The Islamic Discussion Thread ٤: It's Always Sunni In Arabia

[United Muscovite Nations]

Get your own thread for it instead of hijacking other people's thread for it.

Most of the CDT is agreement. It's a discussion thread, not a debate thread.

Report me for threadjacking if you believe I have done so or quit wannabe modding. This is done.

Okay I will.

[United Muscovite Nations]

Get your own thread for it instead of hijacking other people's thread for it.

Most of the CDT is agreement. It's a discussion thread, not a debate thread.

And North Korea is democratic.

Mods have actually said many times that NSG is not a debate board, it's a discussion board. Debate is part of discussion, but not all discussion needs to be debate.

[Kowani]

And North Korea is democratic.

Mods have actually said many times that NSG is not a debate board, it's a discussion board. Debate is part of discussion, but not all discussion needs to be debate.

Never said it was, but your statement implies mutual exclusivity.

[United Muscovite Nations]

Mods have actually said many times that NSG is not a debate board, it's a discussion board. Debate is part of discussion, but not all discussion needs to be debate.

Never said it was, but your statement implies mutual exclusivity.

There is a mutual exclusivity when you come in here every day to force debate on people who don't want to argue about it. Half the people who come here are here to stir up trouble with the Muslims.

[Sahansahiye Iran]

See, UMN, now this is a threadjack.

Back to topic: why would Islam ever discourage people from owning dogs? They're amazing

[Jolthig]

The wife isn't (always) dependent, but the husband does still pay child support nonetheless. And think about being "hit" without actually being hurt. I don't think you'd mind. Oh, and it's not "fucked up" because the sole determiner of omniversal morality gave that rule. But alas, Amin, you're on your own with this one.

Sorry to break it to you but the demon you worship is not the originator of morality. If it is, it sure does a shit job at it.

And yeah, I'd mind if someone that I didn't want to "hit" me without hurting me. If I am arguing with someone during an argument and they push me or poke me hard, yeah I'm gonna fucking mind.

Here we go, guys. This man has shown his own hatred for Allah and His Messenger (saw).

Which both sides know this, but specifically in this post is where he really shows his enmity for both.

A demon all over Surah 4:34

[Jolthig]

> Allah
> Demon

*shrugs* I mean, what makes him less of one than my gods, in your eyes? Cos he said so?

Well, for one, being omnipotent, omnipresent, and being the Lord of the Worlds in general. None of the gods you worship or don't worship even add up to this. Even Ahura Mazda himself.

Not to mention, my own experience in my own salats completely contradicts your claims of Allah supposedly being demonic. I know you don't care for this, but I for me, I'm still going to say so.

This is why I saw you really show your own hatred for Allah and Muhammad specifically in this part of the thread. Which now, I'm pretty convinced you have really lost your way, especially in this blasphemous saying. I really pray to Allah that he may remove this arrogance, enmity, and hatred in your heart that lingers.

[North German Realm]

That's still "cause he said so" and not an intelligent argument
But since this is the Idlamic Discussion thread I doubt he will be able to convince many that Allah is a demon.

What's the etymology for Allah? Can't be the same as Yahweh, no?

Given the meaning of the term YHWH, it probably is not. Allah (Al-Ilah, "The Deity") was one of the many deities in pre-Islamic Arabia (along with Lat, Manaat, Uzzah, a number of others that I can't think of right now).

[North German Realm]

*shrugs* I mean, what makes him less of one than my gods, in your eyes? Cos he said so?

Well, for one, being omnipotent, omnipresent, and being the Lord of the Worlds in general. None of the gods you worship or don't worship even add up to this. Even Ahura Mazda himself.

Not to mention, my own experience in my own salats completely contradicts your claims of Allah supposedly being demonic. I know you don't care for this, but I for me, I'm still going to say so.

This is why I saw you really show your own hatred for Allah and Muhammad specifically in this part of the thread. Which now, I'm pretty convinced you have really lost your way, especially in this blasphemous saying. I really pray to Allah that he may remove this arrogance, enmity, and hatred in your heart that lingers.

Why tho? Who says that Allah is even remotely close to All-powerful? His own words in Quran?
His actions in Quran show nothing close to "All-powerful", "All-good", or "All-knowing". He specifically appears as a flawed, petty vindictive immortal with too much free time and too little self-confidence. Which is your run of the mill immortal deity within the context of "mythological character"

One does not Quran (supposedly, Allah's own word) as evidence for his Omnibenevolence, omnipotence, or omniscience.

[Jolthig]

Well, for one, being omnipotent, omnipresent, and being the Lord of the Worlds in general. None of the gods you worship or don't worship even add up to this. Even Ahura Mazda himself.

Not to mention, my own experience in my own salats completely contradicts your claims of Allah supposedly being demonic. I know you don't care for this, but I for me, I'm still going to say so.

This is why I saw you really show your own hatred for Allah and Muhammad specifically in this part of the thread. Which now, I'm pretty convinced you have really lost your way, especially in this blasphemous saying. I really pray to Allah that he may remove this arrogance, enmity, and hatred in your heart that lingers.

Why tho? Who says that Allah is even remotely close to All-powerful? His own words in Quran?

Correct.

His actions in Quran show nothing close to "All-powerful", "All-good", or "All-knowing". He specifically appears as a flawed, petty vindictive immortal with too much free time and too little self-confidence. Which is your run of the mill immortal deity within the context of "mythological character"

Eh, yes they do. There is the concept of free will for humanity.

One does not Quran (supposedly, Allah's own word) as evidence for his Omnibenevolence, omnipotence, or omniscience.

The burden of proof is within the Quran itself. It gives you the option to believe or not.

[North German Realm]

Why tho? Who says that Allah is even remotely close to All-powerful? His own words in Quran?

Correct.

His actions in Quran show nothing close to "All-powerful", "All-good", or "All-knowing". He specifically appears as a flawed, petty vindictive immortal with too much free time and too little self-confidence. Which is your run of the mill immortal deity within the context of "mythological character"

Eh, yes they do. There is the concept of free will for humanity.

One does not Quran (supposedly, Allah's own word) as evidence for his Omnibenevolence, omnipotence, or omniscience.

The burden of proof is within the Quran itself. It gives you the option to believe or not.

So what you're saying is, "We have the choice to believe" that Allah is all-powerful, because a book that is allegedly dictated by him says so? If you legitimately can't see why this is a stupid argument, I don't know what to say to be honest.

[Jolthig]

Correct.


Eh, yes they do. There is the concept of free will for humanity.


The burden of proof is within the Quran itself. It gives you the option to believe or not.

So what you're saying is, "We have the choice to believe" that Allah is all-powerful, because a book that is allegedly dictated by him says so? If you legitimately can't see why this is a stupid argument, I don't know what to say to be honest.

There is nothing stupid about the argument. If you have faith, and truly believe in what the Quran says, especially when one has a sincere love for Allah, then there is nothing stupid about the argument.

[New Sukberia]

Correct.


Eh, yes they do. There is the concept of free will for humanity.


The burden of proof is within the Quran itself. It gives you the option to believe or not.

So what you're saying is, "We have the choice to believe" that Allah is all-powerful, because a book that is allegedly dictated by him says so? If you legitimately can't see why this is a stupid argument, I don't know what to say to be honest.

lmao

[North German Realm]

So what you're saying is, "We have the choice to believe" that Allah is all-powerful, because a book that is allegedly dictated by him says so? If you legitimately can't see why this is a stupid argument, I don't know what to say to be honest.

There is nothing stupid about the argument. If you have faith, and truly believe in what the Quran says, especially when one has a sincere love for Allah, then there is nothing stupid about the argument.

It's the very epitome of stupid, because the only way one can even accept it is remotely close to an argument is if it is an utterly stupid one. I don't mean any offense here -because honestly the entire point of faith is to believe, rather than try to understand- but at least learn some of the very flawed arguments people use to justify the existence of god rather than "God is all-powerful because he says so, We accept him for his word because he's all good... which is what he said".

Hell, accepting god as all-powerful because "If I don't accept it he'll throw me into a pit of fire. What an All-good god we have!" is better than that.

[Jolthig]

There is nothing stupid about the argument. If you have faith, and truly believe in what the Quran says, especially when one has a sincere love for Allah, then there is nothing stupid about the argument.

It's the very epitome of stupid, because the only way one can even accept it is remotely close to an argument is if it is an utterly stupid one. I don't mean any offense here -because honestly the entire point of faith is to believe, rather than try to understand- but at least learn some of the very flawed arguments people use to justify the existence of god rather than "God is all-powerful because he says so, We accept him for his word because he's all good... which is what he said".

Hell, accepting god as all-powerful because "If I don't accept it he'll throw me into a pit of fire. What an All-good god we have!" is better than that.

Not to a believer. Those who don't believe think it's stupid. That's why.

[North German Realm]

It's the very epitome of stupid, because the only way one can even accept it is remotely close to an argument is if it is an utterly stupid one. I don't mean any offense here -because honestly the entire point of faith is to believe, rather than try to understand- but at least learn some of the very flawed arguments people use to justify the existence of god rather than "God is all-powerful because he says so, We accept him for his word because he's all good... which is what he said".

Hell, accepting god as all-powerful because "If I don't accept it he'll throw me into a pit of fire. What an All-good god we have!" is better than that.

Not to a believer. Those who don't believe think it's stupid. That's why.

I'll be honest. I... don't think we can argue like this if you're arguing in such bad faith.

[Jolthig]

Not to a believer. Those who don't believe think it's stupid. That's why.

I'll be honest. I... don't think we can argue like this if you're arguing in such bad faith.

It all started from someone who argued in bad faith in the first place by calling Allah, "demonic" *cough*.

[North German Realm]

I'll be honest. I... don't think we can argue like this if you're arguing in such bad faith.

It all started from someone who argued in bad faith in the first place by calling Allah, "demonic" *cough*.

Considering the form of shit he does and gloats of in Quran alone, calling him "Demonic" is only an understatement. He's the most malevolent deity in your religion.

[Jolthig]

It all started from someone who argued in bad faith in the first place by calling Allah, "demonic" *cough*.

Considering the form of shit he does and gloats of in Quran alone, calling him "Demonic" is only an understatement. He's the most malevolent deity in your religion.

No he is not.

Surah Fatiha literally states he is the most merciful, and Surah Yusuf and several other surahs prove to the contrary of your claims.

[North German Realm]

Considering the form of shit he does and gloats of in Quran alone, calling him "Demonic" is only an understatement. He's the most malevolent deity in your religion.

No he is not.

Surah Fatiha literally states he is the most merciful, and Surah Yusuf and several other surahs prove to the contrary of your claims.

He calls himself "Most Merciful", but he commits genocide on multiple accounts (including a failed species wide attempt to genocide), commits gruesome acts of murder, collective punishment, demands full-on obedience from his subjects, and does the literary equivalent of ego-masturbation once every few verses. His actions show the total opposite of his words, and that makes sense, as he is designed as your garden variety run of the mill vindictive god.

[Jakker]

Sorry to break it to you but the demon you worship is not the originator of morality. If it is, it sure does a shit job at it.

Regardless of how you feel about a religion, referring to a religion's higher deity as a "demon" gets into flamebait terrority. Unofficial warning for flamebaiting.

[El-Amin Caliphate]

Exactly. Saying “I only enslave certain people”, “I give my slaves some protections”, “God says it is okay” is the same shit we hear from slave owners of all different types.
They are still BS arguments. Slavery cannot be made good.

He's actually had the audacity to condemn the CSA and slavery in the Antebellum South and then defend Islamist Slavery on the same page.

Of course, they're 2 different types of slavery.

Don't you guys know that you have to support everything that the leaders of an ideology you follow agree with? Don't you know you're not allowed to use critical thinking to interpret your religion in ways that make more sense? It's not like we can learn from history that some of our ideological heroes were wrong or anything, so even if slavery is clearly dehumanizing, we have to support it because Islamic clerics, most of whom likely hadn't spent much time studying the dehumanizing effects of slavery, said that there's some wiggle room where it could be ethical.

Some scholars say Islamic slavery shouldn't be practiced anymore. Also, I'm talking about Islamic slavery, not slavery in general.

Regarding the argument over slavery, the expressed stances aren't altogether surprising. El-Amin's ideology is rooted in a fundamentalist interpretation of Islam that invests all moral authority in G-d and in his final prophet Mohammed.

That's not fundamentalist, that's how Islamic theology works (basically. There's more detail but I digress).

As these are the sole arbiters of morality and dictate the scope and limits of moral conduct, whatever they have to say regarding slavery is authoritative and correct. Adhering to this mode of thought, slavery is at least morally neutral and is at most morally mandated.

It's neutral. You do not have to own slaves in Al-Islam. In fact, it's better to free them.

I don't necessarily agree with this perspective, but we're employing largely secular logic and qualms to argue a moral conclusion rooted in Islamic jurisprudence and scripture. I actually find slavery to be morally repugnant, even when described in Torah, and tend to gravitate towards later Jewish thought on the matter. There are passages in the Talmud describing the enslavement of Jews in gory detail and, in sympathy to those who came before me, I could not in good conscience do anything but condemn slavery as a practice and institution.

That said, I thought my intervention here might help elucidate why the opinions differ here and why those differences will be next to impossible to resolve without stepping into and arguing from another person's perspective. In this instance, it's a theological more so than a philosophical argument - but then ideology/philosophy is arguably just secularized theology if I'm ripping of Carl Schmitt. That said, I don't get the argument that Islamic slavery is less bad than chattel slavery because x. G-d says its halal should be how that ends from an Islamic perspective. My likely retort would be G-d doesn't make it a sin, but, if we consider the underlying precepts of Islam

Wdym?

and the practice itself, it's dehumanizing and disrespectful to G-d's creation.

It still depends on how you treat them tho. Like if if you're encouraged to free slaves - as Al-Islam teaches - then that's infinitely better than other forms of slavery.

[Al-Ghaihr]

Salam folks,

I was watching some Youtube videos and saw a video about a young Pakistani sister who became a Fighter Jet pilot. Unfortunately her plane suffered a malfunction over a rural area and she had to eject out, later dying in a military hospital. She went on to be awarded Pakistan's highest honor.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M9hjFoNuQBQ

EDIT: They made a movie about her, if anyone's interested.

[Sahansahiye Iran]

Considering the form of shit he does and gloats of in Quran alone, calling him "Demonic" is only an understatement. He's the most malevolent deity in your religion.

No he is not.

Surah Fatiha literally states he is the most merciful, and Surah Yusuf and several other surahs prove to the contrary of your claims.

Lmao so since he literally calls himself the most merciful, that must make it true?

[Sahansahiye Iran]

*shrugs* I mean, what makes him less of one than my gods, in your eyes? Cos he said so?

Well, for one, being omnipotent, omnipresent, and being the Lord of the Worlds in general. None of the gods you worship or don't worship even add up to this. Even Ahura Mazda himself.

And you know he's omnipotent because he says so? That makes him not one? Do you really not understand how circular this logic is?