NATION

PASSWORD

Islamic Discussion Thread ٣

For discussion and debate about anything. (Not a roleplay related forum; out-of-character commentary only.)

Advertisement

Remove ads

What Denomination are You?

Sunni
132
28%
Sunni (Sufi)
31
7%
Sunni (Salafi)
26
6%
Ithna'ashari/Twelver Shi'a
30
6%
Other Shi'a
15
3%
Ibadi
13
3%
Ahmadiyya
11
2%
Qur'anist
17
4%
Nondenominational
50
11%
Other
145
31%
 
Total votes : 470

User avatar
Lozcwngz
Secretary
 
Posts: 32
Founded: May 08, 2017
Ex-Nation

Postby Lozcwngz » Sat Apr 21, 2018 9:56 pm

Thank you for the warm welcome, El-Amin Caliphate! :hug: You seem like a nice chap (chappette(?), if you are female).

El-Amin Caliphate wrote:
Lozcwngz wrote:
I've done some research on Islam, and what particularly interests me is Tatarstan. Now, the media is fearmongering about Islam and Muslims in general ever since 9/11, but what they overlook is Tatarstan, and her people, the Tatars, having very strong interfaith relations. I know that Jews and Muslims don't always get along, because of the conflict over Israel, Palestine and whatnot, but we have here, in Tatarstan's capital of Kazan, a 100-year-old synagogue is being restored and both Muslim and Christian leaders throughout the Republic laud its restoration. And then there's the Temple of All Religions which I've never seen anything like before in my lifetime, and plans to honour sixteen faiths.

And then there's the Christians and Jews helping out the local Muslims somewhere in Texas when the latter's mosque burned down. Then, also in Texas, a victim of Islamophobia campaigned (and failed) to save his would-be killer from death row*.

AlHamdulillah.
But as for the Temple of all Religions, I'm about that. I applaud the builder's intentions. We should always strive to make peace with each other and not fight. But I feel this Temple would cause Muslims to stray from as-siraat al-mustaqeem. How is the Temple used?

I haven't been able to find much clarifying the Temple's usage, if anything, but from what I know, after the original artist who envisioned it died, his charges who were once downtrodden but whom he took under his wing are carrying on his work, which he first was inspired to after he claimed Jesus Christ came to him in a vision and told him to repurpose his old family home. I'm going to speculate, though, as it seems to still be in the process of building (and in fact I read somewhere it was partially damaged by a fire, sadly): so, based on the fact there are various sub-temples on the plot of land (of all the sub-temples, seven of them are completed, while there are some I recall reading up on for lost religions, such as the Sabians), there would probably be separate worshipping (e.g. a Muslim would not worship at the Buddha, and a Jew would not worship where there would be a Christ figure), though the designs seem to have been intermingled with other cultural aspects (e.g. minarets, domes, cupolas, steeples, rather than explicitly putting a Buddha into the sub-temple for Muslims), much like in China, historical Muslims based their mosque designs on Chinese architecture hundreds of years ago. Though, bear in mind, as I stated, this is all speculation, and it looks like there'll be a lot of years (possibly our lifetimes) before it's completed. I did a bit of reading on Wikipedia on innovations, and I think that this one, in the spirit of the People of the Book, probably falls under the "good" bid'ah (I think, but correct me if I'm wrong). Though Tatarstan's religiosity has increased lately (as well as in other Turkic locales such as Central Asia), but Islam from what I can see, the real deal (not Saudi Arabia or anything like that) preaches harmony, loving and caring for oneself, helping and exhibiting compassion towards the less fortunate (e.g. the poor), while being defensive (when the faith and believers are under threat) rather than being offensive (i.e. first-striking without provocation). The original architect of the Temple (going back from the tangent) is Muslim, but grew up in the Soviet Union (which forcibly suppressed religion, only reluctantly allowing celebrations such as Christmas again to raise morale), so I hope he knew what he was doing before he died (the article says he was surviving on very little sleep and food, and meditated a lot), and I doubt it would have been the "bad" bid'ah, because there haven't been any fatāwā against his work, despite having been working on the Temple for many years.

El-Amin Caliphate wrote:
Lozcwngz wrote:
You know I used to be pretty Islamophobic and frightened of Muslims, well my opinion was the niqāb worn by women as per their interpretation of the Qu'ran frightened me, and also the media fearmongering didn't help my fears, either. But having gotten to know a few Muslims who have become akin to friends (I have few friends), and also reading up about Islam. Not just about ISIS, or Al-Queda, or the Taliban. But about the Golden Age of Islam, where women could go to university, where (if I recall from a book I read years ago, "Tea with Arwa", correct me if I'm wrong) Islam puts great emphasis on education of both boys and girls. I mean, I still don't understand, and I don't know how much I can understand as a non-believer. But Islam fascinates me, as much as I am still a bit fearful of the faith because I don't want to have misunderstandings, which I worry might be insensitive towards individual Muslims.

Its great that you've read up on our history. It's one of the best imo.
Also, it's ok that you have misunderstandings, just be respectful, and be honest, and we'll be glad to help.

I learned about the Golden Age of Islam in history classes, in particular when talking about the differences between living standards in the Muslim and European worlds at the time. It was a remarkable difference, and though medicine in both worlds were still based on the four humors, the Muslim doctors used gentler and more compassionate methods of treatment, while having clearly studied their stuff thoroughly at universities. Not to mention that Jews and Eastern Christians alike fought alongside the Muslims, against the Crusaders, because although Jews were second-class citizens (having to pay a special tax) in the Muslim world, they weren't openly persecuted, nor did they have pogroms against them like they did in the European world.

El-Amin Caliphate wrote:
Lozcwngz wrote:
I won't say Islam is necessarily feminist, but for its time as conceived by Muhammad back in his lifetime, when women had no rights in pre-Islamic Arabia, he advocated for unprecedented rights for that era.

I have a few questions though, from stuff I've read in the past (which I should keep track of), and I hope that some of you people (you seem nice enough) can clarify:
1. I heard Islam was taught to adapt to the modern society, while keeping its intrinsic values (citation: "Tea with Arwa"). Does the Qu'ran, Hadith, or Sharia say anything about this? If so, what is the exact quotation? For example, contraception (besides pulling out) wasn't invented in Muhammad's lifetime, but scholarly interpretation based on a line in one of the books (Qu'ran, Hadith, Sharia, I forgot) permitted contraception. Also, cars weren't invented, but I read in "Tea with Arwa" that the Muslim author (Arwa) said that Islam taught parents to teach both boys and girls swimming, archery, and horse-riding, and so horse-riding could be interpreted as also accommodating the driving of cars, despite what Saudi law dictated for the longest time, while (in my opinion, hypocritically) Saudi Arabia allows women to fly aircraft, despite that being the same basic thing as driving a car: making a large metal box move either forwards or backwards.

What Muslims do in modern times should fit into Al-Islam, so yes, you are correct. As for Saudi Arabia, yeah they are crazy.

I agree with you! :hug: I have no idea how Saudi Arabia twisted the teachings of Islam so much so as to be so far-removed from the early days. I will give them this, however: they do have the high living standards in their place in the world down, but it's at the expense of their human rights. They also are abusive towards their foreign workers who come from countries such as the Philippines and India, and despite the numerous complaints from both countries, the abuse still happens because, I don't know, is this some sort of perceived racial superiority? Certainly seems like it, because they treat the Western foreign workers well enough, and also the foreign workers from neighbouring Arab countries, especially those from the Gulf states (citation: "Culture Shock: Saudi Arabia"). It makes me glad they're loosening the draconian restrictions in the country, such as letting in Hollywood films (e.g. Black Panther), setting up ways to get tourist visas, and also this June, women can drive!

El-Amin Caliphate wrote:
Lozcwngz wrote:
2. There are people such as Salman Rushdie, Geert Wilders, and Ayaan Hirsi Ali (full disclosure: I am not fond of any of those individuals) who criticise Islam with a broad brush, targeting all Muslims to score points, and from what I can see from the radical Islamists, they interpret criticism as blasphemy, and the punishment varies (though radical Islamists wants the blasphemers executed). But I read lightly that Islam received criticism in its early days and there wasn't really much backlash (though that could be from the little influence that could be exerted).

Yes, blasphemy is wrong, but afaik, we can't punish anyone, especially someone who doesn't even practice the Deen. The Holy Qur'an states: http://legacy.quran.com/2/256 So Muslims can't really be harming anyone. Yes, speaking ill of our religion is offensive, and plain stupid if someone doesn't know anything about it.

Speaking ill of anything, especially if there is a lack of information, even more so if it's misinformation, is offensive and stupid. I mean, the stereotypes are just that, stereotypes, and one of the few positive reports on Islam and Muslims I saw was, years ago, when the news anchor was invited to a Muslim family's evening feast during Ramadan. They were very nice to the female anchor, and there was a lot of delicious food. Hopefully there are more stories like that, to try and dispel all that fear-mongering of the media.

El-Amin Caliphate wrote:
Lozcwngz wrote:
I would like to ask, is non-malicious (with the intent for healthy debate, not tar all Muslims with the same brush, or being informed and making critiques based on said informed status) or constructive criticism permitted?

As I said before, Muslims shouldn't harm non-Muslims who crticize Al-Islam, but nonetheless, I'd strongly disagree with you on any criticisms you say about Al-Islam.

That's perfectly fair! It is only natural to defend our opinions, views, and those we hold dear. And I respect a good defense as any.

El-Amin Caliphate wrote:
Lozcwngz wrote:
3. I know FGM and honor-killing aren't listed in the Qu'ran, and I will not say for a moment they are Muslim customs (from what I know, they are present in even non-Muslim communities, and FGM originated in Ancient Egypt, it seems). I read somewhere that body piercings (except for the ears of women), tattooing, and branding fall under the unnecessary mutilation of Allah's creation, much like drugs and alcohol does, and despite what tradition in pre-Islamic countries carried down the generations, is there a fatwā against FGM anywhere? Is there also a similar fatwā against honor-killing as well? I mean, honor-killing is the murder of another Muslim, and whether there is proof or not of zina (adultery, whether pre-marital or extra-marital) and I'm sure there isn't the death penalty for that, but rather for the murderer (which I think has to be sanctioned by a court, or in battle with an enemy).

Yes, honor killings have no place in Al-Islam and are in fact sinful. They are a cultural thing, not an Islamic thing. As for FGC, it is allowed, but the Prophet Muhammad (SAWS) told us not to go to extremes when cutting. On to0 of that, FGC is optional for the woman. She MUST have a say in the matter.

Honor-killings, I read up, are often based on suspicions, rather than any hard evidence. It makes me sad that just because they were born in cultures that eventually became Muslim-majority countries, that they are associated with Islam. It makes me even more sad when other Muslim-majority countries and sub-divisions (Chechnya comes to mind, ever since radical Islamic groups infiltrated them and turned them away, from Sufism to Salafism) get pressured by radical Islamists and their imported cherry-picking to start conducting them. I feel that Muslims have to deal with the pressure from that clique of radical Islamists who try and force their wills, while diaspora in their host countries in the West have to additionally deal with the locals rejecting them, and I can sort of see how the radical Islamism can be tempting to Muslims who are wanting to retain their identity, especially with their propaganda targeting the youths on social media.

El-Amin Caliphate wrote:
Lozcwngz wrote:
I hope you don't think my questions are in bad faith, though. I feel that my questions might be interpreted as such, but I'm hoping to learn more about Islam. I'm not trying to poke holes in your faith, or belittle any believers, I'm just curious. It saddens me that my relatively new-found revelations on Islam from searching around the internet and reading books have been perverted by the likes of terrorist groups, cherry-picking, theocracies, and also by anti-Islam politicians.

I see your questions as honestly trying to learn more about Al-Islam, to broaden your knowledge and surroundings. I applaud you for that :clap:

Again, thank you for welcoming me! :hug: I love learning about religion, the history and culture is so rich. It makes me sad that in this modern world, faith in a higher being is fading fast, as is the culture associated with their respective faiths. :(

edit: missed a formatting tag.
Last edited by Lozcwngz on Sat Apr 21, 2018 10:43 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Copy and paste this into your signature if you passed law and know that—in Canada—gender and sex are the same thing
Main Page // OOC Profile // Detailed Views

User avatar
Kubumba Tribe
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 9444
Founded: Apr 09, 2015
Ex-Nation

Postby Kubumba Tribe » Sat Apr 21, 2018 10:30 pm

The Alma Mater wrote:
El-Amin Caliphate wrote:I wanna laugh, but considering the violence we face....maybe not.


Excellent, we are making progress.
Hold this realisation that a constant threat of violence is not funny, nor nice.
Then realise that is also true for nonmuslims (I know, this is hard)

Then go to the mosque and preach the realisation that nonmuslims are people as well.
Yes, even gays, pagans, jews, girls wearing short skirts and people who own a jewellery store.

Hopefully many will take the lesson to heart. And hopefully other people will notice that muslims as a group are finally making a serious effort to fix the problems in their subculture.

You say this like this doesn't already happen.
Pro: (Pan-)Islamism--Palestine--RBG--Choice to an extent--Giving land back to Native Americans--East--Afrika--etc.
Anti: US gov--West gov--Capitalism--Imperialism/Colonialism--Racism/White Supremacy--Secularism getting into everything--Western 'intervention' in the East--Zionism--etc.
I'm a New Afrikan Muslim :) https://www.16personalities.com/isfj-personality Sister nation of El-Amin Caliphate
Farnhamia wrote:A word of advice from your friendly neighborhood Mod, be careful how you use "kafir." It's derogatory usage by some people can get you in trouble unless you are very careful in setting the context for it's use.

This means we can use the word, just not in a bad way. So don't punish anyone who uses kafir.

User avatar
Jolthig
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 18281
Founded: Aug 31, 2010
Democratic Socialists

Postby Jolthig » Sun Apr 22, 2018 1:25 am

The Alma Mater wrote:
El-Amin Caliphate wrote:I wanna laugh, but considering the violence we face....maybe not.


Excellent, we are making progress.
Hold this realisation that a constant threat of violence is not funny, nor nice.
Then realise that is also true for nonmuslims (I know, this is hard)

Then go to the mosque and preach the realisation that nonmuslims are people as well.
Yes, even gays, pagans, jews, girls wearing short skirts and people who own a jewellery store.

Hopefully many will take the lesson to heart. And hopefully other people will notice that muslims as a group are finally making a serious effort to fix the problems in their subculture.

I agree. Inshallah
Ahmadi Muslim • Absolute Justice • Star Wars fan • Love For All, Hatred For None • trucker

Want to know more about Ahmadiyya? Click here!

User avatar
Washington Resistance Army
Khan of Spam
 
Posts: 54796
Founded: Aug 08, 2011
Father Knows Best State

Postby Washington Resistance Army » Sun Apr 22, 2018 1:57 am

Sorry for the delay in replying Jolthig, had a day long ban. My point in what I was saying wasn't that I think Muhammad was a pagan (though given the area he was in he likely was before the whole Islam thing) but that from everything I've seen and read that it seems less like he had actual revelation from God and more that he just slapped together things he knew from Christianity/Judaism and Semitic polytheism and called it a revelation.
Hellenic Polytheist, Socialist

User avatar
Aulus Maximus
Chargé d'Affaires
 
Posts: 452
Founded: Mar 20, 2018
Ex-Nation

Postby Aulus Maximus » Sun Apr 22, 2018 2:09 am

See here for the ruling on honor killings

Remember that honor killings are cultural. Executing Shari'ah is for Allah's swt sake only.

Based on this, that which is called “honour killing” is a transgression and wrongdoing, because it is killing one who does not deserve to be killed, namely the virgin if she commits zina (fornication), but the shar’i punishment in her case is flogging and banishment for one year, not execution, because the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “(The punishment for zina) of a virgin with a virgin person is one hundred lashes and exile for one year.” Narrated by Muslim. The one who kills her has killed a believing soul whom Allaah has forbidden to be killed, and there is a stern warning concerning that, as Allaah, may He be glorified and exalted, says (interpretation of the meaning):

“And those who invoke not any other ilaah (god) along with Allaah, nor kill such person as Allaah has forbidden, except for just cause, nor commit illegal sexual intercourse ___ and whoever does this shall receive the punishment.

69. The torment will be doubled to him on the Day of Resurrection, and he will abide therein in disgrace”

[al-Furqaan 25:68-69]
Last edited by Aulus Maximus on Sun Apr 22, 2018 2:11 am, edited 1 time in total.
Caliph Ron al-Pauliyya for American Sultanate 2020
Body is purified by water. Ego by tears. Intellect is purified by knowledge. And soul is purified with love. ~hz. Ali ibn Abi Talib (ra)
Offen love between two people intensifies not because of beauty or some advantage, but because of sheer spiritual affinity. ~hz. Al Ghazali

User avatar
Negarakita
Diplomat
 
Posts: 902
Founded: Aug 29, 2017
Ex-Nation

Postby Negarakita » Sun Apr 22, 2018 2:22 am

Jolthig brother has the new thread been started? If not I can if you can't.
Muslim revert, supporting wasatiyyah for a true and moderate expression of our faith. Political centrist.

User avatar
The Archregimancy
Game Moderator
 
Posts: 30594
Founded: Aug 01, 2005
Democratic Socialists

Postby The Archregimancy » Sun Apr 22, 2018 3:04 am

Negarakita wrote:Jolthig brother has the new thread been started? If not I can if you can't.


When this thread reaches 500 pages, we'll lock it, and then someone can start the new thread.

Really, people, this isn't difficult; stop trying to jump the gun.

As it says in Surah Al-Anfal, 'Surely, Allah is with those who are patient' (8:46).

User avatar
United Islamic Commonwealth
Senator
 
Posts: 4657
Founded: Mar 26, 2017
Ex-Nation

Postby United Islamic Commonwealth » Sun Apr 22, 2018 9:25 am

The Archregimancy wrote:
Negarakita wrote:Jolthig brother has the new thread been started? If not I can if you can't.


When this thread reaches 500 pages, we'll lock it, and then someone can start the new thread.

Really, people, this isn't difficult; stop trying to jump the gun.

As it says in Surah Al-Anfal, 'Surely, Allah is with those who are patient' (8:46).

Lol reasons why Arch is among my favorite mods.
The United Islamic Commonwealth | Islamic republic | Factbook
Population: 135,931,000 | Area: 2,663,077 km² | Location: Middle East
Excidium Planetis Index: Tier 6; Level 0; Level 5 | Current year: 2020
Supreme Leader: Abbas Mosuli
President: Haashid al-Abdulla
Former Nizari Ismaili Muslim living in the US.

User avatar
Jolthig
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 18281
Founded: Aug 31, 2010
Democratic Socialists

Postby Jolthig » Sun Apr 22, 2018 11:56 am

Negarakita wrote:Jolthig brother has the new thread been started? If not I can if you can't.

I have the OP prepared but before I post, as Arch said, this thread must reach its limit before I do anything.
Ahmadi Muslim • Absolute Justice • Star Wars fan • Love For All, Hatred For None • trucker

Want to know more about Ahmadiyya? Click here!

User avatar
Jolthig
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 18281
Founded: Aug 31, 2010
Democratic Socialists

Postby Jolthig » Sun Apr 22, 2018 12:01 pm

United Islamic Commonwealth wrote:
The Archregimancy wrote:
When this thread reaches 500 pages, we'll lock it, and then someone can start the new thread.

Really, people, this isn't difficult; stop trying to jump the gun.

As it says in Surah Al-Anfal, 'Surely, Allah is with those who are patient' (8:46).

Lol reasons why Arch is among my favorite mods.

I agree. That was an awesome response by him
Ahmadi Muslim • Absolute Justice • Star Wars fan • Love For All, Hatred For None • trucker

Want to know more about Ahmadiyya? Click here!

User avatar
Jolthig
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 18281
Founded: Aug 31, 2010
Democratic Socialists

Postby Jolthig » Sun Apr 22, 2018 12:13 pm

Washington Resistance Army wrote:Sorry for the delay in replying Jolthig, had a day long ban. My point in what I was saying wasn't that I think Muhammad was a pagan (though given the area he was in he likely was before the whole Islam thing) but that from everything I've seen and read that it seems less like he had actual revelation from God and more that he just slapped together things he knew from Christianity/Judaism and Semitic polytheism and called it a revelation.

So when I said the pagan part. That was also in response to Valgora. Not necessarily you.

I can't see though how he just slapped things together and called it revelation. Especially since some so called pagan traditions that was included in Islam really originated from Abraham
Ahmadi Muslim • Absolute Justice • Star Wars fan • Love For All, Hatred For None • trucker

Want to know more about Ahmadiyya? Click here!

User avatar
Pilarcraft
Senator
 
Posts: 3826
Founded: Dec 19, 2016
Ex-Nation

Postby Pilarcraft » Sun Apr 22, 2018 12:18 pm

Jolthig wrote:
Washington Resistance Army wrote:Sorry for the delay in replying Jolthig, had a day long ban. My point in what I was saying wasn't that I think Muhammad was a pagan (though given the area he was in he likely was before the whole Islam thing) but that from everything I've seen and read that it seems less like he had actual revelation from God and more that he just slapped together things he knew from Christianity/Judaism and Semitic polytheism and called it a revelation.

So when I said the pagan part. That was also in response to Valgora. Not necessarily you.

I can't see though how he just slapped things together and called it revelation. Especially since some so called pagan traditions that was included in Islam really originated from Abraham
1- The only source we have of that is Muhammad saying it came from Abraham. And if we're talking outside of Muslim Tradition, Muhammad is as infallible as any other person (i.e: not infallible at all.)

2- He literally did that though. Reading The 'History' parts of Quran after you read the same stories in the Bible, it's just obvious that some guy told muhammad some of the older Judeo-Christian stories, and either the guy didn't know them well or Muhammad was just plain ass bad at comprehension, so "The People of Sodom and Gomorrah literally tried to rape a person who'd came to them under their hospitality" turned into "they were gayz kill all gayz" (You can also refer to every other stories in the Quran, and then compare them to their biblical origins)

Like, if we're not talking through the Islamic lens, it's just plain obvious that Muhammad slapped together something from every religion he could find (and given he was a merchant who went to other nations for trade, he had a giant pool of stories to copy from) and put a new fancy name on it.
The Confederal Alliance of Pilarcraft ✺ That world will cease to be
Led by The Triumvirate.
OOC | Military | History |Language | Overview | Parties | Q&A | Factbooks
Proud Civic Persian Nationalist
B.P.D.: Dossier on parallel home-worlds released, will be updated regularly to include more encountered in the Convergence.

User avatar
Aulus Maximus
Chargé d'Affaires
 
Posts: 452
Founded: Mar 20, 2018
Ex-Nation

Postby Aulus Maximus » Sun Apr 22, 2018 12:27 pm

Pilarcraft wrote:
Jolthig wrote:So when I said the pagan part. That was also in response to Valgora. Not necessarily you.

I can't see though how he just slapped things together and called it revelation. Especially since some so called pagan traditions that was included in Islam really originated from Abraham
1- The only source we have of that is Muhammad saying it came from Abraham. And if we're talking outside of Muslim Tradition, Muhammad is as infallible as any other person (i.e: not infallible at all.)

2- He literally did that though. Reading The 'History' parts of Quran after you read the same stories in the Bible, it's just obvious that some guy told muhammad some of the older Judeo-Christian stories, and either the guy didn't know them well or Muhammad was just plain ass bad at comprehension, so "The People of Sodom and Gomorrah literally tried to rape a person who'd came to them under their hospitality" turned into "they were gayz kill all gayz" (You can also refer to every other stories in the Quran, and then compare them to their biblical origins)

Like, if we're not talking through the Islamic lens, it's just plain obvious that Muhammad slapped together something from every religion he could find (and given he was a merchant who went to other nations for trade, he had a giant pool of stories to copy from) and put a new fancy name on it.

1) Why should we look at other positions than Islamic ones when we discuss Islamic matters? I don't argue Christianity through an Islamic lense, such a thing makes no sense. Stick to the Islamic lense otherwise this discussion is futile.

2) Because the same stories were told by Prophets to the other people (of the book) ie Christians, Jews etc. Again, Islam is Islam, Judaism was Islam. Christianity was Islam. Muhammed saws was a Prophet who would give the last laws as the Seal of Prophets. Accept this viewpoint, or otherwise there is no point discussing imho.
Caliph Ron al-Pauliyya for American Sultanate 2020
Body is purified by water. Ego by tears. Intellect is purified by knowledge. And soul is purified with love. ~hz. Ali ibn Abi Talib (ra)
Offen love between two people intensifies not because of beauty or some advantage, but because of sheer spiritual affinity. ~hz. Al Ghazali

User avatar
Pilarcraft
Senator
 
Posts: 3826
Founded: Dec 19, 2016
Ex-Nation

Postby Pilarcraft » Sun Apr 22, 2018 12:30 pm

Aulus Maximus wrote:
Pilarcraft wrote:1- The only source we have of that is Muhammad saying it came from Abraham. And if we're talking outside of Muslim Tradition, Muhammad is as infallible as any other person (i.e: not infallible at all.)

2- He literally did that though. Reading The 'History' parts of Quran after you read the same stories in the Bible, it's just obvious that some guy told muhammad some of the older Judeo-Christian stories, and either the guy didn't know them well or Muhammad was just plain ass bad at comprehension, so "The People of Sodom and Gomorrah literally tried to rape a person who'd came to them under their hospitality" turned into "they were gayz kill all gayz" (You can also refer to every other stories in the Quran, and then compare them to their biblical origins)

Like, if we're not talking through the Islamic lens, it's just plain obvious that Muhammad slapped together something from every religion he could find (and given he was a merchant who went to other nations for trade, he had a giant pool of stories to copy from) and put a new fancy name on it.

1) Why should we look at other positions than Islamic ones when we discuss Islamic matters? I don't argue Christianity through an Islamic lense, such a thing makes no sense. Stick to the Islamic lense otherwise this discussion is futile.

2) Because the same stories were told by Prophets to the other people (of the book) ie Christians, Jews etc. Again, Islam is Islam, Judaism was Islam. Christianity was Islam. Muhammed saws was a Prophet who would give the last laws as the Seal of Prophets. Accept this viewpoint, or otherwise there is no point discussing imho.

"We can't discuss the legitimacy of the Islamic Claim while we're looking at it from the outside." is literally what you're saying.
You don't even know how to investigate the legitimacy of the claims of your religion. Islam, mistakenly -or intentionally, in order to give itself more legitimacy by connecting itself to the line of Abraham- claims that "Christianity was Islam, Judaism was Islam"... while it wasn't. Islam, or more accurately Muhammad, just missed the entire point of the Bible. that was just it. There would be no discussion if there was no skeptics. Your argument is being questioned. You can't use your argument to prove your argument is correct. You need some legitimate evidence, outside of your religion's point-of-view so as to support it. If you can't, that's on you (and, well, to a certain degree, your religion)
The Confederal Alliance of Pilarcraft ✺ That world will cease to be
Led by The Triumvirate.
OOC | Military | History |Language | Overview | Parties | Q&A | Factbooks
Proud Civic Persian Nationalist
B.P.D.: Dossier on parallel home-worlds released, will be updated regularly to include more encountered in the Convergence.

User avatar
Aulus Maximus
Chargé d'Affaires
 
Posts: 452
Founded: Mar 20, 2018
Ex-Nation

Postby Aulus Maximus » Sun Apr 22, 2018 12:33 pm

Pilarcraft wrote:
Aulus Maximus wrote:1) Why should we look at other positions than Islamic ones when we discuss Islamic matters? I don't argue Christianity through an Islamic lense, such a thing makes no sense. Stick to the Islamic lense otherwise this discussion is futile.

2) Because the same stories were told by Prophets to the other people (of the book) ie Christians, Jews etc. Again, Islam is Islam, Judaism was Islam. Christianity was Islam. Muhammed saws was a Prophet who would give the last laws as the Seal of Prophets. Accept this viewpoint, or otherwise there is no point discussing imho.

"We can't discuss the legitimacy of the Islamic Claim while we're looking at it from the outside." is literally what you're saying.
You don't even know how to investigate the legitimacy of the claims of your religion. Islam, mistakenly -or intentionally, in order to give itself more legitimacy by connecting itself to the line of Abraham- claims that "Christianity was Islam, Judaism was Islam"... while it wasn't. Islam, or more accurately Muhammad, just missed the entire point of the Bible. that was just it. There would be no discussion if there was no skeptics. Your argument is being questioned. You can't use your argument to prove your argument is correct. You need some legitimate evidence, outside of your religion's point-of-view so as to support it. If you can't, that's on you (and, well, to a certain degree, your religion)

You're misunderstanding the importance of Islam. In Islam there is a solid worldview - that of kufr and shaytan and that of Islam and Prophethood. Anything that is other than the path of the Prophet (saws) in religious terms is clear cut kufr and should be dismissed. Like I dismiss your claim that Muhammed saws copy pasted a religion into eachother. It's simple kufr.
Caliph Ron al-Pauliyya for American Sultanate 2020
Body is purified by water. Ego by tears. Intellect is purified by knowledge. And soul is purified with love. ~hz. Ali ibn Abi Talib (ra)
Offen love between two people intensifies not because of beauty or some advantage, but because of sheer spiritual affinity. ~hz. Al Ghazali

User avatar
Pilarcraft
Senator
 
Posts: 3826
Founded: Dec 19, 2016
Ex-Nation

Postby Pilarcraft » Sun Apr 22, 2018 12:36 pm

Aulus Maximus wrote:
Pilarcraft wrote:"We can't discuss the legitimacy of the Islamic Claim while we're looking at it from the outside." is literally what you're saying.
You don't even know how to investigate the legitimacy of the claims of your religion. Islam, mistakenly -or intentionally, in order to give itself more legitimacy by connecting itself to the line of Abraham- claims that "Christianity was Islam, Judaism was Islam"... while it wasn't. Islam, or more accurately Muhammad, just missed the entire point of the Bible. that was just it. There would be no discussion if there was no skeptics. Your argument is being questioned. You can't use your argument to prove your argument is correct. You need some legitimate evidence, outside of your religion's point-of-view so as to support it. If you can't, that's on you (and, well, to a certain degree, your religion)

You're misunderstanding the importance of Islam. In Islam there is a solid worldview - that of kufr and shaytan and that of Islam and Prophethood. Anything that is other than the path of the Prophet (saws) in religious terms is clear cut kufr and should be dismissed. Like I dismiss your claim that Muhammed saws copy pasted a religion into eachother. It's simple kufr.
... So... "your statement that my religion isn't legitimate is wrong because my religion told me anyone who doesn't believe in my religion is a poopoo head" is your religion's only argument?
Last edited by Pilarcraft on Sun Apr 22, 2018 12:37 pm, edited 1 time in total.
The Confederal Alliance of Pilarcraft ✺ That world will cease to be
Led by The Triumvirate.
OOC | Military | History |Language | Overview | Parties | Q&A | Factbooks
Proud Civic Persian Nationalist
B.P.D.: Dossier on parallel home-worlds released, will be updated regularly to include more encountered in the Convergence.

User avatar
Aulus Maximus
Chargé d'Affaires
 
Posts: 452
Founded: Mar 20, 2018
Ex-Nation

Postby Aulus Maximus » Sun Apr 22, 2018 12:38 pm

Pilarcraft wrote:
Aulus Maximus wrote:You're misunderstanding the importance of Islam. In Islam there is a solid worldview - that of kufr and shaytan and that of Islam and Prophethood. Anything that is other than the path of the Prophet (saws) in religious terms is clear cut kufr and should be dismissed. Like I dismiss your claim that Muhammed saws copy pasted a religion into eachother. It's simple kufr.
... So... "your statement that my religion isn't legitimate is wrong because my religion told me anyone who doesn't believe in my religion is a poopoo head" is your religion's only argument?

It makes no sense to see a religion through the lens of another religion (or absence of one), that's my point.
Caliph Ron al-Pauliyya for American Sultanate 2020
Body is purified by water. Ego by tears. Intellect is purified by knowledge. And soul is purified with love. ~hz. Ali ibn Abi Talib (ra)
Offen love between two people intensifies not because of beauty or some advantage, but because of sheer spiritual affinity. ~hz. Al Ghazali

User avatar
Pilarcraft
Senator
 
Posts: 3826
Founded: Dec 19, 2016
Ex-Nation

Postby Pilarcraft » Sun Apr 22, 2018 12:40 pm

Aulus Maximus wrote:
Pilarcraft wrote:... So... "your statement that my religion isn't legitimate is wrong because my religion told me anyone who doesn't believe in my religion is a poopoo head" is your religion's only argument?

It makes no sense to see a religion through the lens of another religion (or absence of one), that's my point.

That point is wrong though. You can't argue the very legitimacy of a religion from the lens of that very religion. That's not how it works. Once the two sides establish that the religion is legitimate, they start arguing through the religion's lens on the topics that are solely about that religion.
The Confederal Alliance of Pilarcraft ✺ That world will cease to be
Led by The Triumvirate.
OOC | Military | History |Language | Overview | Parties | Q&A | Factbooks
Proud Civic Persian Nationalist
B.P.D.: Dossier on parallel home-worlds released, will be updated regularly to include more encountered in the Convergence.

User avatar
Aulus Maximus
Chargé d'Affaires
 
Posts: 452
Founded: Mar 20, 2018
Ex-Nation

Postby Aulus Maximus » Sun Apr 22, 2018 12:42 pm

Pilarcraft wrote:
Aulus Maximus wrote:It makes no sense to see a religion through the lens of another religion (or absence of one), that's my point.

That point is wrong though. You can't argue the very legitimacy of a religion from the lens of that very religion. That's not how it works. Once the two sides establish that the religion is legitimate, they start arguing through the religion's lens on the topics that are solely about that religion.

Why should we discuss the legitimacy of our religion with that of another one? There is no need for that, nor is it productive. For us Muslims truth has been revealed and casts a light in the world of kufr and disbelief. Ecumenism only leads to further lies and deception and bidah. That's why there is a whole Surah [Surah al Kafiroon] saying:

Say : O ye that reject Faith!
I worship not that which ye worship,
Nor will ye worship that which I worship.
Nor will I worship those whom you have worshipped;,
Nor will ye worship that which I worship.
To you be your Way, and to me mine.
Caliph Ron al-Pauliyya for American Sultanate 2020
Body is purified by water. Ego by tears. Intellect is purified by knowledge. And soul is purified with love. ~hz. Ali ibn Abi Talib (ra)
Offen love between two people intensifies not because of beauty or some advantage, but because of sheer spiritual affinity. ~hz. Al Ghazali

User avatar
Pilarcraft
Senator
 
Posts: 3826
Founded: Dec 19, 2016
Ex-Nation

Postby Pilarcraft » Sun Apr 22, 2018 12:45 pm

Aulus Maximus wrote:
Pilarcraft wrote:That point is wrong though. You can't argue the very legitimacy of a religion from the lens of that very religion. That's not how it works. Once the two sides establish that the religion is legitimate, they start arguing through the religion's lens on the topics that are solely about that religion.

Why should we discuss the legitimacy of our religion with that of another one? There is no need for that, nor is it productive. For us Muslims truth has been revealed and casts a light in the world of kufr and disbelief. Ecumenism only leads to further lies and deception and bidah. That's why there is a whole Surah [Surah al Kafiroon] saying:

Say : O ye that reject Faith!
I worship not that which ye worship,
Nor will ye worship that which I worship.
Nor will I worship those whom you have worshipped;,
Nor will ye worship that which I worship.
To you be your Way, and to me mine.
That is exactly what Islam (to be fair, every religion)'s fault is. The stance that "I am right and you are wrong nyah nyah nyah I can't hear you" doesn't make you any less wrong. It just makes you self-aware that you are incapable of arguing for your religion in a non-fallacious (relatively non-fallacious) manner. I mean, obviously this argument isn't going to go on when you refuse to even bring any legitimate evidence in the first place (since, your only evidence is the statement of your prophet and your holy book) but that's not a proof of Islam being in the right. It's just a proof of Islam teaching her followers that they can't argue with anyone who doubts their -at best suspicious- claims.
Last edited by Pilarcraft on Sun Apr 22, 2018 12:46 pm, edited 1 time in total.
The Confederal Alliance of Pilarcraft ✺ That world will cease to be
Led by The Triumvirate.
OOC | Military | History |Language | Overview | Parties | Q&A | Factbooks
Proud Civic Persian Nationalist
B.P.D.: Dossier on parallel home-worlds released, will be updated regularly to include more encountered in the Convergence.

User avatar
Northern Davincia
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 16960
Founded: Jun 10, 2014
Ex-Nation

Postby Northern Davincia » Sun Apr 22, 2018 12:46 pm

Aulus Maximus wrote:
Pilarcraft wrote:"We can't discuss the legitimacy of the Islamic Claim while we're looking at it from the outside." is literally what you're saying.
You don't even know how to investigate the legitimacy of the claims of your religion. Islam, mistakenly -or intentionally, in order to give itself more legitimacy by connecting itself to the line of Abraham- claims that "Christianity was Islam, Judaism was Islam"... while it wasn't. Islam, or more accurately Muhammad, just missed the entire point of the Bible. that was just it. There would be no discussion if there was no skeptics. Your argument is being questioned. You can't use your argument to prove your argument is correct. You need some legitimate evidence, outside of your religion's point-of-view so as to support it. If you can't, that's on you (and, well, to a certain degree, your religion)

You're misunderstanding the importance of Islam. In Islam there is a solid worldview - that of kufr and shaytan and that of Islam and Prophethood. Anything that is other than the path of the Prophet (saws) in religious terms is clear cut kufr and should be dismissed. Like I dismiss your claim that Muhammed saws copy pasted a religion into eachother. It's simple kufr.

Dismissing is easy, disproving is hard.
Hoppean Libertarian, Acolyte of von Mises, Protector of Our Sacred Liberties
Economic Left/Right: 9.75
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -2.05
Conserative Morality wrote:"Two gin-scented tears trickled down the sides of his nose. But it was all right, everything was all right, the struggle was finished. He had won the victory over himself. He loved Big Hoppe."

User avatar
Western-Ukraine
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1164
Founded: Oct 27, 2014
Ex-Nation

Postby Western-Ukraine » Sun Apr 22, 2018 12:48 pm

Aulus Maximus wrote:
Pilarcraft wrote:That point is wrong though. You can't argue the very legitimacy of a religion from the lens of that very religion. That's not how it works. Once the two sides establish that the religion is legitimate, they start arguing through the religion's lens on the topics that are solely about that religion.

Why should we discuss the legitimacy of our religion with that of another one? There is no need for that, nor is it productive. For us Muslims truth has been revealed and casts a light in the world of kufr and disbelief. Ecumenism only leads to further lies and deception and bidah. That's why there is a whole Surah [Surah al Kafiroon] saying:

Say : O ye that reject Faith!
I worship not that which ye worship,
Nor will ye worship that which I worship.
Nor will I worship those whom you have worshipped;,
Nor will ye worship that which I worship.
To you be your Way, and to me mine.

What legitimacy is there if it can't be questioned and scrutinised in open discussion? Perhaps Islam is the truth for you, but anyone could make a similar argument about one's own religion. That is why debate is needed.
Factbooks: National Politics
Region: U R N

Politics is a zero-sum game.

User avatar
Aulus Maximus
Chargé d'Affaires
 
Posts: 452
Founded: Mar 20, 2018
Ex-Nation

Postby Aulus Maximus » Sun Apr 22, 2018 12:48 pm

Pilarcraft wrote:
Aulus Maximus wrote:Why should we discuss the legitimacy of our religion with that of another one? There is no need for that, nor is it productive. For us Muslims truth has been revealed and casts a light in the world of kufr and disbelief. Ecumenism only leads to further lies and deception and bidah. That's why there is a whole Surah [Surah al Kafiroon] saying:

That is exactly what Islam (to be fair, every religion)'s fault is. The stance that "I am right and you are wrong nyah nyah nyah I can't hear you" doesn't make you any less wrong. It just makes you self-aware that you are incapable of arguing for your religion in a non-fallacious (relatively non-fallacious) manner. I mean, obviously this argument isn't going to go on when you refuse to even bring any legitimate evidence in the first place (since, your only evidence is the statement of your prophet and your holy book) but that's not a proof of Islam being in the right. It's just a proof of Islam teaching her followers that they can't argue with anyone who doubts their -at best suspicious- claims.

I see no reason to defend it from any other viewpoint. I can explain to non-Muslims how Islam works, that's my dawa3h, but other than that I see no reason why I have to defend my faith. I have my faith, my worship, my believe, I have no need to prove it right. I believe it is.
Caliph Ron al-Pauliyya for American Sultanate 2020
Body is purified by water. Ego by tears. Intellect is purified by knowledge. And soul is purified with love. ~hz. Ali ibn Abi Talib (ra)
Offen love between two people intensifies not because of beauty or some advantage, but because of sheer spiritual affinity. ~hz. Al Ghazali

User avatar
Aulus Maximus
Chargé d'Affaires
 
Posts: 452
Founded: Mar 20, 2018
Ex-Nation

Postby Aulus Maximus » Sun Apr 22, 2018 12:49 pm

Western-Ukraine wrote:
Aulus Maximus wrote:Why should we discuss the legitimacy of our religion with that of another one? There is no need for that, nor is it productive. For us Muslims truth has been revealed and casts a light in the world of kufr and disbelief. Ecumenism only leads to further lies and deception and bidah. That's why there is a whole Surah [Surah al Kafiroon] saying:


What legitimacy is there if it can't be questioned and scrutinised in open discussion? Perhaps Islam is the truth for you, but anyone could make a similar argument about one's own religion. That is why debate is needed.

There is no need for debate. This thread is, from my awareness, here to explain how Islam works from an Islamic lense. Eucemenism is pure kufr and I will not take part of it.
Caliph Ron al-Pauliyya for American Sultanate 2020
Body is purified by water. Ego by tears. Intellect is purified by knowledge. And soul is purified with love. ~hz. Ali ibn Abi Talib (ra)
Offen love between two people intensifies not because of beauty or some advantage, but because of sheer spiritual affinity. ~hz. Al Ghazali

User avatar
Northern Davincia
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 16960
Founded: Jun 10, 2014
Ex-Nation

Postby Northern Davincia » Sun Apr 22, 2018 12:50 pm

Aulus Maximus wrote:
Pilarcraft wrote:That is exactly what Islam (to be fair, every religion)'s fault is. The stance that "I am right and you are wrong nyah nyah nyah I can't hear you" doesn't make you any less wrong. It just makes you self-aware that you are incapable of arguing for your religion in a non-fallacious (relatively non-fallacious) manner. I mean, obviously this argument isn't going to go on when you refuse to even bring any legitimate evidence in the first place (since, your only evidence is the statement of your prophet and your holy book) but that's not a proof of Islam being in the right. It's just a proof of Islam teaching her followers that they can't argue with anyone who doubts their -at best suspicious- claims.

I see no reason to defend it from any other viewpoint. I can explain to non-Muslims how Islam works, that's my dawa3h, but other than that I see no reason why I have to defend my faith. I have my faith, my worship, my believe, I have no need to prove it right. I believe it is.

What makes your faith distinct from any other divergent belief?
Hoppean Libertarian, Acolyte of von Mises, Protector of Our Sacred Liberties
Economic Left/Right: 9.75
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -2.05
Conserative Morality wrote:"Two gin-scented tears trickled down the sides of his nose. But it was all right, everything was all right, the struggle was finished. He had won the victory over himself. He loved Big Hoppe."

PreviousNext

Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to General

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Abserdia, Almighty Biden, Godular, Google [Bot], Highway Eighty-Eight, Kostane, Neanderthaland, New Fortilla, Rusozak, Shrillland, Socialist Lop, Statesburg, The H Corporation

Advertisement

Remove ads