Islamic criticism

[Rami Rustom]

Yes. Two problems: (1) the Quran is contradictory and ambiguous and
has some horrible morality, and (2) Islamic societies have not yet
adopted the tradition of criticism. Note that the Quran directly
forbids criticism of Islam/Allah/Mohamed/parents.

I really wonder what type of "horrible" morality you are talking about.

Like beat your wife if she disobeys (Q-4:34). You provided your
criticism that "idrubuhunah" means "depart from (her)" rather than
"beat (her)" by I also criticized your criticism. See the last email
of that discussion here:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Fabric-of-Reality/message/25001

Concerning harsh/war-like verses (that constitutes 5-6 verse in 6600 verses) I have already explained that Islam is "hands-on" concerning restoring/sustaining peace and stopping cruelty/oppression.

Please show me the verse that explains that, instead of asserting *your* ideas.

However in whatever you do towards this goal, you HAVE to stay within the universal judiciary framework and be fair, transparent and honest to all people (whether they are muslim or not).

Please show me the verse that explains that, instead of asserting
*your* ideas. (Note that Islam does not apply its morality on to
people whether they are "Muslim or not").

So what would you prefer? God ordering to to watch/ignore all the cruelty, oppression around them and submitting themselves to aggression without any resistance?

I don't believe in a God. What are you talking about?

Please lets look at the middleeast now. It is the most problematic area in the world. This is because Arabic and Mesopotomian cultures are vindictive, tribal, violent, authoritarian and sexist.

Yes. And the Quran is all of that too. Why? Because the Quran was
created by a guy from that tribal, vindictive, violent, authoritarian,
and sexist culture.

This was like this before Islam.

Right.

For example, before Islam, there was a practice of burrying little girl babies alive in Arabs when resource strained families did think that daughters were a burden to them (this tradition is strictly forbidden in Quran with harsh tones). Can you even imagine such a tradition?

Yes. Whats your point? Are you saying that since Islam was an
improvement over 7th century Arabian morality, then that means that
Islam is an improvement to 21st century Western morality?

Note that I already told you that Islam is an improvement to 7th
century Arabian culture and that it hasn't improved since then. So why
do you bring this up again?

Concerning sexism, I have also provided Quranic verses, hadith, additional interpretations and explanations that clearly shows that Islam is very egalitarian.

Clearly shows? Then how do you explain my questions and criticism of
your claims of egalitarianism? These are the discussions about sexism
where you haven't replied:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Fabric-of-Reality/message/25001

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Fabric-of-Reality/message/25012

Quran 49:13 "O mankind, indeed We have created you from male and female and made you peoples and tribes that you may know one another. Indeed, the most noble of you in the sight of Allah is the most righteous of you. Indeed, Allah is Knowing and Acquainted"

And that contradicts the sexist ideas in the verses explained by the
two discussions I posted above.

So how do Muslims figure out which ideas to follow?

Islam aimed to rectify this horrible situation and has had some level success. But over time, old culture and political practices (arabic and mesopotamian) resurrected more and more and found ways to twist and to deteriorate Islam via manufactured hadith and misinterpretations of Quran. A very clear proof of this is the current state of affairs in non-Arabic or non-mesopotamian Islamic countries like Turkey, Malaysia, Bosnia etc. The reason this countries are better of (in terms of democracy, human rights etc) is that they can easily differentiate what is coming from real Islam (like peace, love, justice, human rights) and what is coming from the cultural traditions and sociopolitic dynamics of middle-east.

That is a reason you came up with and has no argument. What is your argument?

“In the Name of Allâh, the Most Beneficent, the Most Merciful.
From Muhammad, the Messenger of Allâh to Chosroes, king of Persia.
Peace be upon him who follows true guidance, believes in Allâh and His Messenger and testifies that there is no god >but Allâh Alone with no associate, and that Muhammad is His slave and Messenger. I invite you to accept the religion >of Allâh. I am the Messenger of Allâh sent to all people in order that I may infuse fear of Allâh in every living person, >and that the charge may be proved against those who reject the Truth. Accept Islam as your religion so that you may >live in security, otherwise, you will be responsible for all the sins of the Magians.”

Here is the real version of the same letter.
"In the name of Allah, the beneficient, the Merciful.
From Muhammad, the Messenger of God, to Kisra, the great King of Persia.
Peace be upon him who follows the guidance, believes in Allah and His Prophet, bears witness that there is no God but Allah and that I am the Prophet of Allah for the entire humanity so that every man alive is warned of the awe of God. Embrace Islam that you may find peace; otherwise on you shall rest the sin of the Magis." (Al-Tabari, Vol. III, p. 90)
Please be careful about the differences.

That translation you gave is wrong. The interpreter is trying to protect Islam.

According to Tabaqat-i Kubra, vol. I, page 360, and Tarikh-i Tabari,
vol. II, pp. 295, 296, and Tarikh-i Kamil, vol. II, page 81 and
Biharul Anwar, vol. XX, page 389 (which is on wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_conquest_of_Persia#cite_note-12),

"In the name of Allah, the Beneficent, the Merciful. From Muhammad, the Messenger of Allah, to the great Kisra of Iran. Peace be upon him, who seeks truth and expresses belief in Allah and in His Prophet and testifies that there is no god but Allah and that He has no partner, and who believes that Muhammad is His servant and Prophet. Under the Command of Allah, I invite you to Him. He has sent me for the guidance of all people so that I may warn them all of His wrath and may present the unbelievers with an ultimatum. Embrace Islam so that you may remain safe. And if you refuse to accept Islam, you will be responsible for the sins of the Magi."[13]
"in order that I may infuse fear of Allah in every living person, and that the charge may be proved against those who reject the Truth. Accept Islam as your religion so that you may live in security, otherwise"
The main difference is that the version provided as not-peaceful includes words like "fear" "charge" "against" "security" (antagonistic and harsh)

Right. Thats why that translator that you quoted changed those words,
so as to soften it, to protect Islam from people who think that is
immoral (like the translator himself).

However the real version includes words like "humanity" "alive" "awe" and "peace". So which version is correct? Do you think that the prophets letter has been softened or hardened in the due process given the vindictive, tribal, violent, authoritarian cultural background?

You keep talking about the 7th century Arabian shitty culture. Where
do you think Mohamed came from? Where was he raised? What cultural
ideas do you think he learned?

Of course it is a manufactured/twisted version probably written in the times of Umayyad empire/dynasty.

Truth can not be determined by probability.

This letter exactly makes my point and demonstrates how manifactured hadith, letters and sayings managed to find their way in Islam.

No. It makes the opposite point that Muslims are trying to protect
Islam by softening it.

This is why it is always required to keep Quran as essential and assess/consider all other sources based on their compatibility to Quranic principles.

Ah the Quranic principles again. What are those? So far you talked
about the change-with-the-times principle. And you said that the
Quranic verses about slavery shows this principle in practice. But I
showed you how slavery did not get abolished, and this was crucial to
your argument that those slavery verses showed the
change-with-the-times principle. So your argument crumbles. And you
haven't replied with a criticism. The discussion is here:

http://dir.groups.yahoo.com/group/Fabric-of-Reality/message/25001

I also asked you to explain how it is that the Quran tells you to
extract principles from the verses, and you didn't explain, which
means that you did this using your own reasoning, not Quranic
principles.

You may not believe in Islam. You might think that it is backwards and threatening from current interpretation PoV. But I believe that everyone should be fair and openminded. Demonization and prejudice is easy, we should not fall into this trap.

Yes be objective and open-minded. Don't close your mind to criticism.

-- Rami Rustom
http://ramirustom.blogspot.com


------------------------------------

Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Fabric-of-Reality/

<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Fabric-of-Reality/join
(Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
Fabric-of-Reality-digest-***@public.gmane.org
Fabric-of-Reality-fullfeatured-***@public.gmane.org

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Fabric-of-Reality-unsubscribe-***@public.gmane.org

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

[Rami Rustom]

I missed this email. Hibbsa thanks for pointing it out.
Do you consider these peaceful?
Quran 9:5 (translated by Sahih International): And when the sacred
months have passed, then kill the polytheists wherever you find them
and capture themcki and besiege them and sit in wait for them at every
place of ambush. But if they should repent, establish prayer, and give
zakah, let them [go] on their way. Indeed, Allah is Forgiving and
Merciful.

This is one of the the very few (4-5 in 6600 verses) war-permitting
verses. This was revealed when Meccan people (who were attacking and
torturing muslims as their belief was not compatible to their polytheist
religion and to their totally hieararchical social order based on wealth and
power) did not comply to the terms of cease-fire treaty and started to use
agressive and cruel methods once again. Arabs do not fight during sacred
months so the attack to Medina after sacred war was imminent. This verse
gives muslim the right to wage war for self-defense in their cities.

Ismail - so how would you characterize the phenomenon of
extremist/fundamentalist Islamic beliefs and action?
Is there a major problem in the Islamic world whereby these verses are
being systemically preached as a way to drive Muslims to violence?

Yes. Two problems: (1) the Quran is contradictory and ambiguous and
has some horrible morality, and (2) Islamic societies have not yet
adopted the tradition of criticism. Note that the Quran directly
forbids criticism of Islam/Allah/Mohamed/parents.

What is the cause of this in your view? Is it the case the Islamic
world is under attack in the same way that found the ancient Meccan
people torturing muslims?

Note that you believe that Meccan people tortured Muslims only because
Ismail asserted it (without explanation). Why do you trust him? Why do
you consider him an authority? Because he has a Muslim background?

No nothing like that. I was interested to know how he saw things. I
express my question using the thoughts he had already expressed.

Or does the Islamic world have a problem all of its own that for
whatever reason moderate/true Islamic forces are failing to deal with?

So you're assuming that the "moderate" version of Islam is the "true"
version. Why do you assume that? Ismail has asserted it without
explanation and without sources (at the time you wrote your post). Why
do you trust him? Why do you consider him an authority?

See my above. I'm interested in what - some - other people actually
think, and I'm happy to 'try on' whatever world view they share during
that process.
But while we're here: I think King David had an entire city murdered
or something. That's genocide right? Are you going to say Judaism's
most cherished individual is a mass murderer?

If King David is Judaism's most cherished individual, and if King
David committed genocide, then yes I say that Judaism's most cherished
individual is a mass murderer. Why do you have a problem with this?

Did you know that the Old Testament records the murdering of another
entire city of Gentiles, because they failed to obey the 7 laws of
Noah? That is a requirement in Judaism by the way...that all gentiles
follow the 7 laws or face execution. Execution is also the punishment
for breaking any one of the 7 laws, one of which is idol worship.
Christians are idol worshippers in Judaism...they would have to stop
worshipping Jesus or be put to death.

Vaguely, yes.

Recently Yosef (Ovadia Yosef, born Abdullah Yosef[1] (Hebrew: עובדיה
יוסף‎) (born September 23, 1920) is the former Sephardi Chief Rabbi of
Israel,[2] a recognised Talmudic scholar and foremost halakhic
"The sole purpose of non-Jews is to serve Jews". He said that
Gentiles served a divine purpose: "Why are Gentiles needed? They will
work, they will plow, they will reap. We will sit like an effendi and
eat. That is why Gentiles were created."[34] In the same article on
the Jerusalem Post, according to the journalist who interviewed him,
Yosef compared Gentiles to donkeys whose life has the sole purpose to
serve the master: “In Israel, death has no dominion over them... With
gentiles, it will be like any person – they need to die, but [God]
will give them longevity. Why? Imagine that one’s donkey would die,
they’d lose their money. This is his servant... That’s why he gets a
long life, to work well for this Jew."
So which version of Judaism is 'real'?

I don't know. Is that stuff in the Jewish holy book?

Note that he deferred his judgement of the change-with-the-times
principle to the authority of "open-minded and trustable" scholars.
And he justified many of his Islamic ideas on this principle. So, you
have effectively deferred judgement to scholars without even knowing
that you did it
War with apostates started in the same year of Mohamed's death. Do you
think this is peaceful?

See above about King David. Provide me with a general approach to
dealing with the scripture of religions

Objective truth. That means no bias.

and the actions of their most
cheristhed historical figures.

I noticed that you say cherished historical figure as though this has
the same meaning in Islam as in other religions. But its false. In
Islam, Muslims are ordered to follow Mohamed's moral example. That you
means Muslims are told to do what Mohamed did as much as possible. The
more you do like him, the less time you'll spend in hell. To clarify
the heaven and hell thing in Islam, all people will go to hell. Some
people will then continue on to heaven. The amount of time they spend
in hell depends loosely on their sins.

The point is that no other religion instructs their people to follow
the moral example of what their prophet (or son of God) did.

Another point is that Jews don't have a tradition of following the
moral example of King David. So they don't do it. But Islam teaches to
follow the moral example of Mohamed. And so in Islamic societies,
there is a tradition of following the moral example of Mohamed.

If it's OK to slate Mohamed, then let's
do it to David as well, and Jesus. Jesus screwed whores or
something...

Whats wrong with screwing whores? Are you saying it is immoral? Does
it hurt the screwer? Does it hurt the whore?

wasn't he the bastard son of a Roman? I don't know, you
tell me.

Ya he was a bastard, at least according to the Christian account of
his birth. Supposedly no one fathered him. Or God fathered him. This
is a myth of course. Someone did have sex with his mother which led to
his conception. Why do you bring this up?

-- Rami Rustom
http://ramirustom.blogspot.com

[a b]

Post by Rami Rustom

On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 12:19 AM, Ismail Atalay

On Sun, Sep 23, 2012 at 4:54 PM, Ismail Atalay

I missed this email. Hibbsa thanks for pointing it out.
Do you consider these peaceful?
Quran 9:5 (translated by Sahih International): And when the sacred
months have passed, then kill the polytheists wherever you find them
and capture themcki and besiege them and sit in wait for them at every
place of ambush. But if they should repent, establish prayer, and give
zakah, let them [go] on their way. Indeed, Allah is Forgiving and
Merciful.

This is one of the the very few (4-5 in 6600 verses) war-permitting
verses. This was revealed when Meccan people (who were attacking and
torturing muslims as their belief was not compatible to their polytheist
religion and to their totally hieararchical social order based on wealth and
power) did not comply to the terms of cease-fire treaty and started to use
agressive and cruel methods once again. Arabs do not fight during sacred
months so the attack to Medina after sacred war was imminent. This verse
gives muslim the right to wage war for self-defense in their cities.

Ismail - so how would you characterize the phenomenon of
extremist/fundamentalist Islamic beliefs and action?
Is there a major problem in the Islamic world whereby these verses are
being systemically preached as a way to drive Muslims to violence?

Yes. Two problems: (1) the Quran is contradictory and ambiguous and
has some horrible morality, and (2) Islamic societies have not yet
adopted the tradition of criticism. Note that the Quran directly
forbids criticism of Islam/Allah/Mohamed/parents.

What is the cause of this in your view? Is it the case the Islamic
world is under attack in the same way that found the ancient Meccan
people torturing muslims?

Note that you believe that Meccan people tortured Muslims only because
Ismail asserted it (without explanation). Why do you trust him? Why do
you consider him an authority? Because he has a Muslim background?

No nothing like that. I was interested to know how he saw things. I
express my question using the thoughts he had already expressed.

Or does the Islamic world have a problem all of its own that for
whatever reason moderate/true Islamic forces are failing to deal with?

So you're assuming that the "moderate" version of Islam is the "true"
version. Why do you assume that? Ismail has asserted it without
explanation and without sources (at the time you wrote your post). Why
do you trust him? Why do you consider him an authority?

See my above. I'm interested in what - some - other people actually
think, and I'm happy to 'try on' whatever world view they share during
that process.
But while we're here: I think King David had an entire city murdered
or something. That's genocide right? Are you going to say Judaism's
most cherished individual is a mass murderer?

If King David is Judaism's most cherished individual, and if King
David committed genocide, then yes I say that Judaism's most cherished
individual is a mass murderer. Why do you have a problem with this?

Did you know that the Old Testament records the murdering of another
entire city of Gentiles, because they failed to obey the 7 laws of
Noah? That is a requirement in Judaism by the way...that all gentiles
follow the 7 laws or face execution. Execution is also the punishment
for breaking any one of the 7 laws, one of which is idol worship.
Christians are idol worshippers in Judaism...they would have to stop
worshipping Jesus or be put to death.

Vaguely, yes.

Recently Yosef (Ovadia Yosef, born Abdullah Yosef[1] (Hebrew: עובדיה
יוסף‎) (born September 23, 1920) is the former Sephardi Chief Rabbi of
Israel,[2] a recognised Talmudic scholar and foremost halakhic
"The sole purpose of non-Jews is to serve Jews". He said that
Gentiles served a divine purpose: "Why are Gentiles needed? They will
work, they will plow, they will reap. We will sit like an effendi and
eat. That is why Gentiles were created."[34] In the same article on
the Jerusalem Post, according to the journalist who interviewed him,
Yosef compared Gentiles to donkeys whose life has the sole purpose to
serve the master: “In Israel, death has no dominion over them... With
gentiles, it will be like any person – they need to die, but [God]
will give them longevity. Why? Imagine that one’s donkey would die,
they’d lose their money. This is his servant... That’s why he gets a
long life, to work well for this Jew."
So which version of Judaism is 'real'?

I don't know. Is that stuff in the Jewish holy book?

Note that he deferred his judgement of the change-with-the-times
principle to the authority of "open-minded and trustable" scholars.
And he justified many of his Islamic ideas on this principle. So, you
have effectively deferred judgement to scholars without even knowing
that you did it
War with apostates started in the same year of Mohamed's death. Do you
think this is peaceful?

See above about King David. Provide me with a general approach to
dealing with the scripture of religions

Objective truth. That means no bias.

and the actions of their most
cheristhed historical figures.

I noticed that you say cherished historical figure as though this has
the same meaning in Islam as in other religions. But its false. In
Islam, Muslims are ordered to follow Mohamed's moral example. That you
means Muslims are told to do what Mohamed did as much as possible. The
more you do like him, the less time you'll spend in hell. To clarify
the heaven and hell thing in Islam, all people will go to hell. Some
people will then continue on to heaven. The amount of time they spend
in hell depends loosely on their sins.
The point is that no other religion instructs their people to follow
the moral example of what their prophet (or son of God) did.
Another point is that Jews don't have a tradition of following the
moral example of King David. So they don't do it. But Islam teaches to
follow the moral example of Mohamed. And so in Islamic societies,
there is a tradition of following the moral example of Mohamed.

If it's OK to slate Mohamed, then let's
do it to David as well, and Jesus. Jesus screwed whores or
something...

Whats wrong with screwing whores? Are you saying it is immoral? Does
it hurt the screwer? Does it hurt the whore?

wasn't he the bastard son of a Roman? I don't know, you
tell me.

Ya he was a bastard, at least according to the Christian account of
his birth. Supposedly no one fathered him. Or God fathered him. This
is a myth of course. Someone did have sex with his mother which led to
his conception. Why do you bring this up?

You ask why I bring all this up. Well, to start with, let's try this
on: There's a vocal set of people at the moment who are saying that
Islam is intrinsically extreme, and the evidence they use includes
scripture. But there's plenty of what many or most people would regard
as totally extreme/disgusting scripture in other religions too, yet
those religions seem pretty peaceful/productive at the moment..
So it doesn't seem to be the case that sections of awful scripture are
a reason to call a religion extreme. There are too many counter
examples....I've touched on one involving Judaism.
Another issue is - as I raised with Ismail - the fairly
peaceful/productive/progressive Islamic societies out in East Asia. I
found Ismail's response to this to be, open, thoughtful, non-defensive
and intriguing. He suggested the problems with Islam in some ME
societies are related to the underlying culture of those societies.
I think there's something to be said for this. What do you think?

[Rami Rustom]

Post by a b

Post by Rami Rustom

On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 12:19 AM, Ismail Atalay

On Sun, Sep 23, 2012 at 4:54 PM, Ismail Atalay

I missed this email. Hibbsa thanks for pointing it out.
Do you consider these peaceful?
Quran 9:5 (translated by Sahih International): And when the sacred
months have passed, then kill the polytheists wherever you find them
and capture themcki and besiege them and sit in wait for them at every
place of ambush. But if they should repent, establish prayer, and give
zakah, let them [go] on their way. Indeed, Allah is Forgiving and
Merciful.

This is one of the the very few (4-5 in 6600 verses) war-permitting
verses. This was revealed when Meccan people (who were attacking and
torturing muslims as their belief was not compatible to their polytheist
religion and to their totally hieararchical social order based on wealth and
power) did not comply to the terms of cease-fire treaty and started to use
agressive and cruel methods once again. Arabs do not fight during sacred
months so the attack to Medina after sacred war was imminent. This verse
gives muslim the right to wage war for self-defense in their cities.

Ismail - so how would you characterize the phenomenon of
extremist/fundamentalist Islamic beliefs and action?
Is there a major problem in the Islamic world whereby these verses are
being systemically preached as a way to drive Muslims to violence?

Yes. Two problems: (1) the Quran is contradictory and ambiguous and
has some horrible morality, and (2) Islamic societies have not yet
adopted the tradition of criticism. Note that the Quran directly
forbids criticism of Islam/Allah/Mohamed/parents.

What is the cause of this in your view? Is it the case the Islamic
world is under attack in the same way that found the ancient Meccan
people torturing muslims?

Note that you believe that Meccan people tortured Muslims only because
Ismail asserted it (without explanation). Why do you trust him? Why do
you consider him an authority? Because he has a Muslim background?

No nothing like that. I was interested to know how he saw things. I
express my question using the thoughts he had already expressed.

Or does the Islamic world have a problem all of its own that for
whatever reason moderate/true Islamic forces are failing to deal with?

So you're assuming that the "moderate" version of Islam is the "true"
version. Why do you assume that? Ismail has asserted it without
explanation and without sources (at the time you wrote your post). Why
do you trust him? Why do you consider him an authority?

See my above. I'm interested in what - some - other people actually
think, and I'm happy to 'try on' whatever world view they share during
that process.
But while we're here: I think King David had an entire city murdered
or something. That's genocide right? Are you going to say Judaism's
most cherished individual is a mass murderer?

If King David is Judaism's most cherished individual, and if King
David committed genocide, then yes I say that Judaism's most cherished
individual is a mass murderer. Why do you have a problem with this?

Did you know that the Old Testament records the murdering of another
entire city of Gentiles, because they failed to obey the 7 laws of
Noah? That is a requirement in Judaism by the way...that all gentiles
follow the 7 laws or face execution. Execution is also the punishment
for breaking any one of the 7 laws, one of which is idol worship.
Christians are idol worshippers in Judaism...they would have to stop
worshipping Jesus or be put to death.

Vaguely, yes.

Recently Yosef (Ovadia Yosef, born Abdullah Yosef[1] (Hebrew: עובדיה
יוסף‎) (born September 23, 1920) is the former Sephardi Chief Rabbi of
Israel,[2] a recognised Talmudic scholar and foremost halakhic
"The sole purpose of non-Jews is to serve Jews". He said that
Gentiles served a divine purpose: "Why are Gentiles needed? They will
work, they will plow, they will reap. We will sit like an effendi and
eat. That is why Gentiles were created."[34] In the same article on
the Jerusalem Post, according to the journalist who interviewed him,
Yosef compared Gentiles to donkeys whose life has the sole purpose to
serve the master: “In Israel, death has no dominion over them... With
gentiles, it will be like any person – they need to die, but [God]
will give them longevity. Why? Imagine that one’s donkey would die,
they’d lose their money. This is his servant... That’s why he gets a
long life, to work well for this Jew."
So which version of Judaism is 'real'?

I don't know. Is that stuff in the Jewish holy book?

Note that he deferred his judgement of the change-with-the-times
principle to the authority of "open-minded and trustable" scholars.
And he justified many of his Islamic ideas on this principle. So, you
have effectively deferred judgement to scholars without even knowing
that you did it
War with apostates started in the same year of Mohamed's death. Do you
think this is peaceful?

See above about King David. Provide me with a general approach to
dealing with the scripture of religions

Objective truth. That means no bias.

and the actions of their most
cheristhed historical figures.

I noticed that you say cherished historical figure as though this has
the same meaning in Islam as in other religions. But its false. In
Islam, Muslims are ordered to follow Mohamed's moral example. That you
means Muslims are told to do what Mohamed did as much as possible. The
more you do like him, the less time you'll spend in hell. To clarify
the heaven and hell thing in Islam, all people will go to hell. Some
people will then continue on to heaven. The amount of time they spend
in hell depends loosely on their sins.
The point is that no other religion instructs their people to follow
the moral example of what their prophet (or son of God) did.
Another point is that Jews don't have a tradition of following the
moral example of King David. So they don't do it. But Islam teaches to
follow the moral example of Mohamed. And so in Islamic societies,
there is a tradition of following the moral example of Mohamed.

If it's OK to slate Mohamed, then let's
do it to David as well, and Jesus. Jesus screwed whores or
something...

Whats wrong with screwing whores? Are you saying it is immoral? Does
it hurt the screwer? Does it hurt the whore?

wasn't he the bastard son of a Roman? I don't know, you
tell me.

Ya he was a bastard, at least according to the Christian account of
his birth. Supposedly no one fathered him. Or God fathered him. This
is a myth of course. Someone did have sex with his mother which led to
his conception. Why do you bring this up?

You ask why I bring all this up. Well, to start with, let's try this
on: There's a vocal set of people at the moment who are saying that
Islam is intrinsically extreme,

Because it is.

Post by a b
and the evidence they use includes
scripture.

and history.

Post by a b
But there's plenty of what many or most people would regard
as totally extreme/disgusting scripture in other religions too,

Right. Except that Islam's is worse.

Post by a b
yet
those religions seem pretty peaceful/productive at the moment..

Because they no longer have a tradition of following their scripture
literally (as Bruno pointed out). They instead adopted a tradition of
considering their scripture as stories and considers things like King
David committing genocide as immoral. They are willing to say that
stuff in their scripture are immoral.

But in Islamic societies, they still have a tradition of considering
their scripture as literal truth (a tradition that the West dropped
centuries ago) and they have a tradition of following the moral
example of their prophet.

Post by a b
So it doesn't seem to be the case that sections of awful scripture are
a reason to call a religion extreme.

You should be talking about current-day traditions of current-day
religion. Current-day Christianity and Judaism is good because their
current-day traditions are good (relatively). But current-day Islam is
bad because of their current-day traditions are bad. The main bad
traditions that Islamic cultures have today are "follow the moral
example of Mohamed" and "don't change the Quran" and "this life does
not matter because its only heaven that we're striving for" and "don't
question Islam because its a sin and you'll go to hell". These are
anti-rational memes. Muslims that follow these traditions are thinking
poorly and are acting immorally.

Post by a b
There are too many counter
examples....I've touched on one involving Judaism.
Another issue is - as I raised with Ismail - the fairly
peaceful/productive/progressive Islamic societies out in East Asia. I
found Ismail's response to this to be, open, thoughtful, non-defensive
and intriguing.

Open? Did you notice that he wasn't open to responding to my criticisms?

Thoughtful? He's not thinking about my criticisms.

Non-defensive? I don't see the point of this one.

Intriguing? Did you read my criticisms of his responses? I shot it all
down? Do you still believe his idea that Islam is peaceful? That
Arabian culture infected Islam and introduced bad interpretations? I
criticized those claims. Do you have criticisms of my criticisms? If
not, then why do you consider his ideas to be true (or intriguing)?

Post by a b
He suggested the problems with Islam in some ME
societies are related to the underlying culture of those societies.

Right. And the good things about East Asia are because of the
underlying culture of their society.

Post by a b
I think there's something to be said for this. What do you think?

See above.

-- Rami Rustom
http://ramirustom.blogspot.com

[a b]

I missed this email. Hibbsa thanks for pointing it out.
Do you consider these peaceful?
Quran 9:5 (translated by Sahih International): And when the sacred
months have passed, then kill the polytheists wherever you find them
and capture themcki and besiege them and sit in wait for them at every
place of ambush. But if they should repent, establish prayer, and give
zakah, let them [go] on their way. Indeed, Allah is Forgiving and
Merciful.

This is one of the the very few (4-5 in 6600 verses) war-permitting
verses. This was revealed when Meccan people (who were attacking and
torturing muslims as their belief was not compatible to their polytheist
religion and to their totally hieararchical social order based on wealth and
power) did not comply to the terms of cease-fire treaty and started to use
agressive and cruel methods once again. Arabs do not fight during sacred
months so the attack to Medina after sacred war was imminent. This verse
gives muslim the right to wage war for self-defense in their cities.

Ismail - so how would you characterize the phenomenon of
extremist/fundamentalist Islamic beliefs and action?
Is there a major problem in the Islamic world whereby these verses are
being systemically preached as a way to drive Muslims to violence?

Yes. Two problems: (1) the Quran is contradictory and ambiguous and
has some horrible morality, and (2) Islamic societies have not yet
adopted the tradition of criticism. Note that the Quran directly
forbids criticism of Islam/Allah/Mohamed/parents.

What is the cause of this in your view? Is it the case the Islamic
world is under attack in the same way that found the ancient Meccan
people torturing muslims?

Note that you believe that Meccan people tortured Muslims only because
Ismail asserted it (without explanation). Why do you trust him? Why do
you consider him an authority? Because he has a Muslim background?

No nothing like that. I was interested to know how he saw things. I
express my question using the thoughts he had already expressed.

Or does the Islamic world have a problem all of its own that for
whatever reason moderate/true Islamic forces are failing to deal with?

So you're assuming that the "moderate" version of Islam is the "true"
version. Why do you assume that? Ismail has asserted it without
explanation and without sources (at the time you wrote your post). Why
do you trust him? Why do you consider him an authority?

See my above. I'm interested in what - some - other people actually
think, and I'm happy to 'try on' whatever world view they share during
that process.

But while we're here: I think King David had an entire city murdered
or something. That's genocide right? Are you going to say Judaism's
most cherished individual is a mass murderer?

Did you know that the Old Testament records the murdering of another
entire city of Gentiles, because they failed to obey the 7 laws of
Noah? That is a requirement in Judaism by the way...that all gentiles
follow the 7 laws or face execution. Execution is also the punishment
for breaking any one of the 7 laws, one of which is idol worship.
Christians are idol worshippers in Judaism...they would have to stop
worshipping Jesus or be put to death.

Recently Yosef (Ovadia Yosef, born Abdullah Yosef[1] (Hebrew: עובדיה
יוסף‎) (born September 23, 1920) is the former Sephardi Chief Rabbi of
Israel,[2] a recognised Talmudic scholar and foremost halakhic
authority.) ....said of gentiles:

"The sole purpose of non-Jews is to serve Jews". He said that
Gentiles served a divine purpose: "Why are Gentiles needed? They will
work, they will plow, they will reap. We will sit like an effendi and
eat. That is why Gentiles were created."[34] In the same article on
the Jerusalem Post, according to the journalist who interviewed him,
Yosef compared Gentiles to donkeys whose life has the sole purpose to
serve the master: “In Israel, death has no dominion over them... With
gentiles, it will be like any person – they need to die, but [God]
will give them longevity. Why? Imagine that one’s donkey would die,
they’d lose their money. This is his servant... That’s why he gets a
long life, to work well for this Jew."

So which version of Judaism is 'real'?

Note that he deferred his judgement of the change-with-the-times
principle to the authority of "open-minded and trustable" scholars.
And he justified many of his Islamic ideas on this principle. So, you
have effectively deferred judgement to scholars without even knowing
that you did it
War with apostates started in the same year of Mohamed's death. Do you
think this is peaceful?

See above about King David. Provide me with a general approach to
dealing with the scripture of religions and the actions of their most
cheristhed historical figures. If it's OK to slate Mohamed, then let's
do it to David as well, and Jesus. Jesus screwed whores or
something...wasn't he the bastard son of a Roman? I don't know, you
tell me.

[Ismail Atalay]

Yes. Two problems: (1) the Quran is contradictory and ambiguous and
has some horrible morality, and (2) Islamic societies have not yet
adopted the tradition of criticism. Note that the Quran directly
forbids criticism of Islam/Allah/Mohamed/parents.

I really wonder what type of "horrible" morality you are talking about.

Concerning harsh/war-like verses (that constitutes 5-6 verse in 6600 verses) I have already explained that Islam is "hands-on" concerning restoring/sustaining peace and stopping cruelty/oppression. However in whatever you do towards this goal, you HAVE to stay within the universal judiciary framework and be fair, transparent and honest to all people (whether they are muslim or not).

So what would you prefer? God ordering to to watch/ignore all the cruelty, oppression around them and submitting themselves to aggression without any resistance?

Please lets look at the middleeast now. It is the most problematic area in the world. This is because Arabic and Mesopotomian cultures are vindictive, tribal, violent, authoritarian and sexist. This was like this before Islam. For example, before Islam, there was a practice of burrying little girl babies alive in Arabs when resource strained families did think that daughters were a burden to them (this tradition is strictly forbidden in Quran with harsh tones). Can you even imagine such a tradition?

Concerning sexism, I have also provided Quranic verses, hadith, additional interpretations and explanations that clearly shows that Islam is very egalitarian.

Quran 49:13 "O mankind, indeed We have created you from male and female and made you peoples and tribes that you may know one another. Indeed, the most noble of you in the sight of Allah is the most righteous of you. Indeed, Allah is Knowing and Acquainted"

Islam aimed to rectify this horrible situation and has had some level success. But over time, old culture and political practices (arabic and mesopotamian) resurrected more and more and found ways to twist and to deteriorate Islam via manufactured hadith and misinterpretations of Quran. A very clear proof of this is the current state of affairs in non-Arabic or non-mesopotamian Islamic countries like Turkey, Malaysia, Bosnia etc. The reason this countries are better of (in terms of democracy, human rights etc)  is that they can easily differentiate what is coming from real Islam (like peace, love, justice, human rights) and what is coming from the cultural traditions and sociopolitic dynamics of middle-east.

“In the Name of Allâh, the Most Beneficent, the Most Merciful.
From Muhammad, the Messenger of Allâh to Chosroes, king of Persia.
Peace be upon him who follows true guidance, believes in Allâh and His Messenger and testifies that there is no god >but Allâh Alone with no associate, and that Muhammad is His slave and Messenger. I invite you to accept the religion >of Allâh. I am the Messenger of Allâh sent to all people in order that I may infuse fear of Allâh in every living person, >and that the charge may be proved against those who reject the Truth. Accept Islam as your religion so that you may >live in security, otherwise, you will be responsible for all the sins of the Magians.”

Here is the real version of the same letter.

"In the name of Allah, the beneficient, the Merciful. 
From Muhammad, the Messenger of God, to Kisra, the great King of Persia.
Peace be upon him who follows the guidance, believes in Allah and His Prophet, bears witness that there is no God but Allah and that I am the Prophet of Allah for the entire humanity so that every man alive is warned of the awe of God. Embrace Islam that you may find peace; otherwise on you shall rest the sin of the Magis." (Al-Tabari, Vol. III, p. 90)

Please be careful about the differences.

"in order that I may infuse fear of Allah in every living person, and that the charge may be proved against those who reject the Truth. Accept Islam as your religion so that you may live in security, otherwise"

The main difference is that the version provided as not-peaceful includes words like "fear" "charge" "against" "security" (antagonistic and harsh)


However the real version includes words like "humanity" "alive" "awe" and "peace". So which version is correct? Do you think that the prophets letter has been softened or hardened in the due process given the vindictive, tribal, violent, authoritarian cultural background? Of course it is a manufactured/twisted version probably written in the times of Umayyad empire/dynasty.

This letter exactly makes my point and demonstrates how manifactured hadith, letters and sayings managed to find their way in Islam. This is why it is always required to keep Quran as essential and assess/consider all other sources based on their compatibility to Quranic principles.

You may not believe in Islam. You might think that it is backwards and threatening from current interpretation PoV. But I believe that everyone should be fair and openminded. Demonization and prejudice is easy, we should not fall into this trap.

Ismail Atalay

[Rami Rustom]

Islam aimed to rectify this horrible situation and has had some level success. But over time, old culture and political practices (arabic and mesopotamian) resurrected more and more and found ways to twist and to deteriorate Islam via manufactured hadith and misinterpretations of Quran. A very clear proof of this is the current state of affairs in non-Arabic or non-mesopotamian Islamic countries like Turkey, Malaysia, Bosnia etc. The reason this countries are better of (in terms of democracy, human rights etc) is that they can easily differentiate what is coming from real Islam (like peace, love, justice, human rights) and what is coming from the cultural traditions and sociopolitic dynamics of middle-east.

Are you sure they are able to differentiate what is coming from "real"
Islam vs what is coming from cultural traditions and sociopolitical
dynamics of middle-east?

http://www.jihadwatch.org/2012/11/modern-moderate-malaysia-islamic-court-allows-marriage-of-12-year-old-girl.html

Modern, moderate Malaysia: Islamic court allows marriage of 12-year-old girl

http://www.jihadwatch.org/2012/10/modern-moderate-secular-turkey-pianist-goes-on-trial-for-offending-muslims-and-insulting-islam.html

Modern, moderate, secular Turkey: Pianist goes on trial for offending Muslims and insulting Islam

-- Rami Rustom
http://ramirustom.blogspot.com

[Ismail Atalay]

Post by Rami Rustom

Islam aimed to rectify this horrible situation and has had some level success. But over time, old culture and political practices (arabic and 
mesopotamian) resurrected more and more and found ways to twist and to deteriorate Islam via manufactured hadith and misinterpretations of 
Quran. A very clear proof of this is the current state of affairs in non-Arabic or non-mesopotamian Islamic countries like Turkey, Malaysia, 
Bosnia etc. The reason this countries are better of (in terms of democracy, human rights etc)  is that they can easily differentiate what is coming 
from real Islam (like peace, love, justice, human rights) and what is coming from the cultural traditions and sociopolitic dynamics of middle-
east.

Are you sure they are able to differentiate what is coming from "real"
Islam vs what is coming from cultural traditions and sociopolitical
dynamics of middle-east?
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2012/11/modern-moderate-malaysia-islamic-court-allows-marriage-of-12-year-old-girl.html
Modern, moderate Malaysia: Islamic court allows marriage of 12-year-old girl
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2012/10/modern-moderate-secular-turkey-pianist-goes-on-trial-for-offending-muslims-and-insulting->islam.html
Modern, moderate, secular Turkey: Pianist goes on trial for offending Muslims and insulting Islam

I have said they are "better". I did not say they (Malaysia and Turkey) are perfect or even near-perfect implementations of Islam._,_.___

The issue you have raised for Malaysia has a lot to do with conservatism and patriarchal thinking as the article clearly shows. These two diseases have unfortunately made a lot of progress in embedding themselves to Islam.

The second issue in Turkey is more political in nature. Nothing will come up from it as there is nothing particularly insulting and demonizing in what he has spread in social media. (the pianist in this news is an internationally renowned figure that is very critical of current government and conservative thinking)

Implementing Islamic principles in personal/social life looks very easy but yet seems difficult for human-beings (including myself). It requires %100 sincerity, good-will with well-suppressed ego and rational thinking (without sincerity and goodwill everything will collapse, there will not be Islam). You have to be fair towards everyone even if you completely disagree. All (yes literally all) public decisions affecting your life should have your explicit consent (right of subject rule). Ruthless self-interrogation and self-suspect is a must against the strife (essential jihad, physical and spiritual not converted to "spiritual only" by christian clergy) towards the "self" (without belittling or torturing the "self" as in some radical Christian theology). There should not be poor, desolated, suppressed or lonely people in the society (also related with jihad). 

So your "jihadwatch" list should have normally followed what type of positive moral/social contributions muslims are doing as part of their primary strife duty :) Instead, it follows authoritarian/manipulative decision makers hiding their agenda behind perverted Islam. And this type of thinking unfortunately play to their hands by insisting to misunderstand and to skew Islamic concepts. (wrong and biased perception of Islam in west contributes to strengthen their status). 

I am not a type of guy who favors conspiracies but I would not be surprised to learn that thes type of websites are secretly sponsored by some middleeastern regimes.

Ismail

[Ismail Atalay]

Post by Rami Rustom

Concerning harsh/war-like verses (that constitutes 5-6 verse in 6600 verses) I have already explained that Islam is >>"hands-on" concerning restoring/sustaining peace and stopping cruelty/oppression.

Please show me the verse that explains that, instead of asserting *your* ideas.

I have a feeling that it is hopeless but here you go : 

Quran 4:75 And what is [the matter] with you that you fight not in the cause of Allah and [for] the oppressed among men, women, and children who say, "Our Lord, take us out of this city of oppressive people and appoint for us from Yourself a protector and appoint for us from Yourself a helper?"

Post by Rami Rustom

However in whatever you do towards this goal, you HAVE to stay within the universal judiciary framework and be fair, >>transparent and honest to all people (whether they are muslim or not).

Please show me the verse that explains that, instead of asserting
*your* ideas. (Note that Islam does not apply its morality on to
people whether they are "Muslim or not").

Quran 2:190 Fight in the way of Allah those who fight you but do not transgress. Indeed. Allah does not like transgressors.

Please do not reply as "what is transgressing" "or how I would know that one's is transgressing"

Quran 5:8 O you who have believed, be persistently standing firm for Allah , witnesses in justice, and do not let the hatred of a people prevent you from being just. Be just; that is nearer to righteousness. And fear Allah ; indeed, Allah is Acquainted with what you do.

Post by Rami Rustom
Yes. Whats your point? Are you saying that since Islam was an
improvement over 7th century Arabian morality, then that means that
Islam is an improvement to 21st century Western morality?

Actually 20'th and 21'th century western morality, human rights and democracy are below (real) Islamic standards in various respects. It is true that we are evolving towards states that has no rulers (rulers were already forbidden by Islam 14 centuries ago) and we do not get mass murders and genocides (at least their frequency and scale is decreasing thanks God). According to Islam every human being is responsible for any mass murder or genocide or cruelty occurring within his/her knowledge and will be held accountable for what he/she did to prevent it.

Again according to Islam, there can not be a collective decision that would affect your life (positively or negatively) without your explicit consent/approval. Otherwise your right as God's subject would be violated and in Islam you have your rights well protected. Even God does not interfere to this.Over the course of last two centuries, we are approaching to this ideal via representative democracy but there is still long way to go to reach to the standard put by Islam.

In western countries, wife-beating, prostitution, drug/alcohol abuse is widespread. Crime rates and suicide are unfortunately well above world average.  According to Islam everyone should collaboratively act against these problems. And I do not think western morality is successful in handling these problems and improving the situation.  

Post by Rami Rustom

Quran 49:13 "O mankind, indeed We have created you from male and female and made you peoples and tribes that >>you may know one another. Indeed, the most noble of you in the sight of Allah is the most righteous of you. Indeed, >>Allah is Knowing and Acquainted"

And that contradicts the sexist ideas in the verses explained by the
two discussions I posted above.
So how do Muslims figure out which ideas to follow?

It is very simple. What you interpret as sexism is not sexism. This is just some extra rights&responsibilities given to man and woman depending on their differing role in reproduction and childbearing. (did you notice that all the examples you provided in favor of so called "sexism" were revolving around this?) You do accept that they have differing roles on this do you? They are not contradicting the general framework of equality between man and woman. 

Post by Rami Rustom
I also asked you to explain how it is that the Quran tells you to
extract principles from the verses, and you didn't explain, which
means that you did this using your own reasoning, not Quranic
principles.

Actually you do not need Quranic principles to extract principles from the verses. You are encouraged to actually even ordered to use your intelligence, logic and reasoning to interpret verses and to understand Islamic principle.

This is another well-known and accepted principle of Islam.

 Please do yourself a favor and perform Quran (actually everyone in the list can do) search for words like "reason" "think" "knowledge/Science" (because these two concepts are represented by the same word in Arabic). 

http://www.islamicity.com/quransearch/


Out of 6600 verses, there are 77 occurences on "reason", 128 verses on "thinking" and 224 verses on "knowledge/Science" (spread to different chapters and contexts). There are above hundred verses referring to different scientific phenomenon on physics, astronomy, cosmology, biology, zoology, geology and chemistry (spread to different chapters and contexts again). So almost %10 of the Quran is either talking of science or encouraging/promoting rationality, reasoning and scholarship.  

Could this be the reason why Islamic civilization made one of the greatest scientific breakthroughs in human history in the 650-1000 AD period and laid the foundation for renaissance/enlightment?

I am repeating again. This is the most misunderstood religion in the world. The reason there are so much emphasis on Islam is because the Quran does not include human manufactured superstitions, inconsistencies and illogical statements such as "World has been created 6000 years ago". I think Quranic approach/principles are too non-institutional, rational, egalitarian, humanistic and scientific even for today let alone 7'th century AD. 

I know there are people in this list who sees all religions as evil causing vanities but I think Islam will not go away or diminish just because it has the qualities mentioned above. (actually I think quite opposite will happen because the world standards are approaching to Islam) 

Ismail Atalay

[Rami Rustom]

Post by Ismail Atalay

Post by Rami Rustom

Concerning harsh/war-like verses (that constitutes 5-6 verse in 6600 verses) I have already explained that Islam is >>"hands-on" concerning restoring/sustaining peace and stopping cruelty/oppression.

Please show me the verse that explains that, instead of asserting *your* ideas.

Why would it be hopeless? You asserted that idea twice without quoting
the Quran. THAT is hopeless. Now you *are* quoting the Quran. This is
hopeful. We can get somewhere this way.

Post by Ismail Atalay
Quran 4:75 And what is [the matter] with you that you fight not in the cause of Allah and [for] the oppressed among men, women, and children who say, "Our Lord, take us out of this city of oppressive people and appoint for us from Yourself a protector and appoint for us from Yourself a helper?"

Post by Rami Rustom

However in whatever you do towards this goal, you HAVE to stay within the universal judiciary framework and be fair, >>transparent and honest to all people (whether they are muslim or not).

Please show me the verse that explains that, instead of asserting
*your* ideas. (Note that Islam does not apply its morality on to
people whether they are "Muslim or not").

Quran 2:190 Fight in the way of Allah those who fight you but do not transgress. Indeed. Allah does not like transgressors.
Please do not reply as "what is transgressing" "or how I would know that one's is transgressing"

Its clear that "transgressor" means one who does stuff other than God
told him to do.

Post by Ismail Atalay
Quran 5:8 O you who have believed, be persistently standing firm for Allah , witnesses in justice, and do not let the hatred of a people prevent you from being just. Be just; that is nearer to righteousness. And fear Allah ; indeed, Allah is Acquainted with what you do.

This tells Muslims to be fair. But in other verses it says otherwise.

Post by Ismail Atalay

Post by Rami Rustom
Yes. Whats your point? Are you saying that since Islam was an
improvement over 7th century Arabian morality, then that means that
Islam is an improvement to 21st century Western morality?

Actually 20'th and 21'th century western morality, human rights and democracy are below (real) Islamic standards in various respects.

By "real Islamic standards" you are talking about an idea that has
never been applied in the history of humankind. Now today and not
during Mohamed's time. So if this "real Islamic standard" is not being
applied, then what is it? Where is it? Why does no one follow it? Are
you the only one following it? If so, then you are better than Prophet
Mohamed. So the Quran is wrong then. It instructs you to follow the
moral example of Mohamed because he is the highest moral example. But
clearly you are the highest moral example.

Post by Ismail Atalay
It is true that we are evolving towards states that has no rulers (rulers were already forbidden by Islam 14 centuries ago) and we do not get mass murders and genocides (at least their frequency and scale is decreasing thanks God). According to Islam every human being is responsible for any mass murder or genocide or cruelty occurring within his/her knowledge and will be held accountable for what he/she did to prevent it.
Again according to Islam, there can not be a collective decision that would affect your life (positively or negatively) without your explicit consent/approval. Otherwise your right as God's subject would be violated and in Islam you have your rights well protected. Even God does not interfere to this.Over the course of last two centuries, we are approaching to this ideal via representative democracy but there is still long way to go to reach to the standard put by Islam.

Where is that standard communicated to Muslims? The Quran? I showed
you many examples of it having low standards, e.g. didn't abolish
slavery, wife beating.

Post by Ismail Atalay
In western countries, wife-beating, prostitution, drug/alcohol abuse is widespread. Crime rates and suicide are unfortunately well above world average. According to Islam everyone should collaboratively act against these problems. And I do not think western morality is successful in handling these problems and improving the situation.

Wrong. See Thomas Szasz, Ayn Rand.

Post by Ismail Atalay

Post by Rami Rustom

Quran 49:13 "O mankind, indeed We have created you from male and female and made you peoples and tribes that >>you may know one another. Indeed, the most noble of you in the sight of Allah is the most righteous of you. Indeed, >>Allah is Knowing and Acquainted"

And that contradicts the sexist ideas in the verses explained by the
two discussions I posted above.
So how do Muslims figure out which ideas to follow?

It is very simple. What you interpret as sexism is not sexism. This is just some extra rights&responsibilities given to man and woman depending on their differing role in reproduction and childbearing. (did you notice that all the examples you provided in favor of so called "sexism" were revolving around this?)

One of my examples was wife-beating. Does that revolve around reproduction?

Post by Ismail Atalay
You do accept that they have differing roles on this do you? They are not contradicting the general framework of equality between man and woman.

Post by Rami Rustom
I also asked you to explain how it is that the Quran tells you to
extract principles from the verses, and you didn't explain, which
means that you did this using your own reasoning, not Quranic
principles.

Actually you do not need Quranic principles to extract principles from the verses. You are encouraged to actually even ordered to use your intelligence, logic and reasoning to interpret verses and to understand Islamic principle.
This is another well-known and accepted principle of Islam.

Ah so you equated the Quranic verses that instruct you to use your
intelligence to mean that you are supposed to extract principles from
Quranic verses. Why didn't Allah just tell us to extract principles
from the Quran? It would have been shorter to do that than to just
say, "use your intelligence, logic, and reasoning." Looks like you're
explanation is better than the Quran's explanation.

Besides, even if you're idea is right, that you should extract
principles from the Quran, and that you get to call these Islamic
principles, show me one valid instance of this. You showed me one
already but it was false. It was predicated on the idea that slavery
became abolished over many steps, but I showed you that its not
abolished.

Post by Ismail Atalay
Please do yourself a favor and perform Quran (actually everyone in the list can do) search for words like "reason" "think" "knowledge/Science" (because these two concepts are represented by the same word in Arabic).
http://www.islamicity.com/quransearch/
Out of 6600 verses, there are 77 occurences on "reason", 128 verses on "thinking" and 224 verses on "knowledge/Science" (spread to different chapters and contexts).

Hmm. Thats a lot of repetition of stuff when he could have just said,
"Extract principles from verses." Note that when the average Muslim,
of average intelligence, reads the Quran, he does not know that
"reason, intelligence, and thinking" means "extract principles from
verses". It would have been better for Allah to be less ambiguous
about this.

Post by Ismail Atalay
There are above hundred verses referring to different scientific phenomenon on physics, astronomy, cosmology, biology, zoology, geology and chemistry (spread to different chapters and contexts again). So almost %10 of the Quran is either talking of science or encouraging/promoting rationality, reasoning and scholarship.

You showed me 2 Quranic verses that supposed were consistent with
modern science, and not consistent with 7th century knowledge and I
found flaws in both of them.

Post by Ismail Atalay
Could this be the reason why Islamic civilization made one of the greatest scientific breakthroughs in human history in the 650-1000 AD period and laid the foundation for renaissance/enlightment?

No. Human minds did that. They made choices.

Post by Ismail Atalay
I am repeating again. This is the most misunderstood religion in the world. The reason there are so much emphasis on Islam is because the Quran does not include human manufactured superstitions, inconsistencies and illogical statements such as "World has been created 6000 years ago". I think Quranic approach/principles are too non-institutional, rational, egalitarian, humanistic and scientific even for today let alone 7'th century AD.

You are asserting without argument. And when you have provided
arguments, I've pointed out the flaws and explained why they are
flaws. And in all those tangent discussions, you haven't explained
that my flaws are wrong.

Post by Ismail Atalay
I know there are people in this list who sees all religions as evil causing vanities but I think Islam will not go away or diminish just because it has the qualities mentioned above. (actually I think quite opposite will happen because the world standards are approaching to Islam)

No. They don't believe that all religions are evil. Only the evil
ones, like Islam. And I don't mean some version of Islam that you
created because you're a relatively good guy. I mean the Islam that 1
billion people follow. The Islam of the Quran and Mohamed. And the
worse versions too where they add in Sharia Law.

The best Islam version is the one where it barely affects any part of
your life. Where you were never even taught that you are supposed to
follow the moral example of Mohamed. Where you live your life thinking
you are supposed to do good, and you assume what stuff is good based
on what you learned as you grew up, from your parents, society, tv,
etc.

The bad Islam version is the one where it affects all parts of your
life. Where you believe that you are supposed to follow the moral
example of Mohamed. Where if things go wrong in your life, you believe
that you are being punished by Allah and they only way to solve your
problem is to pray to Allah to solve them. And to pray to Allah to
give you the courage to withstand your problems.


So. Why do you believe in Allah?

-- Rami Rustom
http://ramirustom.blogspot.com

[Ismail Atalay]

Post by Rami Rustom
Where is that standard communicated to Muslims? The Quran? I showed
you many examples of it having low standards, e.g. didn't abolish
slavery, wife beating

There is no wife-beating or violence towards woman in Quran. This is strictly forbidden in hadith. It is also against many basic principles such as gender equality or non-compulsion or non-violence outside judicial framework.

I have obtained below opinion from an muslim Arabic expert and here is his views

"regarding the argument that had the verse promoted the idea of separation (instead of to hit),the word "AAN" would have been used in relation to the word "idribu" is not really necessary.

the word "idribu" itself even if taken to mean "strike" is a measure that can be applied without using the hand,a stick or physical assault.

for those saying verse 4:34 the word "idriboohunna" means (to strike them) with hand or a stick,that is wrong because "idriboohunna" is a term that can be applied with other measures.i also read an anti-islamic website (i think of Ali Sina) which tries to belie muslims who say the term "idrobuhunna" can be understood without physical measure.he said if it was to "separate",the verse would have said "idribu aan-hunna" (separate "from" them) and not just "idribuhunna" which means "strike them".but even if we are to say that "idribuhunna" means to "strike them",the question in the light of the prophetic hadith (in mustadrak al-wasa'il) and the arabic grammar used and the context of the word "idribuhunna bil ju-ee wal ara"  (in the hadith also in clear arabic) begs the question:"idribu" (strike) them with what? is it with a stick,a chain,the hand,hunger,nakedness,sex starvation,e.t.c.?

"idribuhunna bil ju-ee wal ara"="strike them" with hunger and nakedness.that is when the woman goes abusive to her marriage,then the man can withold his support to her.

so "idribuhunna" can be applied using both physical measure and non-physical measure.

so there is no doubt that "idribu" can also mean "separate" or a non-physical measure even if the word "AAN" is not used in relation to "idribu"."idribu" (if translated as "strike") can be done with the hands,stick,chain,bullets,and also hunger and nakedness as the hadith cites.if we are to say because there is no "aan" in relation to "idribu" ,to make it sound as "idribu aan-hunna",it means physical hitting with hands,then i can also shoot my rebellious wife with a gun a justify that with verse 4:34 because...........the question is "idribu" ("strike") with what? is it with hand,bullet,chain,stick,hunger or what?"


It exactly answers your "compound" word argument and brings up with an hadith (needs to be checked authentic or not but it is an hadith in Arabic) that uses "idribuhunna" (exactly same expression that the verse uses) in  a non-physical way.

So you can not say that  "idribuhunna" surely means "hit them or beat them" (note that you can even kill someone by hitting or beating). You can not also say that there can not be other meanings involving non-physical corrective response to abusive and rebellious behavior from one's wife. And if the wife is not happy about these non-physical responses then next verse explains what to do (appoint one arbitrator from his family and another arbitrator from her family  etc etc) 

Everything is so measured and so just according to responsibilities/roles of man and woman. It makes perfect sense within the context provided in the verse. (man being protectors and maintainers for woman etc)

Ismail

[Rami Rustom]

Post by Ismail Atalay

Post by Rami Rustom
Where is that standard communicated to Muslims? The Quran? I showed
you many examples of it having low standards, e.g. didn't abolish
slavery, wife beating

There is no wife-beating or violence towards woman in Quran.

False. See the discussion we've already had about this. Also see below.

Post by Ismail Atalay
This is strictly forbidden in hadith.

You mean the hadith that you choose to be authentic. There are many
more hadith that says the opposite.

Post by Ismail Atalay
It is also against many basic principles such as gender equality

False. See the discussion we've already had about this.

Post by Ismail Atalay
or non-compulsion

False. See the discussion we've already had about this.

Post by Ismail Atalay
or non-violence outside judicial framework.

False. See the discussion we've already had about this.

Post by Ismail Atalay
I have obtained below opinion from an muslim Arabic expert and here is his views
"regarding the argument that had the verse promoted the idea of separation (instead of to hit),the word "AAN" would have been used in relation to the word "idribu" is not really necessary.

False. Aan is the proposition "about". The proposition changes the
root word into a compound word. The root word daraba, by itself means
hit. When the root word is conjoined with a proposition, it changes to
the compound word, in which case the root meaning does not apply. Only
the meaning of the compound word matters. Like the case of ground and
background. Note that Arabic does not have a mechanism of creating
compound words without using propositions. Why? Because when root
words get conjugated, pronouns and tense get built into them, so its
impossible to add another root word to it to create a compound word
without using a conjoining propositional word.

So for example, the root word daraba, where the object is a women, and
the subject is a man, it gets conjugated to idrubuhunna. The same
word, conjugated for object is man and subject is women becomes
idrubuhoom. If 1 man hit 1 woman, its idrubuha. If 1 woman hits 1 man,
its idribeehe. If 1 man hit 1 man, its idrubu. If 1 women hit 1 women
its idribeeha. Now all those are orders. If the hitting happened in
past tense, then the conjugations are different. And for future tense
again different. So its impossible to create compound words by joining
to root words together. The only way to create a compound word is to
use multiple root words and conjoining propositional words. And
sometimes you can have a root word with one propositional word
following it to create a compound word.

Post by Ismail Atalay
the word "idribu" itself even if taken to mean "strike" is a measure that can be applied without using the hand,a stick or physical assault.

False. See above and below.

Post by Ismail Atalay
for those saying verse 4:34 the word "idriboohunna" means (to strike them) with hand or a stick,that is wrong because "idriboohunna" is a term that can be applied with other measures.

False. See above and below.

Post by Ismail Atalay
i also read an anti-islamic website (i think of Ali Sina) which tries to belie muslims who say the term "idrobuhunna" can be understood without physical measure.he said if it was to "separate",the verse would have said "idribu aan-hunna" (separate "from" them) and not just "idribuhunna" which means "strike them".but even if we are to say that "idribuhunna" means to "strike them",the question in the light of the prophetic hadith (in mustadrak al-wasa'il) and the arabic grammar used and the context of the word "idribuhunna bil ju-ee wal ara" (in the hadith also in clear arabic) begs the question:"idribu" (strike) them with what? is it with a stick,a chain,the hand,hunger,nakedness,sex starvation,e.t.c.?

Daraba means "hit". You can't hit with sex starvation. What are you
talking about?

Post by Ismail Atalay
"idribuhunna bil ju-ee wal ara"="strike them" with hunger and nakedness.that is when the woman goes abusive to her marriage,then the man can withold his support to her.

I already pointed out the idea of compound words having different
meanings than the root words within them.

Post by Ismail Atalay
so "idribuhunna" can be applied using both physical measure and non-physical measure.
so there is no doubt that "idribu" can also mean "separate" or a non-physical measure even if the word "AAN" is not used in relation to "idribu"."idribu" (if translated as "strike") can be done with the hands,stick,chain,bullets,and also hunger and nakedness as the hadith cites.if we are to say because there is no "aan" in relation to "idribu" ,to make it sound as "idribu aan-hunna",it means physical hitting with hands,then i can also shoot my rebellious wife with a gun a justify that with verse 4:34 because...........the question is "idribu" ("strike") with what? is it with hand,bullet,chain,stick,hunger or what?"

Daraba means hit. You can't hit with hunger.

Post by Ismail Atalay
It exactly answers your "compound" word argument and brings up with an hadith (needs to be checked authentic or not but it is an hadith in Arabic) that uses "idribuhunna" (exactly same expression that the verse uses) in a non-physical way.

No. Your hadith example is "idribuhunna bil ju-ee wal ara", which is a
compound word. It doesn't mean "hit".

When you see idribuhunna by itself, like in Quran 4:34, it means hit.
When you see it with propositions following it, then it is a compound
word and thus doesn't mean hit. See my explanation above.

Post by Ismail Atalay
So you can not say that "idribuhunna" surely means "hit them or beat them" (note that you can even kill someone by hitting or beating). You can not also say that there can not be other meanings involving non-physical corrective response to abusive and rebellious behavior from one's wife.

Your idea is predicated on the false assumption that idribuhunna means
hit even in the compound words which include the daraba root word.
Those compound words don't mean hit.

Post by Ismail Atalay
And if the wife is not happy about these non-physical responses then next verse explains what to do (appoint one arbitrator from his family and another arbitrator from her family etc etc)
Everything is so measured and so just according to responsibilities/roles of man and woman. It makes perfect sense within the context provided in the verse. (man being protectors and maintainers for woman etc)

-- Rami Rustom
http://ramirustom.blogspot.com

[Elliot Temple]

Post by Rami Rustom

Post by Ismail Atalay

Post by Rami Rustom

Concerning harsh/war-like verses (that constitutes 5-6 verse in 6600 verses) I have already explained that Islam is >>"hands-on" concerning restoring/sustaining peace and stopping cruelty/oppression.

Please show me the verse that explains that, instead of asserting *your* ideas.

Why would it be hopeless? You asserted that idea twice without quoting
the Quran. THAT is hopeless. Now you *are* quoting the Quran. This is
hopeful. We can get somewhere this way.

Post by Ismail Atalay
Quran 4:75 And what is [the matter] with you that you fight not in the cause of Allah and [for] the oppressed among men, women, and children who say, "Our Lord, take us out of this city of oppressive people and appoint for us from Yourself a protector and appoint for us from Yourself a helper?"

Post by Rami Rustom

However in whatever you do towards this goal, you HAVE to stay within the universal judiciary framework and be fair, >>transparent and honest to all people (whether they are muslim or not).

Please show me the verse that explains that, instead of asserting
*your* ideas. (Note that Islam does not apply its morality on to
people whether they are "Muslim or not").

Quran 2:190 Fight in the way of Allah those who fight you but do not transgress. Indeed. Allah does not like transgressors.
Please do not reply as "what is transgressing" "or how I would know that one's is transgressing"

Its clear that "transgressor" means one who does stuff other than God
told him to do.

Saying your ideas are "clear" (clearly right) isn't a good way to discuss.

Also your interpretation is not clear to me. Transgress means:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/transgress

Post by Rami Rustom
1
: to violate a command or law : sin
2
: to go beyond a boundary or limit

you're differing from the dictionary without explanation.

Post by Rami Rustom

Post by Ismail Atalay
Quran 5:8 O you who have believed, be persistently standing firm for Allah , witnesses in justice, and do not let the hatred of a people prevent you from being just. Be just; that is nearer to righteousness. And fear Allah ; indeed, Allah is Acquainted with what you do.

This tells Muslims to be fair. But in other verses it says otherwise.

you asked him for quotes. he gave some. so i think when you say other verses differ from the ones he quoted, you should quote a couple.

Post by Rami Rustom

Post by Ismail Atalay
In western countries, wife-beating, prostitution, drug/alcohol abuse is widespread. Crime rates and suicide are unfortunately well above world average. According to Islam everyone should collaboratively act against these problems. And I do not think western morality is successful in handling these problems and improving the situation.

Wrong. See Thomas Szasz, Ayn Rand.

(Having read them a lot more than you,) I'm not sure which of their ideas you mean or what sort of position you're advocating and how that is a reply specifically to what Ismail was saying.


-- Elliot Temple
http://fallibleideas.com/

[Rami Rustom]

Post by Elliot Temple

Post by Rami Rustom

Post by Ismail Atalay

Post by Rami Rustom

Concerning harsh/war-like verses (that constitutes 5-6 verse in 6600 verses) I have already explained that Islam is >>"hands-on" concerning restoring/sustaining peace and stopping cruelty/oppression.

Please show me the verse that explains that, instead of asserting *your* ideas.

Why would it be hopeless? You asserted that idea twice without quoting
the Quran. THAT is hopeless. Now you *are* quoting the Quran. This is
hopeful. We can get somewhere this way.

Post by Ismail Atalay
Quran 4:75 And what is [the matter] with you that you fight not in the cause of Allah and [for] the oppressed among men, women, and children who say, "Our Lord, take us out of this city of oppressive people and appoint for us from Yourself a protector and appoint for us from Yourself a helper?"

Post by Rami Rustom

However in whatever you do towards this goal, you HAVE to stay within the universal judiciary framework and be fair, >>transparent and honest to all people (whether they are muslim or not).

Please show me the verse that explains that, instead of asserting
*your* ideas. (Note that Islam does not apply its morality on to
people whether they are "Muslim or not").

Quran 2:190 Fight in the way of Allah those who fight you but do not transgress. Indeed. Allah does not like transgressors.
Please do not reply as "what is transgressing" "or how I would know that one's is transgressing"

Its clear that "transgressor" means one who does stuff other than God
told him to do.

Saying your ideas are "clear" (clearly right) isn't a good way to discuss.

But it was clear to me and to Ismael, and to any English-speaking Muslim.

Post by Elliot Temple
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/transgress

Post by Rami Rustom
1
: to violate a command or law : sin
2
: to go beyond a boundary or limit

you're differing from the dictionary without explanation.

A "real" Muslim understands that doing what God forbids *is* sin. And
that one who does the forbidden is a transgressor.

Post by Elliot Temple

Post by Rami Rustom

Post by Ismail Atalay
Quran 5:8 O you who have believed, be persistently standing firm for Allah , witnesses in justice, and do not let the hatred of a people prevent you from being just. Be just; that is nearer to righteousness. And fear Allah ; indeed, Allah is Acquainted with what you do.

This tells Muslims to be fair. But in other verses it says otherwise.

you asked him for quotes. he gave some. so i think when you say other verses differ from the ones he quoted, you should quote a couple.

I guess I got tired of quoting them since I had already done that many
times in previous posts with Ismael and he ignored them.

Post by Elliot Temple

Post by Rami Rustom

Post by Ismail Atalay
In western countries, wife-beating, prostitution, drug/alcohol abuse is widespread. Crime rates and suicide are unfortunately well above world average. According to Islam everyone should collaboratively act against these problems. And I do not think western morality is successful in handling these problems and improving the situation.

Wrong. See Thomas Szasz, Ayn Rand.

(Having read them a lot more than you,) I'm not sure which of their ideas you mean or what sort of position you're advocating and how that is a reply specifically to what Ismail was saying.

I'm thinking of freedom, individual rights, consent in human
interactions, no coercion, only persuasion. Rand and Szasz championed
these things.

All of the problems Ismael mentioned would improve with more
individual freedom. Less freedom makes them worse.

America was designed around this idea of individual rights. The US
government was designed with protections for individuals, for
individual freedom to do whatever they want short of infringing on
another individuals freedom. More importantly, the government was
designed with limitations on what it was allowed to do, a first in
history.

-- Rami

[Elliot Temple]

Post by Rami Rustom

Post by Elliot Temple

Post by Rami Rustom

Post by Ismail Atalay

Post by Rami Rustom

Concerning harsh/war-like verses (that constitutes 5-6 verse in 6600 verses) I have already explained that Islam is >>"hands-on" concerning restoring/sustaining peace and stopping cruelty/oppression.

Please show me the verse that explains that, instead of asserting *your* ideas.

Why would it be hopeless? You asserted that idea twice without quoting
the Quran. THAT is hopeless. Now you *are* quoting the Quran. This is
hopeful. We can get somewhere this way.

Post by Ismail Atalay
Quran 4:75 And what is [the matter] with you that you fight not in the cause of Allah and [for] the oppressed among men, women, and children who say, "Our Lord, take us out of this city of oppressive people and appoint for us from Yourself a protector and appoint for us from Yourself a helper?"

Post by Rami Rustom

However in whatever you do towards this goal, you HAVE to stay within the universal judiciary framework and be fair, >>transparent and honest to all people (whether they are muslim or not).

Please show me the verse that explains that, instead of asserting
*your* ideas. (Note that Islam does not apply its morality on to
people whether they are "Muslim or not").

Quran 2:190 Fight in the way of Allah those who fight you but do not transgress. Indeed. Allah does not like transgressors.
Please do not reply as "what is transgressing" "or how I would know that one's is transgressing"

Its clear that "transgressor" means one who does stuff other than God
told him to do.

Saying your ideas are "clear" (clearly right) isn't a good way to discuss.

But it was clear to me and to Ismael, and to any English-speaking Muslim.

Now you're saying if anyone does disagree with you, they must either not speak English or not be a Muslim. They can't disagree with you b/c you're wrong, that's impossible, it has to be because of some attribute of them personally or ignorance.
It can't even be a regular mistake -- no one would ever disagree with you simply by being mistaken as long as they spoke English and were Muslim.
This is an intolerant, anti-critical, infalliblist, anti-Popperian way of thinking.
And you've doubled down on it when challenged.
Actually, you are fallible, no truth is obvious, your ideas are not obviously true, people can disagree with you for all sorts of reasons including your mistake and/or their mistake, and you can't generalize about all English-speaking Muslims this easily. This sort of attitude that dismisses the possibility of being wrong is how one stays wrong forever instead of doing a beginning of infinity.

I forgot the difference between "clear" and "obvious". Does your
criticism apply to my sentence if I had said "obvious" instead of
"clear"?

Yes. Why would that be any better? And it's not about the choice of words but their meaning.

An idea can be obvious to a person.

A person can mistakenly believe that. That's different though.

In this case, it was obvious to
me, and judging from what I've learned about Ismail, it was obvious to
him too.

You are not addressing the issue that nothing is obvious or ever can be, as explained by Popper. Are you unfamiliar with our position on this matter?

Even if you are unfamiliar, you have not attempted to explain what "obvious" means, in epistemological terms.

One interpretation of its epistemological meaning is: there's no way to make a mistake figuring it out, no ways to go wrong available. Because if there were ways to go wrong then it'd be up to the person to think and figure out which is right, so that doesn't sound like obviousness.

I generalized to the entire English-speaking Muslim population too,
which is wrong. Many of them haven't discussed Islamic ideas much.

But if they had discussed Islamic ideas much, then they would be guaranteed to agree with you...?

Post by Rami Rustom

Post by Elliot Temple
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/transgress

Post by Rami Rustom
1
: to violate a command or law : sin
2
: to go beyond a boundary or limit

you're differing from the dictionary without explanation.

A "real" Muslim understands that doing what God forbids *is* sin. And
that one who does the forbidden is a transgressor.

i don't think you've understood the issue. it's hard to tell though. these two sentences don't explain what you're talking about, leaving me to make a ton of guesses. can you try to explain what you're saying?
please take into account what you said above about what transgressor is. i don't see how your comment here relates to the earlier comment that i was replying to, and you don't explain it for me or make any direct connection.

Post by Rami Rustom

Post by Elliot Temple

Post by Rami Rustom

Post by Ismail Atalay
Quran 2:190 Fight in the way of Allah those who fight you but do not transgress. Indeed. Allah does not like transgressors.
Please do not reply as "what is transgressing" "or how I would know that one's is transgressing"

Its clear that "transgressor" means one who does stuff other than God
told him to do.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/transgress

Post by Rami Rustom
1
: to violate a command or law : sin
2
: to go beyond a boundary or limit

you're differing from the dictionary without explanation.

Its clear that "transgressor" means one who commits sin.

Post by Rami Rustom

Post by Elliot Temple

Post by Rami Rustom
Its clear that "transgressor" means one who does stuff other than God told him to do.

Now you're changing it without acknowledging changing it or trying to explain how your new version is the same as the old one.

I took out the "God told" part.

You rewrote it as

Its clear that "transgressor" means one who does stuff other than him to do.

?

i don't think so.

You said transgressor means X, I criticized that X, I specifically clarified that my comment is about X and you should take X into account when reply, and you're still not discussing your original X and what it says.

I didn't realize you cared about the "God told" part. And yes its
wrong because there is no God.

but i haven't said that.

can you try to actually compare what you said with what transgress means and analyze them? i still don't understand by what reasoning you're determining they are the same or real similar. please try to explain your thinking.

You're also continuing to make the mistake of saying your stuff is "clear" without explaining any rational meaning that can have that adds value to your post.

By using the word clear, I was saying that I did not (nor did he) need
to think hard to (nor do research to) know what "transgressor" means.

that was a mistake!

you're getting stuff wrong on this very topic, right now, even after multiple iterations of criticism. so you did and do need to think harder! even if you're right, and i'm wrong, you should have thought harder to explain yourself better by now.

i did research (checked dictionary). you didn't. i don't know why you think you're so much smarter than me and more knowledgeable that you needn't do any research on topics where i do it. how is what you're saying anything other than intellectual arrogance?

maybe you should do some research on Popper and then either change your mind or explain what he got wrong on these topics.

-- Elliot Temple
http://beginningofinfinity.com/

[Rami Rustom]

Post by Elliot Temple

Post by Rami Rustom

Post by Elliot Temple

Post by Rami Rustom

Post by Ismail Atalay

Post by Rami Rustom

Concerning harsh/war-like verses (that constitutes 5-6 verse in 6600 verses) I have already explained that Islam is >>"hands-on" concerning restoring/sustaining peace and stopping cruelty/oppression.

Please show me the verse that explains that, instead of asserting *your* ideas.

Why would it be hopeless? You asserted that idea twice without quoting
the Quran. THAT is hopeless. Now you *are* quoting the Quran. This is
hopeful. We can get somewhere this way.

Post by Ismail Atalay
Quran 4:75 And what is [the matter] with you that you fight not in the cause of Allah and [for] the oppressed among men, women, and children who say, "Our Lord, take us out of this city of oppressive people and appoint for us from Yourself a protector and appoint for us from Yourself a helper?"

Post by Rami Rustom

However in whatever you do towards this goal, you HAVE to stay within the universal judiciary framework and be fair, >>transparent and honest to all people (whether they are muslim or not).

Please show me the verse that explains that, instead of asserting
*your* ideas. (Note that Islam does not apply its morality on to
people whether they are "Muslim or not").

Quran 2:190 Fight in the way of Allah those who fight you but do not transgress. Indeed. Allah does not like transgressors.
Please do not reply as "what is transgressing" "or how I would know that one's is transgressing"

Its clear that "transgressor" means one who does stuff other than God
told him to do.

Saying your ideas are "clear" (clearly right) isn't a good way to discuss.

But it was clear to me and to Ismael, and to any English-speaking Muslim.

Now you're saying if anyone does disagree with you, they must either not speak English or not be a Muslim. They can't disagree with you b/c you're wrong, that's impossible, it has to be because of some attribute of them personally or ignorance.
It can't even be a regular mistake -- no one would ever disagree with you simply by being mistaken as long as they spoke English and were Muslim.
This is an intolerant, anti-critical, infalliblist, anti-Popperian way of thinking.
And you've doubled down on it when challenged.
Actually, you are fallible, no truth is obvious, your ideas are not obviously true, people can disagree with you for all sorts of reasons including your mistake and/or their mistake, and you can't generalize about all English-speaking Muslims this easily. This sort of attitude that dismisses the possibility of being wrong is how one stays wrong forever instead of doing a beginning of infinity.

I forgot the difference between "clear" and "obvious". Does your
criticism apply to my sentence if I had said "obvious" instead of
"clear"?

Yes. Why would that be any better? And it's not about the choice of words but their meaning.

An idea can be obvious to a person.

A person can mistakenly believe that. That's different though.

Yes we can be mistaken.

Post by Elliot Temple

In this case, it was obvious to
me, and judging from what I've learned about Ismail, it was obvious to
him too.

You are not addressing the issue that nothing is obvious or ever can be, as explained by Popper. Are you unfamiliar with our position on this matter?

We can be wrong about any of our ideas.

I wasn't saying that I can't be wrong about the meaning of
transgressor in the translation of the Quran verse I was talking
about. I was saying that I know what he believes the meaning to be
because this is basic knowledge for a Muslim who reads the Quran in
English.

Post by Elliot Temple
Even if you are unfamiliar, you have not attempted to explain what "obvious" means, in epistemological terms.

I meant that I'm (fallibly) sure of what he and I and most Muslims
believe that transgressor means in the context of Islam.

Post by Elliot Temple
One interpretation of its epistemological meaning is: there's no way to make a mistake figuring it out, no ways to go wrong available. Because if there were ways to go wrong then it'd be up to the person to think and figure out which is right, so that doesn't sound like obviousness.

I generalized to the entire English-speaking Muslim population too,
which is wrong. Many of them haven't discussed Islamic ideas much.

But if they had discussed Islamic ideas much, then they would be guaranteed to agree with you...?

Thats an interesting way to put it. And I do see how using the word
"clear" and "obvious" equates to that.

I'm saying that I expect that they would have learned the meaning of
transgressor in Quran translations.

Post by Elliot Temple

Post by Rami Rustom

Post by Elliot Temple
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/transgress

Post by Rami Rustom
1
: to violate a command or law : sin
2
: to go beyond a boundary or limit

you're differing from the dictionary without explanation.

A "real" Muslim understands that doing what God forbids *is* sin. And
that one who does the forbidden is a transgressor.

i don't think you've understood the issue. it's hard to tell though. these two sentences don't explain what you're talking about, leaving me to make a ton of guesses. can you try to explain what you're saying?
please take into account what you said above about what transgressor is. i don't see how your comment here relates to the earlier comment that i was replying to, and you don't explain it for me or make any direct connection.

Post by Rami Rustom

Post by Elliot Temple

Post by Rami Rustom

Post by Ismail Atalay
Quran 2:190 Fight in the way of Allah those who fight you but do not transgress. Indeed. Allah does not like transgressors.
Please do not reply as "what is transgressing" "or how I would know that one's is transgressing"

Its clear that "transgressor" means one who does stuff other than God
told him to do.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/transgress

Post by Rami Rustom
1
: to violate a command or law : sin
2
: to go beyond a boundary or limit

you're differing from the dictionary without explanation.

Its clear that "transgressor" means one who commits sin.

Post by Rami Rustom

Post by Elliot Temple

Post by Rami Rustom
Its clear that "transgressor" means one who does stuff other than God told him to do.

Now you're changing it without acknowledging changing it or trying to explain how your new version is the same as the old one.

I took out the "God told" part.

You rewrote it as

Its clear that "transgressor" means one who does stuff other than him to do.

?
i don't think so.

According to the 1st definition, transgressor means sinner.

And my original statement is wrong because I changed a part of it to
say that God told a Muslim which actions are sin.

Post by Elliot Temple

You said transgressor means X, I criticized that X, I specifically clarified that my comment is about X and you should take X into account when reply, and you're still not discussing your original X and what it says.

I didn't realize you cared about the "God told" part. And yes its
wrong because there is no God.

but i haven't said that.
can you try to actually compare what you said with what transgress means and analyze them? i still don't understand by what reasoning you're determining they are the same or real similar. please try to explain your thinking.

You're also continuing to make the mistake of saying your stuff is "clear" without explaining any rational meaning that can have that adds value to your post.

By using the word clear, I was saying that I did not (nor did he) need
to think hard to (nor do research to) know what "transgressor" means.

that was a mistake!
you're getting stuff wrong on this very topic, right now, even after multiple iterations of criticism. so you did and do need to think harder! even if you're right, and i'm wrong, you should have thought harder to explain yourself better by now.

You criticized two things and I've been focusing only on one of them.
You criticized my use of the word "clear" (this is the content I was
focusing on) and my understanding of what transgressor means in the
Quran translations (this part I wasn't focusing on).

Post by Elliot Temple
i did research (checked dictionary). you didn't. i don't know why you think you're so much smarter than me and more knowledgeable that you needn't do any research on topics where i do it.

I don't understand that part. You started your criticism which
included your research of the dictionary definition of transgressor. I
read that dictionary definition that you included in your crit. I
don't know what other research I could do after that that would move
this discussion forward. So I don't see how not doing research is a
mistake.

I think my mistake was not focusing on some of the content you were
addressing. I focused a lot on the "clear" word and I didn't care
about the transgressor thing. Why did I do that? I guess I was thrown
off because while I was thinking about the "clear" thing I vaguely
recall you using the word "obvious" or maybe it was "of course", which
means there's at least one right way to use those words -- though you
could be wrong too. And I thought I had used it the right way. So when
you criticized my use of the word "clear", now I'm backtracking to
figure out what is the right way to use clear/obvious/of course.

Post by Elliot Temple
how is what you're saying anything other than intellectual arrogance?

Arrogance (from merriam webster) : an attitude of superiority
manifested in an overbearing manner or in presumptuous claims or
assumptions

I don't see how that describes what happened.

Post by Elliot Temple
maybe you should do some research on Popper and then either change your mind or explain what he got wrong on these topics.

I'm on the last chapter of The Virtue of Selfishness. I'll make
Conjectures and Refutations next.

-- Rami Rustom
http://ramirustom.blogspot.com

[Rami Rustom]

Post by Rami Rustom

Letter from Mohamed to Emperor of Persia.
“In the Name of Allâh, the Most Beneficent, the Most Merciful.
From Muhammad, the Messenger of Allâh to Chosroes, king of Persia.
Peace be upon him who follows true guidance, believes in Allâh and His Messenger and testifies that there is no god >but Allâh Alone with no associate, and that Muhammad is His slave and Messenger. I invite you to accept the religion >of Allâh. I am the Messenger of Allâh sent to all people in order that I may infuse fear of Allâh in every living person, >and that the charge may be proved against those who reject the Truth. Accept Islam as your religion so that you may >live in security, otherwise, you will be responsible for all the sins of the Magians.”

Here is the real version of the same letter.
"In the name of Allah, the beneficient, the Merciful.
From Muhammad, the Messenger of God, to Kisra, the great King of Persia.
Peace be upon him who follows the guidance, believes in Allah and His Prophet, bears witness that there is no God but Allah and that I am the Prophet of Allah for the entire humanity so that every man alive is warned of the awe of God. Embrace Islam that you may find peace; otherwise on you shall rest the sin of the Magis." (Al-Tabari, Vol. III, p. 90)
Please be careful about the differences.

That translation you gave is wrong. The interpreter is trying to protect Islam.
According to Tabaqat-i Kubra, vol. I, page 360, and Tarikh-i Tabari,
vol. II, pp. 295, 296, and Tarikh-i Kamil, vol. II, page 81 and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_conquest_of_Persia#cite_note-12),

"In the name of Allah, the Beneficent, the Merciful. From Muhammad, the Messenger of Allah, to the great Kisra of Iran. Peace be upon him, who seeks truth and expresses belief in Allah and in His Prophet and testifies that there is no god but Allah and that He has no partner, and who believes that Muhammad is His servant and Prophet. Under the Command of Allah, I invite you to Him. He has sent me for the guidance of all people so that I may warn them all of His wrath and may present the unbelievers with an ultimatum. Embrace Islam so that you may remain safe. And if you refuse to accept Islam, you will be responsible for the sins of the Magi."[13]

I found the Arabic text. Actually I found a photograph of the actual letter:

(do a search for "Transcript of Letter to Khosroe Pervez Emperor of
Persia" to find it easily)

http://oldenhistory.blogspot.com/2010/02/letters-of-prophet-muhammad-pbuh.html

Ismail. Take this letter to the Arabic expert you mentioned. Ask him
to translate it.

To make this easy, lets just translate one part.

A portion of that arabic text you translated as "so that every man
alive is warned of the awe of God." but the actual translation is
warning of something else. I'll translate it myself:

Allahoo ila al-nasi kaffaton leyanthur man kana hayan aslim taslim =
God to all the people, he warns (those of) you whoever lived, become
Muslim to stay safe.

Allahoo = God

ila = to

al-nasi = the people

kaffaton = all

leyanthur = warns you

man kana = whoever

hayan = lived

aslim = Become Muslim

taslim = to stay safe.

So where do you get "warned of the awe of God?"

-- Rami Rustom
http://ramirustom.blogspot.com


------------------------------------

Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Fabric-of-Reality/

<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Fabric-of-Reality/join
(Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
Fabric-of-Reality-digest-***@public.gmane.org
Fabric-of-Reality-fullfeatured-***@public.gmane.org

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Fabric-of-Reality-unsubscribe-***@public.gmane.org

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

[Elliot Temple]

Post by Rami Rustom

Post by Rami Rustom

Letter from Mohamed to Emperor of Persia.
“In the Name of Allâh, the Most Beneficent, the Most Merciful.
From Muhammad, the Messenger of Allâh to Chosroes, king of Persia.
Peace be upon him who follows true guidance, believes in Allâh and His Messenger and testifies that there is no god >but Allâh Alone with no associate, and that Muhammad is His slave and Messenger. I invite you to accept the religion >of Allâh. I am the Messenger of Allâh sent to all people in order that I may infuse fear of Allâh in every living person, >and that the charge may be proved against those who reject the Truth. Accept Islam as your religion so that you may >live in security, otherwise, you will be responsible for all the sins of the Magians.”

Here is the real version of the same letter.
"In the name of Allah, the beneficient, the Merciful.
From Muhammad, the Messenger of God, to Kisra, the great King of Persia.
Peace be upon him who follows the guidance, believes in Allah and His Prophet, bears witness that there is no God but Allah and that I am the Prophet of Allah for the entire humanity so that every man alive is warned of the awe of God. Embrace Islam that you may find peace; otherwise on you shall rest the sin of the Magis." (Al-Tabari, Vol. III, p. 90)
Please be careful about the differences.

That translation you gave is wrong. The interpreter is trying to protect Islam.
According to Tabaqat-i Kubra, vol. I, page 360, and Tarikh-i Tabari,
vol. II, pp. 295, 296, and Tarikh-i Kamil, vol. II, page 81 and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_conquest_of_Persia#cite_note-12),

"In the name of Allah, the Beneficent, the Merciful. From Muhammad, the Messenger of Allah, to the great Kisra of Iran. Peace be upon him, who seeks truth and expresses belief in Allah and in His Prophet and testifies that there is no god but Allah and that He has no partner, and who believes that Muhammad is His servant and Prophet. Under the Command of Allah, I invite you to Him. He has sent me for the guidance of all people so that I may warn them all of His wrath and may present the unbelievers with an ultimatum. Embrace Islam so that you may remain safe. And if you refuse to accept Islam, you will be responsible for the sins of the Magi."[13]

(do a search for "Transcript of Letter to Khosroe Pervez Emperor of
Persia" to find it easily)
http://oldenhistory.blogspot.com/2010/02/letters-of-prophet-muhammad-pbuh.html
Ismail. Take this letter to the Arabic expert you mentioned. Ask him
to translate it.
To make this easy, lets just translate one part.
A portion of that arabic text you translated as "so that every man
alive is warned of the awe of God." but the actual translation is
Allahoo ila al-nasi kaffaton leyanthur man kana hayan aslim taslim =
God to all the people, he warns (those of) you whoever lived, become
Muslim to stay safe.
Allahoo = God
ila = to
al-nasi = the people
kaffaton = all
leyanthur = warns you
man kana = whoever
hayan = lived
aslim = Become Muslim
taslim = to stay safe.
So where do you get "warned of the awe of God?"

What does "warned of the awe of God" even mean?

When translating it's important that the resulting text actually makes sense instead of being vague, ambiguous or nonsense.

Translating isn't just about wrote replacing one word with another. You also have to think about what meaning is being communicated and then keep the meaning in the new text. Unless the original is nonsense, the final version should not be nonsense. In general, translations should be clear and understandable.


-- Elliot Temple
http://fallibleideas.com/





------------------------------------

Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Fabric-of-Reality/

<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Fabric-of-Reality/join
(Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
Fabric-of-Reality-digest-***@public.gmane.org
Fabric-of-Reality-fullfeatured-***@public.gmane.org

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Fabric-of-Reality-unsubscribe-***@public.gmane.org

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

[Rami Rustom]

Post by Elliot Temple

Post by Rami Rustom

Post by Rami Rustom

Letter from Mohamed to Emperor of Persia.
“In the Name of Allâh, the Most Beneficent, the Most Merciful.
From Muhammad, the Messenger of Allâh to Chosroes, king of Persia.
Peace be upon him who follows true guidance, believes in Allâh and His Messenger and testifies that there is no god >but Allâh Alone with no associate, and that Muhammad is His slave and Messenger. I invite you to accept the religion >of Allâh. I am the Messenger of Allâh sent to all people in order that I may infuse fear of Allâh in every living person, >and that the charge may be proved against those who reject the Truth. Accept Islam as your religion so that you may >live in security, otherwise, you will be responsible for all the sins of the Magians.”

Here is the real version of the same letter.
"In the name of Allah, the beneficient, the Merciful.
From Muhammad, the Messenger of God, to Kisra, the great King of Persia.
Peace be upon him who follows the guidance, believes in Allah and His Prophet, bears witness that there is no God but Allah and that I am the Prophet of Allah for the entire humanity so that every man alive is warned of the awe of God. Embrace Islam that you may find peace; otherwise on you shall rest the sin of the Magis." (Al-Tabari, Vol. III, p. 90)
Please be careful about the differences.

That translation you gave is wrong. The interpreter is trying to protect Islam.
According to Tabaqat-i Kubra, vol. I, page 360, and Tarikh-i Tabari,
vol. II, pp. 295, 296, and Tarikh-i Kamil, vol. II, page 81 and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_conquest_of_Persia#cite_note-12),

"In the name of Allah, the Beneficent, the Merciful. From Muhammad, the Messenger of Allah, to the great Kisra of Iran. Peace be upon him, who seeks truth and expresses belief in Allah and in His Prophet and testifies that there is no god but Allah and that He has no partner, and who believes that Muhammad is His servant and Prophet. Under the Command of Allah, I invite you to Him. He has sent me for the guidance of all people so that I may warn them all of His wrath and may present the unbelievers with an ultimatum. Embrace Islam so that you may remain safe. And if you refuse to accept Islam, you will be responsible for the sins of the Magi."[13]

(do a search for "Transcript of Letter to Khosroe Pervez Emperor of
Persia" to find it easily)
http://oldenhistory.blogspot.com/2010/02/letters-of-prophet-muhammad-pbuh.html
Ismail. Take this letter to the Arabic expert you mentioned. Ask him
to translate it.
To make this easy, lets just translate one part.
A portion of that arabic text you translated as "so that every man
alive is warned of the awe of God." but the actual translation is
Allahoo ila al-nasi kaffaton leyanthur man kana hayan aslim taslim =
God to all the people, he warns (those of) you whoever lived, become
Muslim to stay safe.
Allahoo = God
ila = to
al-nasi = the people
kaffaton = all
leyanthur = warns you
man kana = whoever
hayan = lived
aslim = Become Muslim
taslim = to stay safe.
So where do you get "warned of the awe of God?"

What does "warned of the awe of God" even mean?

Its vague, purposefully.

Post by Elliot Temple
When translating it's important that the resulting text actually makes sense instead of being vague, ambiguous or nonsense.

I was breaking it down so that he could tell me how it could mean
"warned of the awe of God".

Post by Elliot Temple
Translating isn't just about wrote replacing one word with another. You also have to think about what meaning is being communicated and then keep the meaning in the new text. Unless the original is nonsense, the final version should not be nonsense. In general, translations should be clear and understandable.

The translation that I agreed with was posted above: "warn them all of
His wrath and may present the unbelievers with an ultimatum."

It reads like this: God to all the people, be warned that whoever
becomes a Muslim will be safe.

That means that whoever does not become a Muslim, will not be safe.
That is the ultimatum. Ismail's chosen translation omits that part and
replaces it with a vague "warned of the awe of God". This translator
doesn't like the ultimatum part because it means that there is
compulsion in Islam, and by the hand of Mohamed, their beloved
prophet. And, as you might have remembered, Ismail proudly proclaims
(like most Muslims) that there is no compulsion in Islam.

-- Rami Rustom
http://ramirustom.blogspot.com


------------------------------------

Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Fabric-of-Reality/

<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Fabric-of-Reality/join
(Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
Fabric-of-Reality-digest-***@public.gmane.org
Fabric-of-Reality-fullfeatured-***@public.gmane.org

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Fabric-of-Reality-unsubscribe-***@public.gmane.org

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/