read the english accepted translation of the Quran. It seems to me, that there are mentions of things from the books the bible is based on, the greatest parts being parts of the Torah. If this book is THE book from God Allah himself, then why would it be written as clearly as a commentary on the books of the Jews and Christians which are not required reading? For example, the "Bible". This is why, channeled work it may be, it seems hardly complete and linearly consistent as one would expect THE book of God Allah himself to be. The story fo Abraham is no exception, as it seems you almost have to have read the story of Abraham elsewhere to even understand the "corrections" the Quran makes to his story. Even moreso with the story of Jesus and Moses.

I read a good bit of ways to deal both harshly and fairly with men, but most of all I couldn't help but feel that lots of this books were commentaries and redactions of other religions that were clearly prominent among early converts. And as the original remnants were destroyed, who is to say the books are the actual intent of the Prophet as it were. Moses was dead before his
Torah was compiled, Jesus was dead before his Testament was written, so much it seems is true of the prophet of Islam.


Forgive any offense which is felt from my asking this, but I don't see where cultural exposure to biblical tales would be learned if not in the bible by these early Muslim converts.

These commentaries made in the Qur'an about the Bible and the Torah are meant for the Christians and Jews to read from in order to know what has been altered in their respective books. Also, to adjust their faith accordingly in order to become the followers of the authentic books that were revealed to Jesus and Moses. As for the Muslims, it is to learn lessons from the previous attempts of altering the Bible and the Torah so as not to fall into the same trap, also to strengthen their belief that Moses, Jesus, and all the Prophets came with the same message from God, the one God, no partners or associates. This message has been reiterated, reinforced, and completed by what has been revealed by this one God onto Mohammad.

You've mostly answered yourself on another note, we can't say the compilation of the messages of Jesus and Moses were their actual intent. The Qur'an is different from the Bibal and Torah, it's style and such cannot be replicated (the original classic arabic text, not the translations) and thus, altered (people before have tried like the challengers of Prophet Muhammad but none succeeded). If an alteration was ever made it would be painfully obvious compared to the rest of the Qur'an.

before i answer i want to make one thing clear -

I am not a hippy, I hate Hippies (and communists)

All religions are the same - you are simply debating the different sides of the same Dice. - regardless of your religion - if the overruling message you take away cannot be summed up in a single word - LOVE - then you have read it wrong.

All religions are not the same. And you definitely sound like a hippy. Furthermore, you fail to explain what LOVE is, essentially making it an empty word with no meaning to any outside observer. Simply saying that the message of all religions is "love" is totally off base. If I walked up to you one day and just said, "Love," you would get nothing out of it. You can add your own connotations to what I say, such as, "You should love," or "Love is great," or "Love is the meaning of everything," but then that's saying more than just "Love."

If you try and simplify religions down to a common denominator it's the same thing as saying "the message of all sports is exercise, therefore all sports are the same." But not all sports require exercise. Golf, for example. When you go around with the thought that all religions are the same, you stop thinking about religion.

Woohoo Religious discussion!

Seems a lil late but I'll try to clam the waters a bit. I am a proud Catholic and I am majoring in Theology, and no I'm not biased. =3

Ultimately, religions are what you take from them. A Catholic might have the same experience, knowledge, understanding, (basically be exactly equal to) a Lutheran, because of a variety of reasons. This could be the community, the country, anything. Point being, religions are what you make of them, they don't magically transform you into another person entirely.

I'd explain a bit about Islam but it's already gone into much deeper detail than I know. xD So, I'll skip this part.

Islam DOES have parts where it (loosely) says 'Kill the non-believers' and elsewhere it says 'Spare them', though it's VERY wrong to say they contradict each other.
The example of The Bible's New Testament vs. Old Testament came in. It's not really a fair comparison. The Old Testament was written down by scribes inspired by God (if you swing with the theology thing) over a HUNDRED years after the events took place. The only exception being with the prophets, who sometimes recorded their works. You absolutely CANNOT take the Old Testament literally. otherwise there would be two Earths (Genesis 1:1 and 1:2-3), and an Angel guarding some garden with a flaming sword. Before any Christians jump on me, yes I know I'm using ambiguous terms, but I don't want to cram Christianity down anyone's throats.
The New Testament, however, was written down within 20 years of the occurrences, by either the Apostles themselves or their first apprentices, so it is much more accurate. To say the old and New Testaments contradict each other would be true if you ignore things such as time and culture. In the Old Testament, laws were given by God and through Moses to govern Israel appropriately at that time. The exact date is unsure, but a few hundred years at the least, probably much more. When Jesus came down and all of that good stuff (don't kill me, I know xD) the Law was perfected to what it should be, because all manner of things were now available to us as human beings. Sacraments, primarily.
So think of it this way. We had laws in America that allowed marijuana, cocaine, slaves, etc. but times changed and laws were revised so as to provide justice to a changing culture. Same with Old-New Testament.

Back on topic now (sorry for the semi-rant), the Quran is largely the same fashion. You -HAVE- to take into consideration the time, place, culture, and setting (basically the ENTIRE context) before you go off saying that Islam is one thing or anything. Yes, I'm sure it does say something along the lines of 'Kill the infidels' (no offense, trying to summarize to keep the post short) somewhere in the Quran. Well, the Bible has that too. 'Smite the Samaritans so they might know the wrath of God'. From the laws of the USA 'Shoot to kill'. I can't speak for the Quran's "verse", but in the Bible that was spoken because they were being attacked, overrun, raping, pillaging, etc. The first part of the USA Law is 'In the event of an attacker with murderous intent, shoot to kill.'

Point being, never take the verses for just verses. Read the ENTIRE section, and then make a judgment about it. Not saying people haven't, or whatever, no offense, etc.

Finally back to my original point, religion is what you make from it. I know several Muslims that I used to work with that are some of the nicest people you could ever meet. They knew their faith, and they really opened my eyes to the inner workings of Islam, which was incredibly similar to Christianity. I also know some Muslims who say that women should be stoned to death for not wearing a burca properly.
Likewise, I know some Catholics who are very nice, passive, and charitable. I also know some who said we should have burned more Protestants at the stake 400 years ago.

Religions are what you make of them. Almost all of them are aimed at realizing and understanding the truth, and all of them have their reasons for being the real truth. In the end, it's your choice.

Islam is not my strong point, so I can't say much on it. I will however correct/infer some points.



Love is an empty word, but so is god.
This is why more theists convert (or de-convert) than atheists.
It's important to point out that most religious people will say that god is love, which I guess only makes what I'm saying more true. Regardless, if you believe your god is defensible on name alone, then love must also be defensible in name alone, and so Sultan's argument becomes valid again.
Hume originally came up with this concept (empty words, or meaningless ideas)



Considering you are studying theology I find it confusing how you think this:

The first gospel was not mentioned anywhere in recorded history until around seventy years after the events, and all four gospels were not mentioned together until roughly 170 years after.
However, christianity was growing during this time through word of mouth, not through the gospels, which makes it as reliable as the old testament. Furthermore, reading laterally the gospels completely fail to compliment each other, and it becomes obvious that they were written one after the other with embellishments and inconsistencies added.
The problem is that the writers were all (as with the old testament) misunderstanding each other's texts, and so you end up with four very different stories - Which amount to chinese whispers.


Also feel I should point out that marijuana was banned to control mexican immigrants... Which IS slavery.
This didn't go down so well, so alcohol and having a good time were banned and marijuana was tagged on. Because marijuana is not addictive, people didn't care as much, and it stayed banned


Anyway, this post has been very off topic so I'll attempt to pull it back, I just felt like correcting some factual errors I saw.
I would also like to stress that while I believe no religious text has any weight at all, the gods they preach of may still exist. I think the bible should be burned for its messages, but the Judeo-Christian god is (if he exists) a good god and should be praised. I believe the bible paints him as evil thanks to incompetent writers...
Same goes for Allah really.


The problem with Islam, the real problem, is the same problem that pretty much every religion has:
1 - God is Loving
2 - God has a plan
3 - Anything that happens is part of god's plan
4 - Unless the thing that happens is bad, then it wasn't god's plan at all.
5 - If the thing was really bad then you should kill the person that did it.
6 - That's god's plan.

The difference in behavior of the religious (namely the islamic) is point 5. Most muslims say that few things are bad enough that people should die for them, however, some believe that anything is worth killing over.
That is it.
There are other flaws that stem from the same philosophy but for other religions (Until death do us part? But the afterlife is eternal and so is love. Ergo, no one believes in heaven) but I'll save those arguments for another time.

For now enjoy that extremism is all in the measure of 5, at what point is it ok to kill. For some, it is the colour of your skin, for others it is what you ate for breakfast, for others it is for the country you were born in, for others it is only if you have killed.
If 5, then 6.

You're right, the first evidence of anything being distributed and such didn't happen for another 70-ish years. The first Public Christian Bible in recorded history was in the early 1400's, which is obviously 1400 years after the events.

They -were- recorded within 20-30 years, but they weren't distributed until Christianity really spread. The multiple letters are trusted to be word for word what they wrote. The letters were written either immediately before or immediately after/concurrently (depending on which apostle you're referring to) their gospel was transcribed from memory to pages.


The steps you listed is actually exactly why you can't lump religions together. Catholics believe only the first 3 steps. God has a plan for us, if we stray from it he adjusts His plan. Nothing ever truly defies it. Certain Protestant denominations, however, believe in #'s 1-5, but not 6. Heck, some Protestants deny all 6. Some deny only #2, etc. etc.

Islam declares Jesus as merely a Prophet, wheras in Catholocism He is the Messiah. There's a huuuuuuge difference, so I don't know how you can say Islam only differs in point 5. Repeat ad infinitum for other religions, many of them accept Jesus but as a different person or role, all of which are major changes.

If you'd like to discuss the 'Death do us part' thing in PMs or elsewhere I'd be happy to. =3

Exactly.

And then you've got the problem of canon. There aren't just four gospels. There are approximately 18 books... but some aren't included in the biblical canon. What about what's said in these? Are they infallibly accurate too?


Thing is, 'Allah' (which is the arabic word meaning 'god') is the same god as the Judeo-Christian god - the Abrahamic God, that is. Most Muslims recognise Jesus as a prophet. It shares the same basic roots as Judaism and Christianity.

It's only an empty word in the way he's using it. But perhaps empty isn't the right way to describe it - ambiguous might be more appropriate. It amounts to saying all things that are green are the same because of their color.



I'm not sure about that. I agree that people are influenced differently by religion, but when these influences directly contradict each other it's hard to say that the over-arching "message" of a religion applies equally to both.

What I'm trying to understand in this thread is the core of Islam - basically, how Islam influences a person's life if they invest themselves totally to its true meaning, or what the "true meaning" actually is.



Right. I suppose I'll have to read the Qu'ran to reach a better understanding, but I was rather curious about what an actual Muslim thinks.



It is, indeed, everyone's choice, which is why I'm against "burning Protestants at the stake." But I think religions are more static than what you're giving them credit for. People will interpret them differently and can be either right or wrong, orthodox or unorthodox, but the original "message" doesn't change with interpretation.



Actually if you line up the first three gospels together, the writings are quite similar. They are, of course, in different styles, and much of the dialogue is different, but the events themselves are largely the same. The fourth gospel omits a few events here and there and describes a few others in more detail in other places, but it's pretty clear that it's the same person being described (Jesus.) There would be no value in all of the gospels being exactly the same - each one was written by different people and for different audiences.

BUT ANYWAY. We're talking about Christianity again. Can we get back to Islam?




A religious text shouldn't be "painting" God as anything other than what He is, and I believe the bible is pretty accurate in that respect. But I also don't think it makes God seem "evil." Same goes for Islam - it is inextricably tied to the Qu'ran.



I don't think that's entirely accurate. What we're getting into here is kind of a time/power paradox concerning God. It might be best for us to understand it that way, but under scrutiny this belief falls apart and therefore cannot be Truth. But I'm not a theologian, so for me this becomes murky waters.




A written word cannot be infallible. To be infallible means to be incapable of making a mistake, and ink on a page cannot make mistakes. What the bible IS though is inerrant, or free from error. In other words, the bible is a recording of pure Truth. In order for you to understand pure Truth then, you the reader must read the bible without any mistakes of interpretation. And since you, presumably, are not an infallible person, any inability to reconcile Truth from the bible is undeniably your "mistake."

All of the books in the bible, Old Testament and New, are inerrant. Any spiritual books that were not made part of the bible were not considered to be "inspired by the Holy Spirit" and, while they may describe Truth, they are not necessarily inerrant.

Even if you take the bible's 'original' form as inerrant, then you agree that in modern translations there must be some errors in translation. This is what fascinates me most about 'King James Version (KJV) only' Christians. They love to talk about how that particular translation is supposedly inerrant, and yet historically, it is considered by theologians and biblical scholars to be poorly translated, and modified for political reasons.

But I don't think that there actually was such an 'original' form of the bible. Because it (and I'm mostly talking about the Old Testament here) originally comes from an oral tradition, it would have changed over time.

And I should probably get back on topic now...

In my mind, Islam is just as much a religion of hate as Christianity - there are parts of the scriptures that espouse it, but the vast majority of its believers are not violent or extremist.

--

By the way: for those skeptical of religious claims, who want to be able to point out problems from biblical/quran/book of mormon verses, then The Skeptic's Annotated Bible is rather helpful. It's basically just the bible (KJV), with sidebar annotations linking contradictions and so on.

I found this particularly relevant:
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/quran/cruelty/long.html

Let's focus on Islam and see how much cruelty is there...

On a side note, Bashar, it is written in revelations that any word changed shall bring upon the plagues, and any word omitted shall bring upon death (it's write there in my signature in the god section)
Therefore ANY translation for which the authors have not 'been removed from the book of life' has GOD'S seal of approval.

However, I've derailed this topic somewhat and it is time to focus on Allah, the god who chose a pedophile to be his prophet...

well being a pedophile was not a sin in those days. I believe he had a 12 year old wife, or younger even. I'm not too sure.

also, removing a word from revelation takes your name away from the book of life... Surely that means I should be dead. It's just one of many inconsistencies/absurdities you can find in the website that Mcoot posted.

Love is universal - if you were to ask everyone in the world : what is Love, what does it mean to you.

not two people would give answers that contradict each other. Yea you would get lots of different answers, but they would be able to sit side by side.

the same cannot be said for religion as YOU would have it.

However - God is your attempt to understand an infinite force within the universe -
How can God be infinite and NOT be Allah, and Vishnu?

How can the knowledge requiring one to understand something infinite be contained in a single book?

to understand 1% of the plant life in this world would require 100 books more than 100 times bigger than the Bible or Koran,
to understand 1% of the plant life on this planet would in fact be a Life's Work.

and even after dedicating your life to such a thing, you would still be unable to answer a simple question such as,
why does this tree have 17 leaves left and the same one next to it only 5?

yes all religions are different - yet they do have some universal idea's

take for example - a God can take any form he chooses (be it burning bush, golden bull etc.)
so why would this infinite force you pray to not be able to take the form of God, Allah, Vishnu, Zeus etc?

second point - the mainstay of every religion is - Love -
even Satanism is based on a message of Love

tell me - which religion does this NOT describe
"I believe that an infinite Force exists, that i must be a good person, and that when i die i will be judged"

damn that even apply's to Buddhism and they don't have a god.

Some people love you too much to hurt you
Some people love you too much to lie to you

If the truth would hurt, and two people who love you behave differently towards telling you the truth, which of them loves you more?
Love is FAR from an objective of universal force. Love is simply a projection of ourselves through empathy and desire
"I want this person to be happy, I will apply to them the principles that make me happy."
quite simple.

I have seen many people take contrasting approaches to love:
If you love them, let them go.
If you love them, hold them close.
If you love them, let them confront their fears
If you love them, keep them safe.

There is no directive or manual on how to live life, on how to love, or on how to be happy.

More importantly, if the islamic god (or any god for that matter) is a small part of an infinite thing, then why choose those words?
You can only choose a small portion of 'love' and what do we get?
MURDER, INCEST, RAPE, and, PEDOPHILIA

yeah, I understand the message or concept of a god, but religious texts are the exact opposite of the inferred meaning.
Furthermore, every single god ever created has always preached the same message at some point:
"Don't question things, knowledge is bad."

What kind of infinite being wants to minimize our potential? Only one that is actually finite, or created from a finite intelligence.
Just makes sense.

Catholicism and Hinduism, Mormonism, probably Islam.

In Catholicism, God isn't really a force at all, unless you're going to use Force in the most vague terms possible. There's absolutely nothing in Catholicism that says 'You must be a good person', because we believe in Free Will. You can do whatever the heck you want, we're just sure to know that certain actions have certain consequences. We believe we are 'judged' when we die, but it's much more complex than simply being judged, and additionally we don't fully die (souls and all that). On top fo that the resurrected body and soul thing sort of defies the definition of dying.

Hinduism the idea is to achieve Nirvana, pure spiritual essence (basically), not heaven, and not any form of god. Purely things that can be achieved through the human capacities with no assistance from the gods at all. The gods in Hinduism are there to explain things, but the message they teach is that through reincarnation you will eventually achieve spiritual bliss. There's nothing that says you have to be a good person, unless 'Good person' means meditating. They're actually never judged divinely.

Mormons believe that when they die they will become a sort of god in themselves because of their interpretation of the scriptures. They'll be judged in the sense that they will be rewarded for their efforts on Earth accordingly, but they don't believe in a hell so it isn't a judgement of damned or not like it is in Catholicism. Once again, there's nothing that says 'You must be a good person'. They say 'You must follow our laws', which vary from place to place and is at the discretion of their minister.

Islam has two basic schools of thought on the matter, one says being virtuous alone will grant you paradise, the other says only by following Allah's word will you achieve paradise. As soon as someone becomes a Muslim, you're saved and that's that. Everyone who's not goes to hell, everyone who is goes to heaven, pure and simple. There is no judgement because it's like having a pass to heaven or not. Obviously, they don't say 'You must be good', as you have the extremists who go around killing those who aren't Muslim.


There's alot more but I don't feel like going through them because I believe I've made my point.



Catholicism, again, is the opposite of what you said. The Bible (or any religious text I can think of, really) is not opposite to it's inferred meaning at all. The point of context has already been addressed, so find me a passage that says one thing but means another. Not two different passages, the same one.


No, not really. Catholicism, again, teaches that knowledge is what we should all be striving for, because it increases our knowledge of God (for various reasons I won't bother to explain). Hinduism is the same way, knowledge isn't bad, they just don't really care about some knowledge because it doesn't affect their spiritual lives.

I'm a little confused as to why you would say that in a thread on Islam, because it's already been mentioned that we owe much of our language and mathematics to Islam. Two of the most key points in modern civilization came from a place who's lives day in and day out were religion.



You're making very large leaps in logic and leaving holes wide enough to fit a hippo through. None of us can begin to fathom what an infinite being thinks, wants, or desires, because my physical standards we are finite beings. So first off you can't assume anything along those lines.
Secondly, you're assuming that these beings are controlling and corrupted like almost every politician today who wants to keep his or her power intact, which is not the case for 90% of gods.
Thirdly, a finite intelligence cannot create an infinite being as something cannot come from nothing (as proven by philosophers over the centuries). To say that a finite being created an infinite being is almost akin to saying a spec of dirt created the universe exactly how it is, and even that is an unfair comparison. How can a finite being create something(infinite being) that is beyond anything they can even begin to fathom?

First off, creation is different to manufacturing. A finite being can create an infinite being simply by saying it exists. That's what I meant.
If I want to manipulate you, I may create a reason for you to do so through lying.
What I don't want you to do is question the lie, this is why most liars keep their stories very superficial, this way they avoid committing to any specific event or time.
[In the beginning]
when was the beginning?
[created light]
what cause the light?

Superficial

The 'leaps of logic' are much smaller leaps than the leap of logic any religion takes in assuming that a being came from no where, created everything from nothing, and then the coup de grace (for christianity at least) made woman out of a rub, because god had run out of nothing...

That's irrelevant though. You issued me a challenge.
you must understand that it is almost impossible for a single sentence to be self contradictory, except a paradox. I was of course referring to paragraphs that are close together...

Anyway. Seeing as words can rarely lie, I will settle for an EVENT.
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/temple.html
who lies?
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/words.html
how are people judged?
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/withme.html
"He that is not with me is against me"
I find this interesting as the inferred meaning is 'he that is not by my side is in my way' but really it's a confusion of 'with me' meaning 'for me' and 'not with me' meaning 'against me'. But really, this is a generalisation. There are those who do not know, and thus cannot be against him. The sentence is too dramatic to be meaningful. It is a message of fear.
"Get with me, or get out of my way!" would be the one way to interpret it.

And the once peaceful message turns to violence. Jesus, a man incapable of ill will, has shown violence.
"He that is not with me is against me"
Same counts for the contrary.
"Unless they stand in our way, they stand by our side."
it's a threat to those who would stand against them

Christianity is an aggressive religion, but this is a MASSIVE tangent.

Islam:
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/quran/contra/cando.html
Allah can do all things.
If Allah can do all things, he can make a rock that he cannot lift. If Allah can do all things, he can lift that rock.
Self contradictory. Nothing can do anything. Fact.

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/quran/co...tians_hell.html
also, check the bottom two for this. Just three verses apart...


Islam did bring about MANY scientific discoveries, but then always justified those discoveries through the quran (and still does). Further though, Islam primarily brought about discoveries that did not contradict belief. This is why the western world overtook the Islamic world, because of the renaissance, a time when discovery became worshipped above god's.
Age of enlightenment.
Or something like that.


Knowledge is fine, but skepticism is not. Believe what you're told. Research implies ambiguity or doubt: skepticism.
discovery means nothing, anyone can discover anything. The problem lies in frequency of success. The rationalist approach to science and philosophy is to sit down and think.
And think
and think.

It produces results, but also crazy theories (flat earth, etc)

Empiricism on the other hand is all about the evidence, and is much less likely to produce crazy theories.
Science uses this method today and produces more discoveries faster than Islam previously did. 90% of modern scientists are atheists.
Their pursuit of knowledge is often scoffed at as 'playing god'.

The more ridiculous the religion, the more questions are punished. Scientology is the best physical example of this.
I digress.

Islam is outdated, Rationalism had its time and nearly stuck us in the dark ages forever. Now is the time for Empiricism, which does more, faster.

ah but sparrow - you judge Love by what actions it drives people to.

there will be a million and one conflicting actions based on Love.

im talking about the Concept of Love

work your two people (truth and lie) backwards

"Why did you lie to her / tell her the truth"

"because i love her"

So i would argue that two completely conflicting actions having the exact same root cause -shows how universal Love is.

equally universal - Hate, Fear etc.

but Love has something special - because Love somehow enables us to do wonderful things - and it is a most positive vibe, most likely to create other positive vibes, be it hope, happiness, fulfilment, purpose etc. (bah hippy talk)

======
@ seli - and just quickly

OBVIOUSLY i am using the most vague and generic terms

catholics, hindus, AND mormens

can ALL have their religions summed up with the sentence i gave

there is no religion where all are treated equal upon death - thus all are judged
in every religion all must be "good" - as determined by that religion
there is no religion without some "Force" - be it god, the wheel of life etc

again using VERY generic definitions here
yet this applies to every religion there has ever been.

and yea - have to agree with sparrow,
didn't the apple give adam and eve forbiden knowledge?
speaking of which didn't most of the demons and evil things such as vampires etc come from adams first wife Lilith?

after all EVE was adams 3rd wife was he not?

BAH i digress -

as i said its all the same -

NO ONE IS A BIG SQUARE WITH A SINGLE DOT

STUPID GOD HAS 6 DOTS EVERYONE KNOWS THAT

NEY I TELL YOU HE IS OF THE TRINITY THE SQUARE OF GOD HAS 3 DOT

or perhaps little "flatlanders" (2 dimentional creatures)
you are seeing different sides of the same god (a dice) however as you are limited to such a small number of dimensions, you cannot even begin to conceive what god (or a dice) really is,

if God exists in 12 dimentions, how can we understand it - if we can only understand (at best) 10 dimensions?

while we're off on a tangent (and I do hope we can get back on soon) love is a reason then.
"Why did you kill her?"
"Because I love her"
works, according to your theory. In fact.
"Why did you kill her?"
"Because I love her/Because I hate her/Because I fear her/Because I didn't care for her"

It all works.
An explanation is not universal.
"Why did you run over my kid?"
"I was speeding and didn't see him."
"Why were you speeding?"
"I was in a hurry."
"Why were you in a hurry."
"My wife was in labour and I had to get her to a hospital."
"why do you care if your wife gets to a hospital in time.?"
"Because I love her"

A child's death is the result of love.
How universal is that?
If he truly loved her he would of made sure she was within range of an ambulance in the days leading up to her labour, and furthermore he wouldn't have put her life in danger by speeding.
Love is not universal, the man was just an idiot in my example.
Stupidity =/= love


Love is not an emotion, it is an action.
Emotions are subjective, but actions are objective. Actions happen. Actions definitely happen.

I'll get this out of the way immediately instead of quoting and taking up more space: You did not give me an example that, in the same passage, there was a contradiction in the saying and the meaning. You gave examples of where there are word for word contradictions, but they were all in different contexts. As we've already said, context means alot.



However, you're still making the assumption that this infinite being wants to lie to us, which defies logic in that an infinite being would have no reason to lie to us.
Also consider that an infinite being would be the infinity of every thing, as is self-evident from the title. Evil, as it is understood to be, is the lack of good as Darkness is the lack of Light. Shadows do not exist, they are defined as the lack of light. Cold is the absence of heat, as absolute zero, the coldest possible temperature, is defined as a complete and utter lack of heat. A hole is an absence of dirt, the list goes on and on. An infinite being would only possess those qualities we as humans hold to be 'good'. With an infinite amount of light, there is no darkness, infinite amount of love, no malice. If not a, then b. Always a, therefore never b.
With that in mind, it's not that this infinite being won't lie to us, it becomes a fact that it cannot lie to us, as that would mean it is not infinite.


Yes, I lumped them together cause I read over things individually. lol

Context, I've already addressed this as have others. Genesis was written wayyyyy after the events happened, and they were written to the people of the time. To say 'The uncaused cause used prime matter to form the organism that would eventually evolve into the beings you are now' to people 6 or 7 thousand years ago would have meant absolutely nothing to them. It'd be like talking Differential Equations being used to compute the size of the universe and from that the rate of expansion to a first grader. That's cruel, if anything, to say 'This is salvation, but I'm not going to let you understand it.' Cruelty, as already addressed, is not possible for this infinite being.

Going off of Aristotle again (though he sort of stole it), there exists an Uncaused Cause. That is: Everything has a cause. Meaning, your parents caused you, their parents caused them, etc. etc. etc. evolution, etc. etc., Big Bang. Even if you are going to go with the multiverse theory and the Big Bang Collapse Hypothesis it all has to have started somewhere, something has to have caused it. But then, what caused that cause? The only possible answer derived purely from logic is that there is something that is outside of our time-space that caused the Big Bang (or whatever creation theory you wanna swing with).

From that, Aristotle also says that each and every event is evidence for God's existence, but that's out of my area of expertise as I'm not an Aristotlian Philosopher.



Islam is perhaps the only reason we are here. There is literally no hard science that doesn't use the mathematics brought about by their religion. Islam by extension has caused literally -every- advance in technology since it's time.

The renaissance was a revitalization of art and culture, not of technology and science. Renaissance is French for 'Rebirth' or 'Reborn'. It was focused on the rediscovery and implementation of the arts, all of which were originally pointed towards praising their particular religious deity.



The philosophy part of thinking is again what caused literally all of civilization. It turned out some weird theories because that was the most advanced technology they had at that time. Back then, it was the philosophers who theorized the atom, and even the sub-atom. With today's technology, we have confirmed the atom, and we're pretty darn sure about the sub-atom. With only action man stays within it's boundaries. Theoretical [subject] is using what they know and trying to discover more things, but they are all theorized and thought about.



Technology is also vastly superior to that of Islam. If you threw the genius' of the world together from birth and taught them only what was known back in the day they wouldn't have come up with what Islam developed over the centuries.
The next point is that there really is no evidence. Science can 'prove' scientific facts, but even the most anti-religious scientist will have to agree that science can only say 'This is the result of observation to this point'. There is absolutely no indication that things will be the same as they are now next year, tomorrow, in two minutes. Science is the study of creation, but it can't prove anything.

No, the pursuit of knowledge isn't scoffed off as 'Playing god'. It's encouraged within the Churches. It's scoffed to be playing god when they are trying desperately to create things that simply cannot be created. That's when it's scoffed off as playing god, because of the uncaused cause and all of that.

Rationalism is the only way we are where we are, and it's what holds everything together. Take that out, and everything we know falls apart.



To judge is to make a decision on one's fate. Many religions believe that there is no judgement, meaning absolutely nothing decides what happens to them. Hinduism, and actually many branches of Protestantism says that there is only heaven and no hell because of God's eternal Love, Mercy, and so on. So actually, around 30% of the world's religion says there is no judgement.



Not true. Hinduism again, nothing is good. Satanism, the idea is actually to be bad. Unless you're defining 'good' as whatever they tell you to do. In which case yes, you're right. Following that logic, every single couple that has ever existed is committing incest as we are all descended from the same gene of the first humans.



Of course not. That isn't dependent on religion, though. There is no... Anything, without force. Refer to Aristotle's Cause Argument above. There has to be force of some sort.



Depends on what religion you're referring to, actually. lol. Catholicism, the source of the Bible, Eve was his first wife. Of course, we have VERY specific definitions of what a marriage is, so that's kinda different.



What you've described is more accurately named 'Truth', but you're right. Meaning, It's true that 2+2=4. I see it in English as two, Spanish sees it as dos, Japanese sees it as Ni. Seeing as whichever god you'd like to believe in is Truth, you're right.

Of course god would not lie, god cannot lie.
But a man can, and a man invented god.

Furthermore, 'eat of the tree of knowledge, and thou shall surely die in the same day' was a lie.
But that was probably a metaphor...

Anyway, you begin every premise of your arguments with:
God exist, god is good.
Now prove both.
This is impossible. Please, try to do one at a time.
You can prove that god MAY exist, but you'll find that he's not good at all (genocide. Lots of genocide) or you can prove he is good, much like Santa Claus, and find that he probably doesn't exist (what with the genocide and all)

Also, multiple times in the bible God experiences grief or remorse or guilt. Perfect beings cannot experience guilt because they are incapable of malice and incapable of being wrong.
QED

You realise that no paragraph will ever contradict itself. I showed you passages from the same writer and of the passages right next to each other. Context does not change within a passage.
Furthermore, rules like 'thou shalt not lie' are broken in the thousands by god's most precious followers.

You would do well to study every absurdity and contradiction that the website offers BEFORE jumping to conclusions.
As for rationalism being effective, it is very effective. But Empiricism has done more.

But then, who created man? Refer again to the first cause argument. Regardless of if man created their idea of this first cause, it does exist beyond man's acceptance of it.



Context, again. Man was a much more perfect being then as compared to now. By disobeying God and allowing pride to get the better of him, man killed himself by introducing sin into God's creation (the world). The passage didn't lie, it requires one to consider alternative perspectives besides one's own.



You completely ignored the First Cause argument. It a completely valid argument that has been tried for centuries but holds true.

Something does exist that caused all of this, there is no other explination, period. It isn't a 'may' it's a MUST.
A = Cause, B = Creation.
Creation requires a cause.
Therefore, if not A, then not B.
Ergo, B, therefore A.
Therefore, A is true.

Perfectly valid logic and a sound argument to which there is no counterargument.

I also stated how an infinite being possess all 'good' qualities, otherwise it would not be infinite and thus not the first cause.

Genocide is a production of human weakness and malice, not God's. We all have Free Will, and we can do with it what we please. If God stopped us form doing things, that's no longer free will, is it? That's allowing us to do what we want so long as it's within a little circle in the sand. However, that's not the case.



Which ones? I saw different books from the bible, in some cases different authors giving different words to different people. Of course I may not have looked closely enough, hence my request for affirmation.



Guilt is a negative things because...? One can feel guilty for doing the right thing.
Also, God cannot 'experience' these things as He does not have a body with which to experience them with, otherwise He would have to exist on a physical plane which would also mean he cannot be the first cause as it has to exist outside of our space-time.



Likewise for you and the bible. Almost everything I've heard of so far in terms of countering Christian arguments or against religion have been from very uninformed points of views on the subject. I've done my best to avoid topics that I know little about (such as the 'God is the cause of everything' argument) and I've made sure to point out that I don't know too much about it.



Empiricism exists because of rationalism. Rationalism is what holds modern thought together. Rationalism provided the glue to make the house frame, and now empiricism is putting up walls and a roof, but take away the frame and it all comes crashing down.

[I'm going to post this in the religious thread instead. Got a bit off topic. I'll leave some parts that are somewhat relevant]

You rely on the causation argument too heavily and ignore its most obvious flaw: where to draw the line.

Most atheists draw it at the big bang theory, some go further. Theists draw it at god.
But why draw it there?
Why say god is infinite?
What if god is almost infinite, and is actually made by the fusion of two prior slightly less infinite beings?
Or half a very infinite one?
Hell, what does infinite even mean?

the entire causation argument rests on the simple fact that infinity is impossible, so nothing can cause everything in infinite regression, therefore at least one thing happened all of its own accord.
If infinity is possible, then all things have a cause and it just regresses infinitely. No god.
If infinity is impossible then, again, god need not exist.

Most importantly, even if a god CAN exist, that doesn't mean one does. Maybe the answer is much simpler and fits with science, we just don't know yet.
There are some things we will never know, that doesn't mean you can fill in the gaps with anything that fits your fancy.
I'm not trying to be aggressive, and we're going somewhat off topic (though this does apply to Islam) but your making scientific arguments for the belief of a god that violates science.


no, god committed genocide multiple times in the bible, have you read it?
He does it even more in the quran.

anyway, back to Islam...

I won't reply to everything I have read, but...well:

First of all, why are you referring to a Skeptics website for facts?? I'd prefer places that have scholars that translate the MEANING of the Qur'an, as the Qur'an itself cannot be translated due to the language it's written in, such as the USC.

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/quran/contra/cando.html
6:100-101
"Yet they ... impute falsely, without knowledge, sons and daughters unto Him. ... The Originator of the heavens and the earth! How can He have a child?"

This is not the full translation and poorly pointed. It is not the translation of BOTH Ayat.

006.100
YUSUFALI: Yet they make the Jinns equals with Allah, though Allah did create the Jinns; and they falsely, having no knowledge, attribute to Him sons and daughters. Praise and glory be to Him! (for He is) above what they attribute to Him!
PICKTHAL: Yet they ascribe as partners unto Him the jinn, although He did create them, and impute falsely, without knowledge, sons and daughters unto Him. Glorified be He and High Exalted above (all) that they ascribe (unto Him).
SHAKIR: And they make the jinn associates with Allah, while He created them, and they falsely attribute to Him sons and daughters without knowledge; glory be to Him, and highly exalted is He above what they ascribe (to Him).

006.101
YUSUFALI: To Him is due the primal origin of the heavens and the earth: How can He have a son when He hath no consort? He created all things, and He hath full knowledge of all things.
PICKTHAL: The Originator of the heavens and the earth! How can He have a child, when there is for Him no consort, when He created all things and is Aware of all things?
SHAKIR: Wonderful Originator of the heavens and the earth! How could He have a son when He has no consort, and He (Himself) created everything, and He is the Knower of all things.

Self explanatory I'm sure.

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/quran/co...tians_hell.html
3:85
Whoso seeketh as religion other than the Surrender (to Allah) it will not be accepted from him, and he will be a loser in the Hereafter.

Alright, good enough. The problem here is the mistake to think "the Surrender (to Allah)", is Islam. Yes Islam can be translated into surrender, to believe in Allah. But here's a fun fact: Christians believe in a god, so do Jewish people, and others. What mainly differs Islam from other religions is that Christians believe that God has a son, and Jewish believe they are God's only chosen people. We all believe in a god. The people who do not believe in a god are those who are being referred to in this Ayaa.

5:72
They surely disbelieve who say: Lo! Allah is the Messiah, son of Mary. ... Lo! whoso ascribeth partners unto Allah, for him Allah hath forbidden paradise. His abode is the Fire. For evil-doers there will be no helpers.

People who say "Lo! Allah is the Messiah, son of Mary." are more or less claiming that God IS the messiah and that Mary IS God's mother!? Islam does not ascribe a single partner with Allah. Those are the ones who enter hellfire, not Christians who say that God has a son.



So your saying that man also wrote the books? Sure man can lie about miracles and such, but the Qur'an is also proof that nothing like it could have been "made up". So you can't really say that man lies about God when God mentions himself in the Qur'an and other books.

Why are you bringing up the Bible in an Islamic debate? Allah made man, and he will judge each man he has created. Why he created us and is testing us, who knows but him? So why should he feel guilt if something happens (due to him?) to particular people if God already knows everything about his creation and each creations judgement? (Talking from an Islamic perspective here.)

Also, lies are a sin. We get bad deeds from doing them hence why Allah tells us not to lie. Simple as that.



The Infinite theory of yours is interesting, I'll admit. I'll leave it be since it's a whole other subject on its own.

I really don't like the way you refer to it as "genocide". If a man kills another then sure, refer to it as genocide. If the people are Allah's creations, he knows everything about them, and he will punish them for valid reasons, aka we are his, he can do what he wants with us. I won't go into much detail, there's an object which we refer to (roughly translated) as "the Preserved Board" (Al-Louh Al-Mahfoud). In it is written everything from the beginning of this world, until its end, as it will happen. I misunderstood this concept at first thinking that everybody's fate is predetermined and we have no control over what will happen to us. That's wrong. We all decide what we shall do, Allah just knows what we shall do before we actually do it.

Example]
It's written on the Board that on XXX day I shall not pray Fajir. That doesn't mean that it was determined that I would not pray, but known that I wouldn't. Since we are Allah's creations, he knows us and what we will do before we do it. If I DO pray Fajir on that particular day due to a change of heart, it would've been written as so.

Anyways, since Allah knew there would be no salvation for some people, such as the people of (3ad/Aad), he punished them with winds. The reason he sent prophets is for the people that he knew would believe, to be given the opportunity to change. People who wouldn't believe and hurt the Prophets/Messengers like the Pharaoh would be punished.

Islam, outdated? I have never heard anybody refer to the biggest religion as such. Could some of the discoveries made today been made if not for the basis from Islam? Alright, most scientists are Atheist. But Islam (mostly the Qur'an) has stated things that Atheists are learning today due to the modern technology we have. We didn't have that back then. Just because they disregard religious factors doesn't mean the method is more effective. Even if they're discovering things faster, what are the scale of these "things"? I doubt they're as big some things Islam has stated beforehand.

Last thing, why would Allah even create a rock he couldn't move? What's the whole point of it?

*Waits for Sparrow* Cause dang I feel too serious in the serious dis-... oh.