Misconceptions or Questions about Islam and Muslims?

[Insaanistan]

We all go to the same heaven. But because A, B, and C have different lives. They must do different things to attain it. The poor person must do less and is able to do less to get to heaven. The richer person is able to do more, so he must do more.

Which comes back to what I am saying. The wealthy person, by virtue of being born to a place where he will naturally be predisposed to be wealthier than the poorest in the world, has more burden placed on his shoulders just to get the same reward as the poorest.

Additionally, there are seven levels of heaven.

So sayeth Ibn Abbas, some random Arab tribesman who happens to be a relative of Mohammad; not the Quran, so this is bullshit, not to mention that the concept of different levels of heaven is logically incompatible with everybody going to the same heaven. Tossing it right out. Alternatively, relatives of Mohammad are also somehow sources of Islam, despite the Quran itself stating otherwise:

And [mention] the Day when We will resurrect among every nation a witness over them from themselves. And We will bring you, [O Muhammad], as a witness over your nation. And We have sent down to you the Book as clarification for all things and as guidance and mercy and good tidings for the Muslims.

Let's repeat that: "... And We have sent down to you the Book as clarification for all things". Clarification for all things. Ergo, there should not be a thing that the Quran does not explain. Therefore, I should not need some Arab tribesman to explain something to me, because the Quran already proclaims to do so. But let's look further.

And We will turn away their hearts and their eyes just as they refused to believe in it the first time. And We will leave them in their transgression, wandering blindly.

Oh, look. Some infidels who are permanently being renderred unable to convert by divine intervention, thus condemning them to eternal hellfire. Anyway, this is a digression meant to put the following in context. What we want is Al-An'am, verse 114:

[Say], "Then is it other than Allah I should seek as judge while it is He who has revealed to you the Book explained in detail?" And those to whom We [previously] gave the Scripture know that it is sent down from your Lord in truth, so never be among the doubters.

So, again, we have the Book being "explained in detail". In fact, as an-Nahl came after al-An'am, God is simply reiterating and reinforcing the exclusively sufficient nature of the Quran.

A rich person who gave 5% every year out of duty to God and goodness in his heart can go to the highest level heaven, and be with the poor person who simply lived his life as best he could and was thankful to God for what little he had.

Addressed why this was rubbish, moving on.

What a soul can bear is not simply they have been scarred. Everyone’s situation could somehow get worse.

And yet, that does not mean that you should subject them to abuse in the first place.

You think I don’t want the Sierra Leonian fed? Many of my family members used live like him. Some still do.

What you want is not what we are discussing here; we are discussing what your God wants. He doesn't seem to be inclined to feed them.

And as I have said before, if those billionaires were giving zakat and sadaqa, his situation would not be nearly as bad.

And yet, they aren't. God, having demonstrated his capacity and willingness to interfere in human minds and actions - refer to 6:110 - is refraining from acting when he obviously can.

And as for the one about pregnant women:
https://www.livescience.com/amp/8146-pr ... blems.html

Read your sources before posting them.

"We know for sure that sex steroids at high levels can have damaging effects on neurons," Farrar told LiveScience, though she added that it's impossible to know if this is indeed the case from this study alone.

Emphasis mine.

"We can't really check to see what's happening, so it's pretty difficult really," Farrar said. "We can only speculate that it could be the sex steroid levels that are affecting cognitive function."

Emphasis mine.

Farrar noted that not all pregnant women will experience this decline in memory. But for those who do seem to think they're having more memory problems as their pregnancy progresses, it might help if scientists could determine that it was a normal reaction that dissipated after birth.

Emphasis mine.

Try again.

He has to do more for the same reward, because he has the ability to do more. If a kid with asthma runs 1/10 of a mile in late spring, why should he not get a bigger reaction from the PE teacher than a student with no health complications who did the same. Yes, you ran, good job, but you can do more than the kid with asthma.

Read Qur’ân verses 2:29 and 78:12. Maybe that will jog your memory on where Ibn Ābbas got that idea.

There is no problem with the Qur’ân. The problem is us: we are not 7th century Arabs. Despite this being the first time Islam was revealed as a religion for all of mankind, it still was revealed to the Arabs. Why? Possibly, you have noticed that many Arabs seem to see themselves as better than other Muslims because the Qur’ân was revealed to them. However, it is quite the opposite: God reveals his message to whomever needs it most. So, why should you understand all the references? When the Qur’ân says, “stop burying babies just because their female”, and you don’t know what it’s talking about, that doesn’t make it invalid.

I don’t understand what you are trying to say here. You didn’t refute any of my claims on memory loss and pregnancy. You just did what all “Islamists” and Islamophobes do: cherrypick.
Since you obviously need more convincing:
https://www.cnn.com/2008/HEALTH/conditi ... index.html
https://amp.theguardian.com/science/200 ... .pregnancy
https://www.independent.co.uk/life-styl ... 1.html?amp

[Vistulange]

Which comes back to what I am saying. The wealthy person, by virtue of being born to a place where he will naturally be predisposed to be wealthier than the poorest in the world, has more burden placed on his shoulders just to get the same reward as the poorest.

So sayeth Ibn Abbas, some random Arab tribesman who happens to be a relative of Mohammad; not the Quran, so this is bullshit, not to mention that the concept of different levels of heaven is logically incompatible with everybody going to the same heaven. Tossing it right out. Alternatively, relatives of Mohammad are also somehow sources of Islam, despite the Quran itself stating otherwise:

Let's repeat that: "... And We have sent down to you the Book as clarification for all things". Clarification for all things. Ergo, there should not be a thing that the Quran does not explain. Therefore, I should not need some Arab tribesman to explain something to me, because the Quran already proclaims to do so. But let's look further.

Oh, look. Some infidels who are permanently being renderred unable to convert by divine intervention, thus condemning them to eternal hellfire. Anyway, this is a digression meant to put the following in context. What we want is Al-An'am, verse 114:

So, again, we have the Book being "explained in detail". In fact, as an-Nahl came after al-An'am, God is simply reiterating and reinforcing the exclusively sufficient nature of the Quran.

Addressed why this was rubbish, moving on.

And yet, that does not mean that you should subject them to abuse in the first place.

What you want is not what we are discussing here; we are discussing what your God wants. He doesn't seem to be inclined to feed them.

And yet, they aren't. God, having demonstrated his capacity and willingness to interfere in human minds and actions - refer to 6:110 - is refraining from acting when he obviously can.

Read your sources before posting them.

Emphasis mine.

Emphasis mine.

Emphasis mine.

Try again.

He has to do more for the same reward, because he has the ability to do more. If a kid with asthma runs 1/10 of a mile in late spring, why should he not get a bigger reaction from the PE teacher than a student with no health complications who did the same. Yes, you ran, good job, but you can do more than the kid with asthma.

Read Qur’ân verses 2:29 and 78:12. Maybe that will jog your memory on where Ibn Ābbas got that idea.

There is no problem with the Qur’ân. The problem is us: we are not 7th century Arabs. Despite this being the first time Islam was revealed as a religion for all of mankind, it still was revealed to the Arabs. Why? Possibly, you have noticed that many Arabs seem to see themselves as better than other Muslims because the Qur’ân was revealed to them. However, it is quite the opposite: God reveals his message to whomever needs it most. So, why should you understand all the references? When the Qur’ân says, “stop burying babies just because their female”, and you don’t know what it’s talking about, that doesn’t make it invalid.

I don’t understand what you are trying to say here. You didn’t refute any of my claims on memory loss and pregnancy. You just did what all “Islamists” and Islamophobes do: cherrypick.
Since you obviously need more convincing:
https://www.cnn.com/2008/HEALTH/conditi ... index.html
https://amp.theguardian.com/science/200 ... .pregnancy
https://www.independent.co.uk/life-styl ... 1.html?amp

Again, this would make total sense if we were talking about humans. However, it is God that effectively gave the wealthier more, and expects more of him. Perhaps, had it been left up to the wealthy man, he would have preferred less wealth with correspondingly less burden. His agency over his burden and responsibility has been taken away from him, hence malevolence. We humans recognise the feat accomplished by the asthmatic, because asthma is often something that one has no direct control over, whereas God has full control over whether his creations will be healthy or unhealthy, wealthy or poor, and so on. In electing to have that particular creation wealthy, God is putting upon him more burden in regards to faith but easing his life, conversely, in choosing to have another creation poor and diseased, God is actively making him suffer, though less burden is placed in regards to faith. Therefore, God is also sadistic, as he seems to have very little issue with his creation suffering solely so that they may worship him.

And no, don't say "this life is temporary". Abuse is still abuse - whether it is temporary or not is completely irrelevant.

If we are not 7th century Arabs, we need not adhere to a book sent to 7th century Arabs. If the book is universal, then its phrases ought to be universal, as well. Anyway, funnily enough, all those people that are supposed to be explaining religion, that you put so much stock in, are divided in the issue of the seven heavens, as well. They can't seem to agree on whether those two verses you've provided mean seven heavens in the literal sense, or if it's a metaphor for "many worlds" created by God, as the word "seven" in several Semitic languages pass for "plenty". Figures.

Oh, seeing we brought up the concept of seven heavens, that's also a major component of ancient Mesopotamian religions, as well. Big coincidence, I'd say, for God to base his religion - almost all of them, actually - on Mesopotamian religions. I'm sure you'll come up with an excuse for that.

Moreover, the point stands: If there are seven heavens, which you imply to be different, then we are not going to the same heaven. There is segregation between Muslims, and God does this on a whim. Therefore, in light of no scarcity, God is immoral, discriminating, and malevolent.

Finally, Insaanistan, please read the links you appear to have Googled and picked according to the headlines. The first two literally describe the exact same story - both of them reference Dr Julie Henry - and here are some takeaways from the articles.

"The memory loss is subtle, and usually involves unfamiliar or demanding tasks..."

"The researchers could not establish whether the forgetfulness lasts longer because none of the research they analyzed went beyond the one-year observational period."

The Guardian piece also has an interesting point: "I think that for some women it starts during your first pregnancy because you're stressed about it and you get bogged down with all the preparations. Then, once you've got a child or children, you're bound to forget things because you're always on duty, doing things and attending to your kids."

Basically, there's nothing that establishes that pregnant women experience substantial memory loss, never mind in a degree even relevant to court hearings. Not only is God malevolent, sadistic, and immoral, but he's also sexist. Brilliant.

So, you initially asked why I'm no longer a Muslim. You have your answer, and I do not appreciate the likes of you trying to proselytise. I find it unethical and immoral to worship the Abrahamic God, and the Islamic God is no exception.

[Insaanistan]

He has to do more for the same reward, because he has the ability to do more. If a kid with asthma runs 1/10 of a mile in late spring, why should he not get a bigger reaction from the PE teacher than a student with no health complications who did the same. Yes, you ran, good job, but you can do more than the kid with asthma.

Read Qur’ân verses 2:29 and 78:12. Maybe that will jog your memory on where Ibn Ābbas got that idea.

There is no problem with the Qur’ân. The problem is us: we are not 7th century Arabs. Despite this being the first time Islam was revealed as a religion for all of mankind, it still was revealed to the Arabs. Why? Possibly, you have noticed that many Arabs seem to see themselves as better than other Muslims because the Qur’ân was revealed to them. However, it is quite the opposite: God reveals his message to whomever needs it most. So, why should you understand all the references? When the Qur’ân says, “stop burying babies just because their female”, and you don’t know what it’s talking about, that doesn’t make it invalid.

I don’t understand what you are trying to say here. You didn’t refute any of my claims on memory loss and pregnancy. You just did what all “Islamists” and Islamophobes do: cherrypick.
Since you obviously need more convincing:
https://www.cnn.com/2008/HEALTH/conditi ... index.html
https://amp.theguardian.com/science/200 ... .pregnancy
https://www.independent.co.uk/life-styl ... 1.html?amp

Again, this would make total sense if we were talking about humans. However, it is God that effectively gave the wealthier more, and expects more of him. Perhaps, had it been left up to the wealthy man, he would have preferred less wealth with correspondingly less burden. His agency over his burden and responsibility has been taken away from him, hence malevolence. We humans recognise the feat accomplished by the asthmatic, because asthma is often something that one has no direct control over, whereas God has full control over whether his creations will be healthy or unhealthy, wealthy or poor, and so on. In electing to have that particular creation wealthy, God is putting upon him more burden in regards to faith but easing his life, conversely, in choosing to have another creation poor and diseased, God is actively making him suffer, though less burden is placed in regards to faith. Therefore, God is also sadistic, as he seems to have very little issue with his creation suffering solely so that they may worship him.

And no, don't say "this life is temporary". Abuse is still abuse - whether it is temporary or not is completely irrelevant.

If we are not 7th century Arabs, we need not adhere to a book sent to 7th century Arabs. If the book is universal, then its phrases ought to be universal, as well. Anyway, funnily enough, all those people that are supposed to be explaining religion, that you put so much stock in, are divided in the issue of the seven heavens, as well. They can't seem to agree on whether those two verses you've provided mean seven heavens in the literal sense, or if it's a metaphor for "many worlds" created by God, as the word "seven" in several Semitic languages pass for "plenty". Figures.

Oh, seeing we brought up the concept of seven heavens, that's also a major component of ancient Mesopotamian religions, as well. Big coincidence, I'd say, for God to base his religion - almost all of them, actually - on Mesopotamian religions. I'm sure you'll come up with an excuse for that.

Moreover, the point stands: If there are seven heavens, which you imply to be different, then we are not going to the same heaven. There is segregation between Muslims, and God does this on a whim. Therefore, in light of no scarcity, God is immoral, discriminating, and malevolent.

Finally, Insaanistan, please read the links you appear to have Googled and picked according to the headlines. The first two literally describe the exact same story - both of them reference Dr Julie Henry - and here are some takeaways from the articles.

"The memory loss is subtle, and usually involves unfamiliar or demanding tasks..."

"The researchers could not establish whether the forgetfulness lasts longer because none of the research they analyzed went beyond the one-year observational period."

The Guardian piece also has an interesting point: "I think that for some women it starts during your first pregnancy because you're stressed about it and you get bogged down with all the preparations. Then, once you've got a child or children, you're bound to forget things because you're always on duty, doing things and attending to your kids."

Basically, there's nothing that establishes that pregnant women experience substantial memory loss, never mind in a degree even relevant to court hearings. Not only is God malevolent, sadistic, and immoral, but he's also sexist. Brilliant.

So, you initially asked why I'm no longer a Muslim. You have your answer, and I do not appreciate the likes of you trying to proselytise. I find it unethical and immoral to worship the Abrahamic God, and the Islamic God is no exception.

I’m not trying to proselytize you; I’m just trying to show you why you’re perception of Islam is wrong.
What kind of rich person wishes they were poor? I cannot think of a single one. We cheer on the asthmatic kid not because it’s outside his control he has asthma, but because he has it and he still did something. Let see what would happen if everyone was poor or everyone was rich.
Everyone is poor: no one can perform zakat, because no one is rich enough. Additionally, no one is less fortunate than their neighbor, so sadaqa is scarce.
Everyone is rich: Yay! We’re all rich! Again, no one performs zakat, because no one can. It’s only to people who can’t support themselves. And, less people are praying, because rich people often follow Islam’s tenets less. There is drinking, smoking and adultery.

Read The Beggar’s Strike, one of my favorite African books. You’ll see one reason poor and rich people need each other.

Ah yes, God is definitely abusing his creations. It’s not like if you suffer in this life but are a good person you get eternal happiness the next life. Oh wait! Ya do! Do I like suffering? No. Do I know there’s always a reason it happened? Yes.

God always reveals the book in the language of the people he was first preaching to. What do you want? For the Qur’ân to say “Go to heaven! It’s lit!”? You can easily understand it by doing research.

Did you not pay attention as a kid or did no one ever teach you this? It is the Islamic belief that all religions are corruptions of the true message. We also believe a prophet was sent to every people. If God was repeatedly saying the same thing, why would some aspects be kept? What’s next: Islam borrowed monotheism from Native Americans who worship one spirit?

It is not discrimination. If you do more good deeds, you get into a higher level, and you can visit people in a different level. Should everyone get the same reward if someone barely gets into heaven and someone else has good scales that far outweigh their bad ones?

Your failed attempt at cherrypicking doesn’t prove anything. You actually helped my argument. You quoted

the memory loss is subtle, and usually involves unfamiliar and demanding tasks.

Since when is going to court a familiar and easy task for anyone but a lawyer or judge? Your quotes never state pregnant women don’t experience memory loss. They just state we don’t know why.

Yes you have answered, but poorly, my friend. Seriously, man.

[Vistulange]

Again, this would make total sense if we were talking about humans. However, it is God that effectively gave the wealthier more, and expects more of him. Perhaps, had it been left up to the wealthy man, he would have preferred less wealth with correspondingly less burden. His agency over his burden and responsibility has been taken away from him, hence malevolence. We humans recognise the feat accomplished by the asthmatic, because asthma is often something that one has no direct control over, whereas God has full control over whether his creations will be healthy or unhealthy, wealthy or poor, and so on. In electing to have that particular creation wealthy, God is putting upon him more burden in regards to faith but easing his life, conversely, in choosing to have another creation poor and diseased, God is actively making him suffer, though less burden is placed in regards to faith. Therefore, God is also sadistic, as he seems to have very little issue with his creation suffering solely so that they may worship him.

And no, don't say "this life is temporary". Abuse is still abuse - whether it is temporary or not is completely irrelevant.

If we are not 7th century Arabs, we need not adhere to a book sent to 7th century Arabs. If the book is universal, then its phrases ought to be universal, as well. Anyway, funnily enough, all those people that are supposed to be explaining religion, that you put so much stock in, are divided in the issue of the seven heavens, as well. They can't seem to agree on whether those two verses you've provided mean seven heavens in the literal sense, or if it's a metaphor for "many worlds" created by God, as the word "seven" in several Semitic languages pass for "plenty". Figures.

Oh, seeing we brought up the concept of seven heavens, that's also a major component of ancient Mesopotamian religions, as well. Big coincidence, I'd say, for God to base his religion - almost all of them, actually - on Mesopotamian religions. I'm sure you'll come up with an excuse for that.

Moreover, the point stands: If there are seven heavens, which you imply to be different, then we are not going to the same heaven. There is segregation between Muslims, and God does this on a whim. Therefore, in light of no scarcity, God is immoral, discriminating, and malevolent.

Finally, Insaanistan, please read the links you appear to have Googled and picked according to the headlines. The first two literally describe the exact same story - both of them reference Dr Julie Henry - and here are some takeaways from the articles.

"The memory loss is subtle, and usually involves unfamiliar or demanding tasks..."

"The researchers could not establish whether the forgetfulness lasts longer because none of the research they analyzed went beyond the one-year observational period."

The Guardian piece also has an interesting point: "I think that for some women it starts during your first pregnancy because you're stressed about it and you get bogged down with all the preparations. Then, once you've got a child or children, you're bound to forget things because you're always on duty, doing things and attending to your kids."

Basically, there's nothing that establishes that pregnant women experience substantial memory loss, never mind in a degree even relevant to court hearings. Not only is God malevolent, sadistic, and immoral, but he's also sexist. Brilliant.

So, you initially asked why I'm no longer a Muslim. You have your answer, and I do not appreciate the likes of you trying to proselytise. I find it unethical and immoral to worship the Abrahamic God, and the Islamic God is no exception.

I’m not trying to proselytize you; I’m just trying to show you why you’re perception of Islam is wrong.
What kind of rich person wishes they were poor? I cannot think of a single one. We cheer on the asthmatic kid not because it’s outside his control he has asthma, but because he has it and he still did something. Let see what would happen if everyone was poor or everyone was rich.
Everyone is poor: no one can perform zakat, because no one is rich enough. Additionally, no one is less fortunate than their neighbor, so sadaqa is scarce.
Everyone is rich: Yay! We’re all rich! Again, no one performs zakat, because no one can. It’s only to people who can’t support themselves. And, less people are praying, because rich people often follow Islam’s tenets less. There is drinking, smoking and adultery.

Read The Beggar’s Strike, one of my favorite African books. You’ll see one reason poor and rich people need each other.

Ah yes, God is definitely abusing his creations. It’s not like if you suffer in this life but are a good person you get eternal happiness the next life. Oh wait! Ya do! Do I like suffering? No. Do I know there’s always a reason it happened? Yes.

God always reveals the book in the language of the people he was first preaching to. What do you want? For the Qur’ân to say “Go to heaven! It’s lit!”? You can easily understand it by doing research.

Did you not pay attention as a kid or did no one ever teach you this? It is the Islamic belief that all religions are corruptions of the true message. We also believe a prophet was sent to every people. If God was repeatedly saying the same thing, why would some aspects be kept? What’s next: Islam borrowed monotheism from Native Americans who worship one spirit?

It is not discrimination. If you do more good deeds, you get into a higher level, and you can visit people in a different level. Should everyone get the same reward if someone barely gets into heaven and someone else has good scales that far outweigh their bad ones?

Your failed attempt at cherrypicking doesn’t prove anything. You actually helped my argument. You quoted

the memory loss is subtle, and usually involves unfamiliar and demanding tasks.

Since when is going to court a familiar and easy task for anyone but a lawyer or judge? Your quotes never state pregnant women don’t experience memory loss. They just state we don’t know why.

Yes you have answered, but poorly, my friend. Seriously, man.

Have you ever been to court, yourself? I mean, you speak as though you're full of experience, when you're barely of age to be on this forum, by your own admission. You do realise that a massive bunch of cases aren't as dramatic as they look on television, yes? The fact that your faith has indoctrinated you, a person of youth, into furiously digging up headlines trying to support his sexism, is evidence enough that Islam is immoral.

The notion that "all religions are corruptions of the true message" is a cop-out, nothing more. Religions are fabricated purely by man to establish a consistent worldview. That is all.

Also, it's not called "cherrypicking". Cherrypicking is when you leave out parts of data to give a less-than full picture. An example would be, say, including five studies which state that pregnant woman experience significant memory loss, out of a total of hundred, and then going on to state that pregnancies cause memory loss. The other 95 are left out. That is cherrypicking. What I am doing is reading the sources you provided. You might want to read some stuff that isn't a book of fairy tales and a bunch of tribesmen's interpretations of those fairy tales.

Your argument about zakat is a circular argument. Supposedly, zakat is meant to alleviate poverty - by your admission, I'd like to remind you: "if everybody gave zakat there would be no poverty" - but at the same time, if nobody was poor, there wouldn't be a capability to do zakat, so we can't have that either.

Thanks, you've cleared up a massive misconception in my mind, which I suppose was the purpose of the thread. There isn't a variant of Islam that isn't bigoted and isn't focused around the worship of a malevolent entity. You're literally trying to proselytise your beliefs to a person who has read about your beliefs for as long as you have been alive. You might want to take a step back from the Internet.

[Insaanistan]

I’m not trying to proselytize you; I’m just trying to show you why you’re perception of Islam is wrong.
What kind of rich person wishes they were poor? I cannot think of a single one. We cheer on the asthmatic kid not because it’s outside his control he has asthma, but because he has it and he still did something. Let see what would happen if everyone was poor or everyone was rich.
Everyone is poor: no one can perform zakat, because no one is rich enough. Additionally, no one is less fortunate than their neighbor, so sadaqa is scarce.
Everyone is rich: Yay! We’re all rich! Again, no one performs zakat, because no one can. It’s only to people who can’t support themselves. And, less people are praying, because rich people often follow Islam’s tenets less. There is drinking, smoking and adultery.

Read The Beggar’s Strike, one of my favorite African books. You’ll see one reason poor and rich people need each other.

Ah yes, God is definitely abusing his creations. It’s not like if you suffer in this life but are a good person you get eternal happiness the next life. Oh wait! Ya do! Do I like suffering? No. Do I know there’s always a reason it happened? Yes.

God always reveals the book in the language of the people he was first preaching to. What do you want? For the Qur’ân to say “Go to heaven! It’s lit!”? You can easily understand it by doing research.

Did you not pay attention as a kid or did no one ever teach you this? It is the Islamic belief that all religions are corruptions of the true message. We also believe a prophet was sent to every people. If God was repeatedly saying the same thing, why would some aspects be kept? What’s next: Islam borrowed monotheism from Native Americans who worship one spirit?

It is not discrimination. If you do more good deeds, you get into a higher level, and you can visit people in a different level. Should everyone get the same reward if someone barely gets into heaven and someone else has good scales that far outweigh their bad ones?

Your failed attempt at cherrypicking doesn’t prove anything. You actually helped my argument. You quoted Since when is going to court a familiar and easy task for anyone but a lawyer or judge? Your quotes never state pregnant women don’t experience memory loss. They just state we don’t know why.

Yes you have answered, but poorly, my friend. Seriously, man.

Have you ever been to court, yourself? I mean, you speak as though you're full of experience, when you're barely of age to be on this forum, by your own admission. You do realise that a massive bunch of cases aren't as dramatic as they look on television, yes? The fact that your faith has indoctrinated you, a person of youth, into furiously digging up headlines trying to support his sexism, is evidence enough that Islam is immoral.

The notion that "all religions are corruptions of the true message" is a cop-out, nothing more. Religions are fabricated purely by man to establish a consistent worldview. That is all.

Also, it's not called "cherrypicking". Cherrypicking is when you leave out parts of data to give a less-than full picture. An example would be, say, including five studies which state that pregnant woman experience significant memory loss, out of a total of hundred, and then going on to state that pregnancies cause memory loss. The other 95 are left out. That is cherrypicking. What I am doing is reading the sources you provided. You might want to read some stuff that isn't a book of fairy tales and a bunch of tribesmen's interpretations of those fairy tales.

Your argument about zakat is a circular argument. Supposedly, zakat is meant to alleviate poverty - by your admission, I'd like to remind you: "if everybody gave zakat there would be no poverty" - but at the same time, if nobody was poor, there wouldn't be a capability to do zakat, so we can't have that either.

Thanks, you've cleared up a massive misconception in my mind, which I suppose was the purpose of the thread. There isn't a variant of Islam that isn't bigoted and isn't focused around the worship of a malevolent entity. You're literally trying to proselytise your beliefs to a person who has read about your beliefs for as long as you have been alive. You might want to take a step back from the Internet.

Yes, I’ve been to court. My family has had immigration trouble before. I spent months scared that one day, my dad would be taken away, despite his legal status (thanks Trump).
Islam is not in anyway sexist. If you were to read the Qur’ân correctly, and actually research before you conclude “Sexist. Stupid. Fairytales.”, maybe you’d know that. Islam has not indoctrinated me with anything negative. It’s not sexist, it’s not a fairytale, it’s not malevolent, and if you read the Qur’ân, you’d get that, so just stop pretending it is what it’s not. If you are still going to keep on believing these lies, I can provide you verses of the very book you claim is wrong to prove my point.
Zakah is meant to help the poor. The Qur’ân maintains that there will always be people who don’t follow Islam correctly, which again, you’d know if you read it correctly.
The length of time you have read on Islam doesn’t mean you read it correctly. I feel sorry for your younger self, a child, or maybe a teenager, led away from his beliefs because of misinterpretation and ignorance. Again, I almost was that person.
Islam is not bigoted, it’s not sexist, and it’s not malevolent. The fact you believe God doesn’t exist because your life and other people’s lives aren’t perfect is a bit saddening, and I also wonder if ever think that maybe you should read and research a religion’s holy book and doctrine before you go on the internet posting blatant lies about it. Again, I will post my sources from the internet, Qur’ân and Hadith if you still have lies filling your head. Your ignorance of Islam is quite massive, so I suggest you pick up a Qur’ân (again, with commentary and explanation) and read it. I’m still not trying to make you a Muslim, I just want you to stop spreading lies, which as a Muslim, is very important to me.

[Vistulange]

Have you ever been to court, yourself? I mean, you speak as though you're full of experience, when you're barely of age to be on this forum, by your own admission. You do realise that a massive bunch of cases aren't as dramatic as they look on television, yes? The fact that your faith has indoctrinated you, a person of youth, into furiously digging up headlines trying to support his sexism, is evidence enough that Islam is immoral.

The notion that "all religions are corruptions of the true message" is a cop-out, nothing more. Religions are fabricated purely by man to establish a consistent worldview. That is all.

Also, it's not called "cherrypicking". Cherrypicking is when you leave out parts of data to give a less-than full picture. An example would be, say, including five studies which state that pregnant woman experience significant memory loss, out of a total of hundred, and then going on to state that pregnancies cause memory loss. The other 95 are left out. That is cherrypicking. What I am doing is reading the sources you provided. You might want to read some stuff that isn't a book of fairy tales and a bunch of tribesmen's interpretations of those fairy tales.

Your argument about zakat is a circular argument. Supposedly, zakat is meant to alleviate poverty - by your admission, I'd like to remind you: "if everybody gave zakat there would be no poverty" - but at the same time, if nobody was poor, there wouldn't be a capability to do zakat, so we can't have that either.

Thanks, you've cleared up a massive misconception in my mind, which I suppose was the purpose of the thread. There isn't a variant of Islam that isn't bigoted and isn't focused around the worship of a malevolent entity. You're literally trying to proselytise your beliefs to a person who has read about your beliefs for as long as you have been alive. You might want to take a step back from the Internet.

Yes, I’ve been to court. My family has had immigration trouble before. I spent months scared that one day, my dad would be taken away, despite his legal status (thanks Trump).
Islam is not in anyway sexist. If you were to read the Qur’ân correctly, and actually research before you conclude “Sexist. Stupid. Fairytales.”, maybe you’d know that. Islam has not indoctrinated me with anything negative. It’s not sexist, it’s not a fairytale, it’s not malevolent, and if you read the Qur’ân, you’d get that, so just stop pretending it is what it’s not. If you are still going to keep on believing these lies, I can provide you verses of the very book you claim is wrong to prove my point.
Zakah is meant to help the poor. The Qur’ân maintains that there will always be people who don’t follow Islam correctly, which again, you’d know if you read it correctly.
The length of time you have read on Islam doesn’t mean you read it correctly. I feel sorry for your younger self, a child, or maybe a teenager, led away from his beliefs because of misinterpretation and ignorance. Again, I almost was that person.
Islam is not bigoted, it’s not sexist, and it’s not malevolent. The fact you believe God doesn’t exist because your life and other people’s lives aren’t perfect is a bit saddening, and I also wonder if ever think that maybe you should read and research a religion’s holy book and doctrine before you go on the internet posting blatant lies about it. Again, I will post my sources from the internet, Qur’ân and Hadith if you still have lies filling your head. Your ignorance of Islam is quite massive, so I suggest you pick up a Qur’ân (again, with commentary and explanation) and read it. I’m still not trying to make you a Muslim, I just want you to stop spreading lies, which as a Muslim, is very important to me.

Ahhh, so it's back to "you're not reading it correctly".

Why is it that the overly religious people are always the people who read it "correctly", somehow enlightened, while the rest of humanity which is just as intelligent as they are, are somehow unable to attain enlightenment? This is the typical response that I must have heard all the time, repeatedly: "You need to read it correctly". It's brilliant, because the advice is so unfalsifiable. It shrouds the "truth of Islam" behind this completely farcical veneer of mysticism and secrecy, implying that there's this special way to read it, one might even say an esoteric way. It also makes for a brilliant excuse for all those Muslims who "aren't acting in proper Islamic ways", because they, too, haven't "read it correctly". This is literally the embodiment of the No True Scotsman fallacy, but the fallacy is hidden behind a veil of mystic interpretations of text. As a result we fail to see any significant group of folks "read it correctly", naturally so. If a vast majority of the faithful are "not reading it correctly", because there's a lot of self-proclaimed pious Muslims who are rather unpleasant people, it really makes you think about the overall readability of the document.

It's always the "that's not true Islam", "that's not the right way to read it" and so on. Apparently, very few people on Earth are able to read God's scripture properly. There's a good saying in academia: "If your reader doesn't understand your article, it's not their reading that's the problem, it's your writing that's the problem". God might want to improve his writing skills, if it's so dependent on being read "correctly", and yet, brought to the average fellow, who, apparently, needs the guidance of some long-dead tribesmen to understand the book that reveals all things.

Seeing you've gotten to the "you're not reading it correctly" levels of pride and arrogance, I think we can leave this farce of a discussion right here, thank you very much. The stubbornness you are demonstrating is not doing you, or your faith, any favours. I do not have anything to prove as an atheist, nor do I particularly care what Muslims think about atheists, but you seem to care to some degree as to what other people think of you and your faith. The whole idea of "you aren't reading it the way it was meant to be read" is hubris at such a level that words are literally not enough to articulate it.

Moreover, the assumptions you make about my life make you sound even more self-righteous and holier-than-thou than you already demonstrated. You know literally nothing about my life up until this moment aside from what I have shared in this forum, and that's consciously a small amount. You have no idea of what hardships I may have experienced, what joys I may have had, and what sadness I may have gone through. Absolutely none. Right now, I've got a pretty perfect life, to be honest, with pretty much nothing, literally nothing, that I complain about in my day to day life. My biggest complaint over the last seven days has been that I ran out of coffee and had to go buy some.

So no, Insaanistan, it's not my life not being perfect that makes me believe in an malevolent God. If my personal conditions, beyond the ones that nurtured me, were the cause of my beliefs, I would probably be the most thankful Muslim in my neighbourhood. Are you so stuck in your self-righteousness that you cannot perceive that a person can think beyond one's self, and reach the conclusion that if God exists as described in the Abrahamic religions, he is a malevolent entity?

That was a rhetorical question, and not one to be answered. I have probably spent enough time on this thread. Therefore, I'll let you draw your own conclusions from your own posts and your own assumptions, and perhaps, in time, you will understand just how self-righteous and arrogant the entire premise of "you are not reading it correctly" is.

[Insaanistan]

Yes, I’ve been to court. My family has had immigration trouble before. I spent months scared that one day, my dad would be taken away, despite his legal status (thanks Trump).
Islam is not in anyway sexist. If you were to read the Qur’ân correctly, and actually research before you conclude “Sexist. Stupid. Fairytales.”, maybe you’d know that. Islam has not indoctrinated me with anything negative. It’s not sexist, it’s not a fairytale, it’s not malevolent, and if you read the Qur’ân, you’d get that, so just stop pretending it is what it’s not. If you are still going to keep on believing these lies, I can provide you verses of the very book you claim is wrong to prove my point.
Zakah is meant to help the poor. The Qur’ân maintains that there will always be people who don’t follow Islam correctly, which again, you’d know if you read it correctly.
The length of time you have read on Islam doesn’t mean you read it correctly. I feel sorry for your younger self, a child, or maybe a teenager, led away from his beliefs because of misinterpretation and ignorance. Again, I almost was that person.
Islam is not bigoted, it’s not sexist, and it’s not malevolent. The fact you believe God doesn’t exist because your life and other people’s lives aren’t perfect is a bit saddening, and I also wonder if ever think that maybe you should read and research a religion’s holy book and doctrine before you go on the internet posting blatant lies about it. Again, I will post my sources from the internet, Qur’ân and Hadith if you still have lies filling your head. Your ignorance of Islam is quite massive, so I suggest you pick up a Qur’ân (again, with commentary and explanation) and read it. I’m still not trying to make you a Muslim, I just want you to stop spreading lies, which as a Muslim, is very important to me.

Ahhh, so it's back to "you're not reading it correctly".

Why is it that the overly religious people are always the people who read it "correctly", somehow enlightened, while the rest of humanity which is just as intelligent as they are, are somehow unable to attain enlightenment? This is the typical response that I must have heard all the time, repeatedly: "You need to read it correctly". It's brilliant, because the advice is so unfalsifiable. It shrouds the "truth of Islam" behind this completely farcical veneer of mysticism and secrecy, implying that there's this special way to read it, one might even say an esoteric way. It also makes for a brilliant excuse for all those Muslims who "aren't acting in proper Islamic ways", because they, too, haven't "read it correctly". This is literally the embodiment of the No True Scotsman fallacy, but the fallacy is hidden behind a veil of mystic interpretations of text. As a result we fail to see any significant group of folks "read it correctly", naturally so. If a vast majority of the faithful are "not reading it correctly", because there's a lot of self-proclaimed pious Muslims who are rather unpleasant people, it really makes you think about the overall readability of the document.

It's always the "that's not true Islam", "that's not the right way to read it" and so on. Apparently, very few people on Earth are able to read God's scripture properly. There's a good saying in academia: "If your reader doesn't understand your article, it's not their reading that's the problem, it's your writing that's the problem". God might want to improve his writing skills, if it's so dependent on being read "correctly", and yet, brought to the average fellow, who, apparently, needs the guidance of some long-dead tribesmen to understand the book that reveals all things.

Seeing you've gotten to the "you're not reading it correctly" levels of pride and arrogance, I think we can leave this farce of a discussion right here, thank you very much. The stubbornness you are demonstrating is not doing you, or your faith, any favours. I do not have anything to prove as an atheist, nor do I particularly care what Muslims think about atheists, but you seem to care to some degree as to what other people think of you and your faith. The whole idea of "you aren't reading it the way it was meant to be read" is hubris at such a level that words are literally not enough to articulate it.

Moreover, the assumptions you make about my life make you sound even more self-righteous and holier-than-thou than you already demonstrated. You know literally nothing about my life up until this moment aside from what I have shared in this forum, and that's consciously a small amount. You have no idea of what hardships I may have experienced, what joys I may have had, and what sadness I may have gone through. Absolutely none. Right now, I've got a pretty perfect life, to be honest, with pretty much nothing, literally nothing, that I complain about in my day to day life. My biggest complaint over the last seven days has been that I ran out of coffee and had to go buy some.

So no, Insaanistan, it's not my life not being perfect that makes me believe in an malevolent God. If my personal conditions, beyond the ones that nurtured me, were the cause of my beliefs, I would probably be the most thankful Muslim in my neighbourhood. Are you so stuck in your self-righteousness that you cannot perceive that a person can think beyond one's self, and reach the conclusion that if God exists as described in the Abrahamic religions, he is a malevolent entity?

That was a rhetorical question, and not one to be answered. I have probably spent enough time on this thread. Therefore, I'll let you draw your own conclusions from your own posts and your own assumptions, and perhaps, in time, you will understand just how self-righteous and arrogant the entire premise of "you are not reading it correctly" is.

Oh ho! Now you’ve resorted to calling my valid argument self-righteous and arrogant? How is it so? If you see your holy book say “Kill the non-believers” and you don’t realize it’s referring to the Makkans who were trying to eliminate Islam, and that it is only permissible under certain strict conditions, and that even then, forgiveness is seen as a much better, why wouldn’t you think “This book wants me to go to Syria and take up arms”? If you see that the inheritance of a daughter is less than that of a son, why wouldn’t you think “This book says men are above women” if you don’t know that it’s because the son has to pay a dowry and support his family, meanwhile the daughter has no such obligation, and can spend how she chooses?

You make the mistake of comparing the Qur’ân to an article. I remember watching a video where a lady who had studied the Qur’ân (an agnostic Jew, mind you) raised the point that many people don’t finish the Qur’ân, and have trouble reading it, because they treat it like it’s just a book. Another bestseller. And Islam maintains Simone will always claim to be Muslim, but not actually follow it. Muhammad (peace be upon him) predicted ISIS and warned us not to join them.
You’re right. I know little about you. Just like you know little about Islam. If you wish to leave this thread, then do so. No one is stopping you. However, I hope you are a good person in general, so you will go to heaven, and I will (God willing I’m there as well) hug you, wish peace upon you. Then triumphantly dance around you proclaiming about how I was right.

[The Alma Mater]

Why is it that the overly religious people are always the people who read it "correctly", somehow enlightened, while the rest of humanity which is just as intelligent as they are, are somehow unable to attain enlightenment?

Also note the "correct" reading seldomn is the one the people who actually lived around the time the holy book was written had. Because people raised in the same timeperiod and culture clearly understand less of the book than people living many centuries later without any knowledge about the world the writer was living in.

[Vistulange]

Why is it that the overly religious people are always the people who read it "correctly", somehow enlightened, while the rest of humanity which is just as intelligent as they are, are somehow unable to attain enlightenment?

Also note the "correct" reading seldomn is the one the people who actually lived around the time the holy book was written had. Because people raised in the same timeperiod and culture clearly understand less of the book than people living many centuries later without any knowledge about the world the writer was living in.

It's supposedly "universal", so the party line is that both readings are valid, as times change.

Still doesn't make it any less arrogant and self-righteous to claim that one's own reading is the only true way. It's also a No True Scotsman fallacy, which Insaanistan naturally neglected to address.

[Insaanistan]

Why is it that the overly religious people are always the people who read it "correctly", somehow enlightened, while the rest of humanity which is just as intelligent as they are, are somehow unable to attain enlightenment?

Also note the "correct" reading seldomn is the one the people who actually lived around the time the holy book was written had. Because people raised in the same timeperiod and culture clearly understand less of the book than people living many centuries later without any knowledge about the world the writer was living in.

Really? You think the Companions of the Prophet (peace be upon him) killed people for not being Muslims? You think they condoned racism? You think they were sexist? There are numerous historical examples saying otherwise.

[Insaanistan]

Also note the "correct" reading seldomn is the one the people who actually lived around the time the holy book was written had. Because people raised in the same timeperiod and culture clearly understand less of the book than people living many centuries later without any knowledge about the world the writer was living in.

It's supposedly "universal", so the party line is that both readings are valid, as times change.

Still doesn't make it any less arrogant and self-righteous to claim that one's own reading is the only true way. It's also a No True Scotsman fallacy, which Insaanistan naturally neglected to address.

It’s not arrogant or self-righteous. It also isn’t a No True Scotsman fallacy, because Islam literally forbids what their doing. Again, I can provide sources from the Qur’ân and Hadiths.

[The Archregimancy]

Ramadan kareem.


I've read through every page of this thread, and while I've given it a chance, I no longer see any real justification to keep it distinct from the existing Islam-based discussion thread, the fifth version of which is still active, and can be found here: viewtopic.php?f=20&t=462608

The latter is no more restricted to Muslims than the Christian discussion thread is restricted to Christians. The type of discussion and debate on this thread can equally well sit in the existing thread. Certainly I don't see a reason to give Insaanistan his own thread to highlight a specific reading of Islam, however sincere he may be in his belief that it's the correct reading.

NSG's Muslims already welcome queries from non-Muslims in the existing discussion thread. If you'd like to make this more explicit, then simply add something to the OP.


And before someone accuses me of anti-Islam bias, A) I would do precisely the same thing if a Southern Baptist started their own 'Misconceptions or Questions about Christianity and Christians' separately from the existing Christian discussion thread and B) I live in Cairo.