Islam - What's your view on it?

[Mr Tree]

Another good and fair question. As @Scaff said, this is pretty much the norm. Now what I will say is that there are various schools of thought in Islam. But all of those schools of thought follow an identical baseline, with the exact same base rules. When people go around twisting those base rules, then that is not following Islam at all, and this is the problem. Let us take ISIS for example right now, as everybody is pretty familiar with them. Now, according to them, everybody is not with them is against them and their enemy. The establishment of a worldwide 'khalifate' is their primary goal, and to force a faith and way of life upon everybody is their MO. This in itself is completely against any teaching of Islam. Faith has no compulsion. Killing is clearly shown to be the exception, not the norm. Intolerance is against Islam itself. Killing because somebody disagrees with you? How will anybody learn? What of womens rights? I hear ISIS rape them and use them? And forget the idea of terrorism. The Islamic definition, that is in Shariah, of terrorism is not just bombing and killing senselessly, but even comitting highway robbery is terrorism. There is no justification for terrorism, not even in the case of a legitimate war.

I have said this before and I shall say it again, ISIS are the total opposite of Islam. I have no idea how they can claim to represent a religion when everything they do is in stark contrast, by ANY interpretation.

I enjoy reading your answers as it does help me learn about Islam.
But I'd have to say I disagree here. The thing is while I don't lump in the majority of muslims with ISIS saying it's not Islam in my ears sounds as unbelievable as when ISIS says you're not a real muslim. It's the no true scotsman fallacy if I'm correct.

You don't have the power to declare what is or isn't true islam.

Apart from that what is your opinion on artists in egypt beeing jailed for wearing clothes that aren't 'modest enough.

As I'm willing to agree the majority of muslims in the west follow a moderate version it's laws like these that makes secular people believe there is an issue within islam.

 

[UKMikey]

I enjoy reading your answers as it does help me learn about Islam.
But I'd have to say I disagree here. The thing is while I don't lump in the majority of muslims with ISIS saying it's not Islam in my ears sounds as unbelievable as when ISIS says you're not a real muslim. It's the no true scotsman fallacy if I'm correct.

You don't have the power to declare what is or isn't true islam.

If a majority of Christians were to declare the Westboro Baptist Church were not Christian do you think it would be fair to tell them they were wrong to decide this? Personally this secular person finds it reassuring when moderate Muslims speak out against terror organisations and believe it should be encouraged, not shut down.

 

[Mr Tree]

If a majority of Christians were to declare the Westboro Baptist Church were not Christian do you th8nk it would be fair to tell them they were wrong to decide this? Personally this secular person finds it reassuring when moderate Muslims speak out against terror organisations and believe it should be encouraged, not shut down.

If they use the bible see jesus as their prophet/messiah they'd be christians...
I don't see how an appeal to numbers would change that?

I do fully agree with it being reassuring moderate muslims speak out against extremism. I'd encourage them spreading a different interpretation, I disagree with the idea that ISIS members aren't part of a very dark community based on islam.

I don't see how we can't hold both of these positions.

 

[UKMikey]

If they use the bible see jesus as their prophet/messiah they'd be christians...
I don't see how an appeal to numbers would change that?

While ignoring pretty much everything he said... I don't see it as an appeal to numbers but as an appeal to those who care more about what their book says than I do.

You can hold both positions but I feel one undermines the other.

 

[Scaff]

I enjoy reading your answers as it does help me learn about Islam.
But I'd have to say I disagree here. The thing is while I don't lump in the majority of muslims with ISIS saying it's not Islam in my ears sounds as unbelievable as when ISIS says you're not a real muslim. It's the no true scotsman fallacy if I'm correct.

You don't have the power to declare what is or isn't true islam.

Apart from that what is your opinion on artists in egypt beeing jailed for wearing clothes that aren't 'modest enough.

As I'm willing to agree the majority of muslims in the west follow a moderate version it's laws like these that makes secular people believe there is an issue within islam.

Its a rather simple distinction.

ISIS see themselves as Muslim and self identify as such, however the vast majority of Muslims reject them and the interpretation of Islam that ISIS present. as such its perfectly possible for both positions to exist.

Yes they are contradictory, but no more so that the view Christians have of the Lord's Resistance Army, or the position some Protestant sects have of Catholics, etc.

Oh and whats your view on Christians wanting to make yoga pants illegal?
https://www.theatlantic.com/politic...ore-war-on-yoga-pants-illegal-speedos/385409/

 

[Mr Tree]

While ignoring pretty much everything he said... I don't see it as an appeal to numbers but as an appeal to those who care more about what their book says than I do.

You can hold both positions but I feel one undermines the other.

I don't ignore it, it's an interpretation it's subjective and thus it's hard to say someone is wrong or right.

Maybe you are correct so how does one position undermine the other? I don't conflate extremist idea's with those held by the majority of muslims. I just don't agrer with the it's not islam. If it's not islam then what is it and why is it not islam.

Its a rather simple distinction.

ISIS see themselves as Muslim and self identify as such, however the vast majority of Muslims reject them and the interpretation of Islam that ISIS present. as such its perfectly possible for both positions to exist.

Yes they are contradictory, but no more so that the view Christians have of the Lord's Resistance Army, or the position some Protestant sects have of Catholics, etc.

Oh and whats your view on Christians wanting to make yoga pants illegal?
https://www.theatlantic.com/politic...ore-war-on-yoga-pants-illegal-speedos/385409/

I agree but I'd call all of those diffrent christians, christians. So it's not so that I act differently for christians or muslims.

I don't have the time to read the article right now but by what you say it reports on it makes my blood boil. Their religious idea's should not be brought into law. If they can't deal with yogapants it's their problem not ours so they have to deal with it and 'we' should not stop wearing them. Just out of curiosity did you think I held a different perspective on that issue?

 

[Scaff]

I don't ignore it, it's an interpretation it's subjective and thus it's hard to say someone is wrong or right.

Maybe you are correct so how does one position undermine the other? I don't conflate extremist idea's with those held by the majority of muslims. I just don't agrer with the it's not islam. If it's not islam then what is it and why is it not islam.

Find me a single religion in which you have universal agreement on what that religion is and what defines a true believer!

Its simply not possible, and has resulted in more than enough wars within single religions.

 

[Mr Tree]

Find me a single religion in which you have universal agreement on what that religion is and what defines a true believer!

Its simply not possible, and has resulted in more than enough wars within single religions.

Yes I agree I think I'm not getting my point accros. If someone self identifies as part of a religion and uses said religions holy books why would they not follow that religion regardless of other people within that religion claiming they're not part of it.

What I do agree on is ISIS is not in any way comparable to moderate islam they are 2 vastly diffrent forms of the religion and have almost no similarities.

But hey maybe you prove me wrong as you've done before and I'll change my mind.

 

[tipoma]

Its a rather simple distinction.

ISIS see themselves as Muslim and self identify as such, however the vast majority of Muslims reject them and the interpretation of Islam that ISIS present. as such its perfectly possible for both positions to exist.

Yes they are contradictory, but no more so that the view Christians have of the Lord's Resistance Army, or the position some Protestant sects have of Catholics, etc.

Oh and whats your view on Christians wanting to make yoga pants illegal?
https://www.theatlantic.com/politic...ore-war-on-yoga-pants-illegal-speedos/385409/

It's a very good thing that ISIS is rejected, by fellow Muslims and pretty much everyone else with 1/2 a brain.

Religion is contradictory by nature but it's actually nothing more than a self defining conduit so big deal there, humans are contradictory by nature.

Yoga pants

Let me tell you about Missoula Montana as I have first hand knowz... We fly flags on our porch, we have bibles on our coffee tables, and we hang rifles on the wall, this is America people, well for some of us this is America. I personally love Missoula type people and the town is quite small so more power to em in banning yoga pants.

I don't really know what that story is all about or if there is a local uprising or not but I can tell you that French Canadian types have frequently rocked the boat there in the past. Liberal is not in the Montana Dictionary.

 

[Spurgy 777]

Find me a single religion in which you have universal agreement on what that religion is and what defines a true believer!

Its simply not possible, and has resulted in more than enough wars within single religions.

Isn’t that exactly his point? @ECGadget is saying that ISIS can’t claim to represent Islam but you can’t define what a “true believer” is so saying that is nonsense. ISIS represent their interpretation of Islam and like the vast majority of (if not all) religious people they claim it’s the correct interpretation. So by all means you can and should argue about why they’re wrong but you can’t say they don’t represent Islam just because everyone else disagrees with them.

 

[tipoma]

Isn’t that exactly his point? @ECGadget is saying that ISIS can’t claim to represent Islam but you can’t define what a “true believer” is so saying that is nonsense. ISIS represent their interpretation of Islam and like the vast majority of (if not all) religious people they claim it’s the correct interpretation. So by all means you can and should argue about why they’re wrong but you can’t say they don’t represent Islam just because everyone else disagrees with them.

My definition of my religion is precisely correct for me, it is not forced upon another. I do agree with you to a degree though and numbers do matter only in a sense of ID, "you ID with Islam? are you ISIS?" It's valid.

 

[Scaff]

Isn’t that exactly his point? @ECGadget is saying that ISIS can’t claim to represent Islam but you can’t define what a “true believer” is so saying that is nonsense. ISIS represent their interpretation of Islam and like the vast majority of (if not all) religious people they claim it’s the correct interpretation. So by all means you can and should argue about why they’re wrong but you can’t say they don’t represent Islam just because everyone else disagrees with them.

It is exactly his point, and its a contradiction that's inherit in every religion and one that you will never resolve.

Which is exactly why I used the example of the Lord's Resistance Army. The self identify as Christian, yet you will not find a single 'mainstream' Christian denomination who would accept them as Christian.

Another example would be when Rev. Ian Paisley called the Pope the anti-Christ in the European Parliament, both are Christian, yet one would not recognise the other as being such.



Its a contradiction that exists at the heart of all religions, and both sides will absolutely swear they are right, which is part of the inherent instability and potential for conflict within religions and across religions.

 

[tipoma]

Its a contradiction that exists at the heart of all religions, and both sides will absolutely swear they are right, which is part of the inherent instability and potential for conflict within religions and across religions.

That contradiction is not limited to the religious, I swear to my god that socialists are the devil

If it's an argument that religion is used as an excuse I can jump on board but if the argument is that non religious types are more rational? 👎

 

[Dotini]

Find me a single religion in which you have universal agreement on what that religion is and what defines a true believer!

Its simply not possible, and has resulted in more than enough wars within single religions.

"A religion is one of a large number of organized belief systems that, through cultural narratives, symbols, traditions and sacred histories, provide a shared perception of a deity (or deities) and, usually, a framework of morality, ethics and laws. Religious frameworks tend to provide a meaning to life for adherents and frequently give an explanation for the existence of humankind and the visible universe."

"Religious faith is a belief in a transcendent reality beyond the range of normal physical experience."

 

[Scaff]

That contradiction is not limited to the religious, I swear to my god that socialists are the devil

I agree its not limited to religion, however that's the scope of the current discussion.

If it's an argument that religion is used as an excuse I can jump on board.....

Its is.

.....but if the argument is that non religious types are more rational? 👎

Good job I didn't say that then.

However how rational blind faith is , is in itself a valid discussion point.

"A religion is one of a large number of organized belief systems that, through cultural narratives, symbols, traditions and sacred histories, provide a shared perception of a deity (or deities) and, usually, a framework of morality, ethics and laws. Religious frameworks tend to provide a meaning to life for adherents and frequently give an explanation for the existence of humankind and the visible universe."

"Religious faith is a belief in a transcendent reality beyond the range of normal physical experience."

Doesn't answer the question I posed at all.

 

[Sharkart_Kun]

A religion that is being the scapegoat for USA's own mistakes.

 

[Dotini]

Doesn't answer the question I posed at all.

I would think that before your question can be answered, or even asked, it would be good to have a definition of religion. But you have gone ahead and answered it yourself, averring it's not possible. I dare not contradict you.

 

[Scaff]

I would think that before your question can be answered, or even asked, it would be good to have a definition of religion. But you have gone ahead and answered it yourself, averring it's not possible. I dare not contradict you.

And had you added in some context your reply would have made some sense, however you chose not to, opting for simply posting an unsourced quote that didn't address the question posed.

As such don't transfer your own poor posting to others, own it and next time actually add some context.

I'm more than open to someone providing evidence of a faith that has not had any form of internal disagreement about who is or isn't a true believer, I'm currently not aware of one.

 

[tipoma]

Good job I didn't say that then.

I didn't mean to imply anything on a personal level, was simply stating a point.

I think that blind faith as you put it as well as Dotini's point can go hand in hand, I'll give my take.

First off, it is very much a spiritual thing, that is something hard to explain in today's mindset I'm guessing but that is exactly what it is. Religion, all religion as far as I know make's a clear distinction between flesh and spirit. I do not know Islam but if it is bible based there must be the distinction, it does seem to me that the radical part of the religion is dealing in the flesh which goes against anything the NT would suggest.

I honestly believe that is the trouble and I'll explain; to have faith or religion or a bond with a floatie guy in the sky, you are making a pact with something beyond your time in a vessel, that is what a priest will say, a vessel that holds a spirit. So to me personally I don't give a rat's ass about the flesh or the earth, I don't care about man in that regard. I hope that makes sense to you.

The distinction is multi fold, first off I know I must get along in the world and follow reasonable peace, I was conceived at woodstock if that matters lol. My respect for others is simple, respect my right and I will do the same, I cannot lie and say I believe my life is all of 100 years if lucky on the earth in a human body but that is my right and no one should ever question that, sure you can make jokes and tease me, I'm all good with that part of the gig.

Does my religion disrupt your life to the point of anger? I would think not. Is it reasonable for you to think that I am a professional positive contributor to today's society? Sure that is a hard question as you don't really know me, but I do contribute in a positive way.

IMO a religious person does not care for violence in the flesh which is all that ISIS stands for, Muslims should knock themselves out and have a party of any variety they chose.

 

[Spurgy 777]

It is exactly his point, and its a contradiction that's inherit in every religion and one that you will never resolve.

Which is exactly why I used the example of the Lord's Resistance Army. The self identify as Christian, yet you will not find a single 'mainstream' Christian denomination who would accept them as Christian.

Another example would be when Rev. Ian Paisley called the Pope the anti-Christ in the European Parliament, both are Christian, yet one would not recognise the other as being such.



Its a contradiction that exists at the heart of all religions, and both sides will absolutely swear they are right, which is part of the inherent instability and potential for conflict within religions and across religions.

I agree that it applies to all religions, and @Mr Tree seemingly agrees, so I'm confused why you keep saying it in response to people that agree with you?

That contradiction is not limited to the religious, I swear to my god that socialists are the devil

If it's an argument that religion is used as an excuse I can jump on board but if the argument is that non religious types are more rational? 👎

It's not so much that non religious people are more rational, just that being non religious is more rational than being religious. I know those two things sound the same but the important distinction as you pointed out is that non religious people can have other irrational beliefs. For example someone who doesn't believe a god created the universe can quite easily think the Earth is flat, and thinking the Earth is flat is probably a lot less rational as at least believing a god exists doesn't necessarily fly in the face of everything we observe.

 

[Scaff]

I agree that it applies to all religions, and @Mr Tree seemingly agrees, so I'm confused why you keep saying it in response to people that agree with you?

Simple clarification of what I was saying.

 

[Dotini]

I'm more than open to someone providing evidence of a faith that has not had any form of internal disagreement about who is or isn't a true believer, I'm currently not aware of one.

Even Hasidic Judaism is afflicted with internal disagreement. Is there any organized belief system on Earth that is not?

 

[Scaff]

Even Hasidic Judaism is afflicted with internal disagreement. Is there any organized belief system on Earth that is not?

Not that I am aware of, hence the reason why I asked the question!

 

[Dotini]

...it is very much a spiritual thing...

I ran across a useful definition of spirituality:
"Spirituality is intellectual contemplation of nature and the individual's place within it. Spirituality is a reflective and usually sensitive outlook on existence that can arise from involvement with a formal religion or it can be a highly developed set of entirely personal values. As such spirituality can exist without any reference to God or otherworldliness."

 

[tipoma]

You know, my favorite rivers to fly fish in? They have a 'spirit' to them. It's solid gold.

 

[ECGadget]

I enjoy reading your answers as it does help me learn about Islam.
But I'd have to say I disagree here. The thing is while I don't lump in the majority of muslims with ISIS saying it's not Islam in my ears sounds as unbelievable as when ISIS says you're not a real muslim. It's the no true scotsman fallacy if I'm correct.

You don't have the power to declare what is or isn't true islam.

Apart from that what is your opinion on artists in egypt beeing jailed for wearing clothes that aren't 'modest enough.

As I'm willing to agree the majority of muslims in the west follow a moderate version it's laws like these that makes secular people believe there is an issue within islam.

You are right that I have no power to declare what is or is not true Islam. But that leads to a whole seperate debate. The Prophet Muhammad was the guide for 'true Islam', right? And if he went around protecting people and animals and the environment (yes, the environment is a key part of being a Muslim, odd as that sounds), then surely a 'true believer' would be endeavouring to do the same. And of course this is where, as @Scaff has correctly pointed out, there is the whole set of disagreements as to who is right and wrong. I'll get to that at the end of the post.

Since this is a car forum, I'd like to use an example of building a car to help explain my point.
Let's say there is a book that is about the car, just a single book. The book begins by talking about the uses for a car. It then goes on to focus on the construction of the car, the components required. We'll just simplify it massively and state a car requires a body shell, an engine, four wheels, a seat and a control mechanism. Nice and easy. The book then goes on to have an entire chapter about the Flintstones, and how the car that was designed for them differs to the car that is being shown now, and how the new car must learn from the modern stone age family cars. Wilma.

Now let's say this book is given to Engineer the great. Yes, I named an engineer Engineer. Engineer the great has a comprehensive understanding of the stone age cars, and a comprehensive understanding of this new book. He therefore instructs his apprentices who all wish to learn about this new car. So he builds a new car. It has four wheels, a body, an engine, a seat, and a steering wheel. It also has, from learning about cars of the past as instructed in the book, some space for luggage, and a simple cover to shade from the sun.

So Engineer the great has now taught the 'common' folk how to build this new car. He then tells them to go off and show the rest of the world this car, but to be careful not to tell the rest of the world something that has not been said by him, or is not contained in the book. They are also told that if people are not interested in having a car, that is completely fine. So to ensure that this is upheld, all the instructions and guidance is compiled into a collection of quotes from Engineer the great, each one cross referenced and doubled checked.

Some time later, the smartest of the apprentices passes her knowledge down to her own apprentice. He studies this and has a natural aptitude for building cars, and spends many years perfecting his knowledge. He finds that there are allowances in the car to contain more seats, and the wheels can be of a different size, provided they are still round. Since he is a person who resides in an certain area of the world, he makes adaptations to the car that does not change at all what the original ruleset and guidance stated, but adjusts for climate as is allowed.

Some time after that, a few of his students go ahead and do the same. One for example is a student who travels a lot through harsh terrain. He adapts the car to have chunkier wheels, and a harder roof, a windscreen and a more comfortable seat, in order to make the car relatively easy. Those who travel a lot follow his guidance, knowing he has not broken any of the core rules, nor has he twisted them in any way. The car still has everything it is supposed to have in the way it is supposed to be, and is adapted to ensure it can function in the environment that it is in.

The majority of people do not travel and therefore do not have a car like this though. But they accept that this is a valid car. Fast forward 50 years and somebody else comes along. They do not have an aptitude for building a car, but look at the book and say, "I can do this, and I am right". They take a few select quotes from the book about the body shell and build something. They then go around and tell people they have build the definitive car. Everybody who knows the car looks at that and says, "Sorry to break it to you, but that is a boat". The person however is absolutely livid and goes off on a rampage, claiming he has the car and everybody else has got it wrong. He also goes out there forcing everybody to use his 'car', resorting to extreme measures.

It does not matter if he calls his boat a car, it does not change the fact that he has built a boat. This is ISIS to Islam. There are disagreements in Islam for sure, which is very sad. But everybody still has the car for the most part. Some cars are broken in some way, others in a different way, but slowly they are trying to fix up the cars. Then you have the moron who has a boat.

So who is right and who is wrong? If everybody believes in things slightly differently but follow the same core of the car, then they are right. Maybe mixing culture incorrectly or breaking a few things that need fixing, but inherently they are right. The guy with the boat may claim to have a car, but he just does not by any measure of the guides. Hope that makes some sense.


As for people being jailed for not wearing clothes that are not modest enough? I do not recall that happening in the time of the Prophet of Islam, so I do not understand why it happens now.

 

[Mr Tree]

A religion that is being the scapegoat for USA's own mistakes.

This is pretty much a blanket statement. Care to elaborate?

You are right that I have no power to declare what is or is not true Islam. But that leads to a whole seperate debate. The Prophet Muhammad was the guide for 'true Islam', right? And if he went around protecting people and animals and the environment (yes, the environment is a key part of being a Muslim, odd as that sounds), then surely a 'true believer' would be endeavouring to do the same. And of course this is where, as @Scaff has correctly pointed out, there is the whole set of disagreements as to who is right and wrong. I'll get to that at the end of the post.

Since this is a car forum, I'd like to use an example of building a car to help explain my point.
Let's say there is a book that is about the car, just a single book. The book begins by talking about the uses for a car. It then goes on to focus on the construction of the car, the components required. We'll just simplify it massively and state a car requires a body shell, an engine, four wheels, a seat and a control mechanism. Nice and easy. The book then goes on to have an entire chapter about the Flintstones, and how the car that was designed for them differs to the car that is being shown now, and how the new car must learn from the modern stone age family cars. Wilma.

Now let's say this book is given to Engineer the great. Yes, I named an engineer Engineer. Engineer the great has a comprehensive understanding of the stone age cars, and a comprehensive understanding of this new book. He therefore instructs his apprentices who all wish to learn about this new car. So he builds a new car. It has four wheels, a body, an engine, a seat, and a steering wheel. It also has, from learning about cars of the past as instructed in the book, some space for luggage, and a simple cover to shade from the sun.

So Engineer the great has now taught the 'common' folk how to build this new car. He then tells them to go off and show the rest of the world this car, but to be careful not to tell the rest of the world something that has not been said by him, or is not contained in the book. They are also told that if people are not interested in having a car, that is completely fine. So to ensure that this is upheld, all the instructions and guidance is compiled into a collection of quotes from Engineer the great, each one cross referenced and doubled checked.

Some time later, the smartest of the apprentices passes her knowledge down to her own apprentice. He studies this and has a natural aptitude for building cars, and spends many years perfecting his knowledge. He finds that there are allowances in the car to contain more seats, and the wheels can be of a different size, provided they are still round. Since he is a person who resides in an certain area of the world, he makes adaptations to the car that does not change at all what the original ruleset and guidance stated, but adjusts for climate as is allowed.

Some time after that, a few of his students go ahead and do the same. One for example is a student who travels a lot through harsh terrain. He adapts the car to have chunkier wheels, and a harder roof, a windscreen and a more comfortable seat, in order to make the car relatively easy. Those who travel a lot follow his guidance, knowing he has not broken any of the core rules, nor has he twisted them in any way. The car still has everything it is supposed to have in the way it is supposed to be, and is adapted to ensure it can function in the environment that it is in.

The majority of people do not travel and therefore do not have a car like this though. But they accept that this is a valid car. Fast forward 50 years and somebody else comes along. They do not have an aptitude for building a car, but look at the book and say, "I can do this, and I am right". They take a few select quotes from the book about the body shell and build something. They then go around and tell people they have build the definitive car. Everybody who knows the car looks at that and says, "Sorry to break it to you, but that is a boat". The person however is absolutely livid and goes off on a rampage, claiming he has the car and everybody else has got it wrong. He also goes out there forcing everybody to use his 'car', resorting to extreme measures.

It does not matter if he calls his boat a car, it does not change the fact that he has built a boat. This is ISIS to Islam. There are disagreements in Islam for sure, which is very sad. But everybody still has the car for the most part. Some cars are broken in some way, others in a different way, but slowly they are trying to fix up the cars. Then you have the moron who has a boat.

So who is right and who is wrong? If everybody believes in things slightly differently but follow the same core of the car, then they are right. Maybe mixing culture incorrectly or breaking a few things that need fixing, but inherently they are right. The guy with the boat may claim to have a car, but he just does not by any measure of the guides. Hope that makes some sense.


As for people being jailed for not wearing clothes that are not modest enough? I do not recall that happening in the time of the Prophet of Islam, so I do not understand why it happens now.

The big flaw in that analogy is that what makes a car a car is pretty straightforward. That what makes a religion a religion isn't. They say those passages are most important yoy say that of other passages. It's exactly that what I mean. You see it as a car they see it as a boat but it comes from the same text. Who is right is defined only by how you read the book and which parts you cherrypick. That's why I believe you can't say it's not a real form of islam and neither can they.

I do have to admit not having read the koran or the hadiff. (Or is it one text, please correct me) I will read it if you're willing to discuss some things in it. If do is there a version I should read like with bibles? I can read english and dutch for your information.

As for the people jailed for not being modest enough. The fact that things like a veil or variants of it are encouraged in the religion is clearly where it comes from. But I've been pointed out by @Scaff this also happens in the US with christianity/conservatism. So I can't really see it as an issue within islam only. Thanks for breaking my bias again!

 

[ECGadget]

This is pretty much a blanket statement. Care to elaborate?



The big flaw in that analogy is that what makes a car a car is pretty straightforward. That what makes a religion a religion isn't. They say those passages are most important yoy say that of other passages. It's exactly that what I mean. You see it as a car they see it as a boat but it comes from the same text. Who is right is defined only by how you read the book and which parts you cherrypick. That's why I believe you can't say it's not a real form of islam and neither can they.

I do have to admit not having read the koran or the hadiff. (Or is it one text, please correct me) I will read it if you're willing to discuss some things in it. If do is there a version I should read like with bibles? I can read english and dutch for your information.

As for the people jailed for not being modest enough. The fact that things like a veil or variants of it are encouraged in the religion is clearly where it comes from. But I've been pointed out by @Scaff this also happens in the US with christianity/conservatism. So I can't really see it as an issue within islam only. Thanks for breaking my bias again!

Point certainly taken there. Religion is not exactly straightforward. But this leads to another point. One of the fundamentals of Islam is ease. I know it seems like that cannot be true, but Islam is meant to be an easy religion, and there are allowances for pretty much everything. Ill or old or pregnant? Fasting is not compulsory on you. Cannot get out of bed for a reason other than laziness? Make a small prayer in bed. Out travelling? Shorten any prayer. And the cherrypicking is the issue here. There is no passage more important than another, there is merely the understanding of it as a whole. Because if you cherrypick a passage there is a passage stating alcohol is allowed. There is also a passage that says that girls were buried alive. And we also see passages that say 'kill them (the enemy) where they stand' But if you read passages before and after them (and I literally mean a few before or a few after) you can see the context of this being a story of what happened and how Islam abolished this. Slavery is another example. Racial prejudice is another. The first call for prayer was made not by an arab, but a black slave that was freed by the prophet. To make a call for prayer is an honour in Islam, and the first instance of that honour did not go to the richest, fair skinned, upper class arab Muslim, but to the man that was most deserving of that honour, a man who was mistreated for and beaten and whipped because he was regarded to be no better than a mule. Breaking that is what Islam is about. No oppression. Another example is the weighting of the verses in the Qur'an and subsequently Hadith. That tells you what Islam has a focus on. The longest verse in the Qur'an is not about prayer, or killing, or even spreading the word of Islam. Nor is is about heaven and hell. It is about keeping records of a transaction to ensure that both parties are not conned out of a deal once a deal has been agreed upon, either intentionally or by simple error due to forgetfulness. That's what Islam is.

The Qur'an is regarded as the word of God. The Hadith is a collection of actions, quotes and mannerisms of the Prophet Muhammad that guided Muslims on how to follow the word of God as the basis. Again, I am not a scholar, but if you wish to read the Qur'an and Hadith I am happy to discuss them with you, though be prepared for very lengthy conversations! I'll speak over PM for that, it'll just clog up a thread massively!

 

[novcze]

Who is right is defined only by how you read the book and which parts you cherrypick. That's why I believe you can't say it's not a real form of islam and neither can they.

as an infidel I'm quite terrified by this, apparently killing of infidels is part of their holy books and open to interpretation and all this combined with non-existent organization makes it unpredictable ... don't get me wrong though, I like the version @ECGadget presents and I'm pleased that killing of those who oppose muslims can happen only in very specific circumstances (whatever that means).

btw. @ECGadget don't you think that part of sharia is redundant when you live in a country that already have legal system?

Oh and whats your view on Christians wanting to make yoga pants illegal?
https://www.theatlantic.com/politic...ore-war-on-yoga-pants-illegal-speedos/385409/

I think they will be laughed at or ignored ... oh wait, that's what actually happen https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...ill-ban-provocative-clothing-tabled/23288815/

 

[Scaff]

as an infidel I'm quite terrified by this, apparently killing of infidels is part of their holy books and open to interpretation and all this combined with non-existent organization makes it unpredictable ... don't get me wrong though, I like the version @ECGadget presents and I'm pleased that killing of those who oppose muslims can happen only in very specific circumstances (whatever that means).

You do know that all three of the Abrahamic texts say exactly the same thing?

What you may not be aware is that 'people of the book' (Christians, Jews and others) are actually specifically protected in the Koran and by agreements written and signed by Mohamed himself.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dhimmi

btw. @ECGadget don't you think that part of sharia is redundant when you live in a country that already have legal system?

No more so that Jewish or Christian religious courts.

I think they will be laughed at or ignored ... oh wait, that's what actually happen https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...ill-ban-provocative-clothing-tabled/23288815/

Uganda
Majority (85%) Christian, and conservatively so.

Mini-skirts are illegal, wearing them will get you jailed, attacked in public, etc.

That one's not quite so funny............

Speaking of Uganda, how about the hilarious American Christian groups that funded an attempt to make homosexuality not just illegal, but punishable by death in Uganda.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/rev-kapya-kaoma/the-us-christian-right-an_b_387642.html

Stop attempting to paint these issues as unique to a single religion, they are not and its quite easy to demonstrate that.