Has anyone read 'Inside Islam' by R Spencer and D Ali

[Nine_Two]

Open mindedness is at the centre of my religion my friend. Sure, we’ve been here before huh? I know Muslims misunderstand Christianity… I correct them! As I’ve said before, the Qur’an is not identifying what you believe, but what it actually is (obviously from an Islamic perspective), which given the context makes sense. In a Catholic book this would be equivalent to pointing out the ‘errors’ and that’s fine. What is wrong is to say you believe X when you do not and actually believe in Y, not you believe X but actually its Y because that is understandable. I don’t believe picking at each others Holy Books gets us anywhere either, it just makes sense to say you believe X and we believe Y and that’s that - all based on official teaching.
Peace

You haven’t identified anywhere where it says Muslims believe X when they really believe Y. Your first issue was with the description of what Islam is, you agreed it was correct and only argued it didn’t go far enough. the second issue you argued it was giving opinion, but again it was on non-theological issues.

Instead of claiming it is wrong regarding Islam’s teachings, how about you demonstrate where this happens.

 

[algebra]

there are a few emotive words used to give a certain sense of fear that Muslims will take over!

At the University of Toronto, the MSA demanded that the canteen serve halal food.

This was provided to them.

Then they demanded that the canteen STOP selling haraam products, because by buying halal food from an establishment that sold haraam products (pork, alcohol) their money was being used to finance haraam.

thestar.com/article/268445

I was at the school at a different campus whilst all this was transpiring.

There is reason to fear…

 

[MaxRosen]

Thedarknight

Thank you for the links to Robert Spencer’s website. It seems to be an excellent resource for people concerned about the rising number of Muslims in Europe and North America.

 

[OrdinaryMelkite]

whilst I think that Mohammed and islamic society was a model for behavior 14 centuries ago.

Do you honestly believe that he is a relevant model for today?

I am probably muslim regarding most of my theological views, but would follow the sunnah of Jesus rather than Mohammed.

I don’t personally think Muhammed’s behavior was “model-worthy” at ANY time, even 14 centuries ago.

 

[men0wjv]

You haven’t identified anywhere where it says Muslims believe X when they really believe Y. Your first issue was with the description of what Islam is, you agreed it was correct and only argued it didn’t go far enough. the second issue you argued it was giving opinion, but again it was on non-theological issues.

Instead of claiming it is wrong regarding Islam’s teachings, how about you demonstrate where this happens.

Getting there, we’re only on question 2 and there are 100 to write, give me a chance

 

[men0wjv]

Really? You’re denying this? You actually need numbers? Look at Germany, a significant Muslim population, mostly non-native Turks. France, mostly non-native Algerians, Britain, mostly non-native South Asians. The bulk of Muslims in Europe are non-natives. You many have second and third generation, but the fact of the matter is Islam came through immigration.

Truth is I can’t confirm or deny anything since there is no substance to the claims made. It seems plausible that there is a large immigrant population, so maybe this is correct? There are far right political groups appearing within Europe all the time to change this ‘trend’ so again its simplistic and nothing ‘factual’ cited. The main problem is the emotive us of jihadist warriors

You seem more annoyed that it isn’t giving people the glossed over picture of Islam that Muslims like to pretend is true. Threads like this, where you attack anything and everything, don’t help people’s perspectives of your religion.

There was a Muslim man that had a paranoia; he thought Jewish people made the unleavened bread for passover with blood. A friend of mine took him to a Jewish persons house, got the host to make the bread in front of him and then made sure this guy was the first to eat it. The guy said, he only did it like this because we were here??? This is called paranoid schizophrenia (my wife being a psychiatrist)… So everything I say is a gloss is it?
Am I really attacking to say this question 2 has no references and is unnecessarily emotive? Also it is interesting that this is question 2; given the book has not really told you anything about the religion, but is suggesting its taking over Europe where ‘jihadist warriors’ failed is just rhetoric thats trying to send you psychic anti bodies before you start… is that objectivity?
In academia my querying of its reliability is called a critique

 

[Nine_Two]

Getting there, we’re only on question 2 and there are 100 to write, give me a chance

Don’t make the accusation until you’re ready to back it up. You’re demanding people defend something they don’t know about and condemning the work on that basis.

 

[Nine_Two]

Truth is I can’t confirm or deny anything since there is no substance to the claims made. It seems plausible that there is a large immigrant population, so maybe this is correct? There are far right political groups appearing within Europe all the time to change this ‘trend’ so again its simplistic and nothing ‘factual’ cited. The main problem is the emotive us of jihadist warriors

There was a Muslim man that had a paranoia; he thought Jewish people made the unleavened bread for passover with blood. A friend of mine took him to a Jewish persons house, got the host to make the bread in front of him and then made sure this guy was the first to eat it. The guy said, he only did it like this because we were here??? This is called paranoid schizophrenia (my wife being a psychiatrist)… So everything I say is a gloss is it?
Am I really attacking to say this question 2 has no references and is unnecessarily emotive? Also it is interesting that this is question 2; given the book has not really told you anything about the religion, but is suggesting its taking over Europe where ‘jihadist warriors’ failed is just rhetoric thats trying to send you psychic anti bodies before you start… is that objectivity?
Sometimes crazy people say that “they” are out to get them. Sometimes “they” really are. Paranoia isn’t always a bad thing.

 

[men0wjv]

Don’t make the accusation until you’re ready to back it up. You’re demanding people defend something they don’t know about and condemning the work on that basis.

We’re on question 2 on this thread because we’re trying to follow the book…

 

[Nine_Two]

We’re on question 2 on this thread because we’re trying to follow the book…

Then wait to make the accusation. Don’t mix it with your arguments against other supposed wrongs.

 

[men0wjv]

Then wait to make the accusation. Don’t mix it with your arguments against other supposed wrongs.

Not really sure where you’re coming from Basically this thread is for people who have read the book. If you haven’t or do not have access to it then there really isn’t any point being here, is there? I wish to discuss the book… that is the aim of the thread and the only aim. If you can get a copy then welcome if not then take care
BTW Paranoia comes from the Greek Para Noos or distracted mind, the term originally used to describe dementia patients. Even in the modern colloquialism of ‘distrust’ it still is very negative; shows a lack of love in ones life. It is NEVER a good thing.
Also ‘they’ are never coming to get you because ‘they’ do not exist; undefined or even poorly defined expressions like this are the construct of the paranoid mind (note definition above).
Peace

 

[4Horsemen]

2. I have heard that the number of Muslims is rapidly increasing each year throughout the World. Is this true?

The authors confirm the question and give the reasons as population increase and successful proselytizers. This may well be true, but no reference is given to back this up. The proselytizers are described as: aggressive, well prepared and successful. Again no references are given or explanation, so the question is how are they aggressive and how do you know that? Since there is no justification given, it does sound like unnecessary commentary. I have a Catholic friend whose PhD involves looking at the phenomenon of conversion to Islam, I’ll see if I can get some data. I know of no organised ‘dawah’ (Arabic for proselytize) group that fits the description, that doesn’t mean there aren’t, but they’re not well known, which then queries their ‘general’ statement.

‘Immigration has given Islam the foothold in Europe that the warriors of jihad could never gain’ is clearly trying to lead the reader, there is no need to put it in these terms especially since jihad has not been defined (it is dealt with later). Once again no references. Some numbers are then given with what seems a reference, but then it turns out to be Acts 17:26 - still not sure why?

The question finishes by offering some personal thoughts on why Christians may become Muslim due to a perceived disaffection with Christian leaders and Islam’s seeming simplicity. Again no references!

Basically all of this is mere opinion which does nothing to increase the readers understanding and there are a few emotive words used to give a certain sense of fear that Muslims will take over! All a little unnecessary

Hi men0wjv,

You have to admit that there has been an influx of Muslims into Western countries and with that, conclaves of Muslims unable to assimilate into Western culture. This may not have anything to do with question #2, but the fact that more Muslim women are wearing the hajib shows a greater conformity to the standards of a more traditionalist Muslim outlook. I’m thinking it may be a step toward Shariah law.

Also, I must disagree with the authors that Islam is a religion of simplicity. When one considers a mandatory visit to Mecca, prayer (done correctly) five times a day, fasting for the whole month of Ramadan, certain beliefs (doctrines?) like the Shahada, the Five Pillars of Islam, the Koran and Hadith, along with the various teachings and practices, it appears that Islam is a more complicated religion that can only be completely understood by scholars.

 

[men0wjv]

Hi men0wjv,

You have to admit that there has been an influx of Muslims into Western countries and with that, conclaves of Muslims unable to assimilate into Western culture. This may not have anything to do with question #2, but the fact that more Muslim women are wearing the hajib shows a greater conformity to the standards of a more traditionalist Muslim outlook. I’m thinking it may be a step toward Shariah law.

Also, I must disagree with the authors that Islam is a religion of simplicity. When one considers a mandatory visit to Mecca, prayer (done correctly) five times a day, fasting for the whole month of Ramadan, certain beliefs (doctrines?) like the Shahada, the Five Pillars of Islam, the Koran and Hadith, along with the various teachings and practices, it appears that Islam is a more complicated religion that can only be completely understood by scholars.

Hey 4
I’m sure there has been a big influx, just how much? No idea, nothing reliable in book. Stats given for 2050 again how on Earth did they predict this? With Q3 next it seems the authors are trying to suggest ‘they’re coming to get you.’
If women are wearing head scarves more these days (which again, seems plausible) it does not suggest ‘traditional’ Islam is on the rise. Like abortion is to Christians, the headscarf is a very political thing to Muslims, so it could be a sign of a rise in modern religio-political movements? What do you understand by Shariah Law and its implementation? Why would there be a next step?
I think they’re referring to the simplicity of doctrine vs trinity, this is perhaps unfair because we also have some relatively hard theology to do with Fate vs free will and the Divine Attributes - multiplicity from unity. Generally Muslims have put great emphasis on knowledge, learning had always been free in Muslim lands. People were more scholarly until recently too, for example the book Nur al Idhah was written for primary school kids and today scholars do not know a few of the details of the more subtle points! To be honest this whole point is also very subjective and doesn’t really tell us anything… there are no references!

 

[men0wjv]

Also, I must disagree with the authors that Islam is a religion of simplicity…

Given the stance in the book, it might suggest they are looking at the Salafi understanding. This heretical group (known as the jahiliyyah or ignorant) do solar scriptura type readings of the Qur’an and ahadith without any recourse to tradition; spouting the slogan ‘they were men and we are men.’ As such it seems simple because you just pick up a hadith of which you have absolutely no knowledge of context etc and make a decision!?! We are told explicitly to follow those in authroity amongst us and ask the people of knowledge if we know not and also that the religion is preserved in the upright scholars. It is interesting that Muhammad (pbuh) said: ‘whomsoever interprets the Qur’an from his mere opinion is a disbeliever,’ [Tirmidhi], which is interesting considering this group does it! If they have taken the Salafi understanding of things then that might explain why they said ridiculous things like its blasphemous to have a relationship with God, Muhammad (pbuh) only had the Quran as a miracle and the other catelogue of errors related to the Shariah!?! All will be dealt with in due course. The Salafis are indeed the ‘devils horn’ (re: a famous hadith).

 

[4Horsemen]

Given the stance in the book, it might suggest they are looking at the Salafi understanding. This heretical group (known as the jahiliyyah or ignorant) do solar scriptura type readings of the Qur’an and ahadith without any recourse to tradition; spouting the slogan ‘they were men and we are men.’ As such it seems simple because you just pick up a hadith of which you have absolutely no knowledge of context etc and make a decision!?! We are told explicitly to follow those in authroity amongst us and ask the people of knowledge if we know not and also that the religion is preserved in the upright scholars. It is interesting that Muhammad (pbuh) said: ‘whomsoever interprets the Qur’an from his mere opinion is a disbeliever,’ [Tirmidhi], which is interesting considering this group does it! If they have taken the Salafi understanding of things then that might explain why they said ridiculous things like its blasphemous to have a relationship with God, Muhammad (pbuh) only had the Quran as a miracle and the other catelogue of errors related to the Shariah!?! All will be dealt with in due course. The Salafis are indeed the ‘devils horn’ (re: a famous hadith).

In the Catholic Church, we have the hierarchy to finalize the understanding of basic doctrines which are then written for the populace in the Catechism. So there is interpretation from the juridically but also personally. Those who read the Bible receive through the Holy Spirit the graces and understanding and wisdom to lead good, holy Christian lives. So, unlike Islam, where “whomsoever interprets the Qur’an from his mere opinion is a disbeliever,” we, Catholics/Christians are encouraged to learn how to live our lives by reading Scripture.

By the way, I think it would be well worth your time to really understand what Christians believe. (For example, Muslims do not understand our thinking on the Trinity among many other things, just as Catholics don’t understand many Muslim beliefs). The test of reality is whether or not something in the holy book contradicts something else. Read the New Testament first and then the Old, even though it’s generally understood the other way around. As a poster stated on your other thread, people’s idea of the Creator evolved over time. You can get a better understanding of Christianity by meeting Jesus as our Friend, Brother, Teacher, Master, Redeemer, God.

I bet the Salafis don’t consider themselves to be the ‘devil’s horn.’

P.S. I’ll try to get back to this thread on and off, mostly off, for this week at least since I’ll be busy with Christmas preparations and possibly some travel.

Many blessings,
4

 

[4Horsemen]

Hey 4
I’m sure there has been a big influx, just how much? No idea, nothing reliable in book. Stats given for 2050 again how on Earth did they predict this? With Q3 next it seems the authors are trying to suggest ‘they’re coming to get you.’
If women are wearing head scarves more these days (which again, seems plausible) it does not suggest ‘traditional’ Islam is on the rise. Like abortion is to Christians, the headscarf is a very political thing to Muslims, so it could be a sign of a rise in modern religio-political movements? What do you understand by Shariah Law and its implementation? Why would there be a next step?
I think they’re referring to the simplicity of doctrine vs trinity, this is perhaps unfair because we also have some relatively hard theology to do with Fate vs free will and the Divine Attributes - multiplicity from unity. Generally Muslims have put great emphasis on knowledge, learning had always been free in Muslim lands. People were more scholarly until recently too, for example the book Nur al Idhah was written for primary school kids and today scholars do not know a few of the details of the more subtle points! To be honest this whole point is also very subjective and doesn’t really tell us anything… there are no references!

The authors of the book seem to be concerned that Christianity may have to go underground someday if we are overrun or ruled by Shariah law. That’s only an “if.” The study of demographics demonstrate changes in the growth pattern of various countries, cultures and societies, and religions. I clicked the links given in your last thread by poster, MaxRosen, and listened to the possible (probable?) demographic changes in this century if the influx of various groups continues. It seems that religion is on the increase rather than secularization. Religious groups, including Muslims, Orthodox Jews, Amish, Anabaptists, LDS, fundamentalists, evangelicals are populating more than people with a secular outlook. Anyhow, the authors just used the increases from statistics today to predict what may occur in years to come. The second speaker said “These things may not come to pass.” Very interesting, enlightening, and educational. You might want to listen to the speakers.

 

[Contarini]

I haven’t read the book but I went to Amazon and read the reviews (at the time of writing, there are 32). After reading the reviews my impression is that this book is indeed an objective study.

What on earth would give you such an idea? Spencer’s only goal in life seems to be to attack Islam. Now he may be right or he may be wrong on the various points he makes, but he’s sure not objective.

Of course our friendly Muslim apologist isn’t objective either.

Let’s scratch the whole “objective” thing and care about truth instead, shall we?

But if you want serious scholarly studies of Islam by non-Muslims, try Esposito or Hodgson. They have biases of their own–they whitewash a bit IMHO in their efforts to combat prejudice.

Edwin

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

You seem to be saying that Spencer is prejudiced against Islam with bias, the Muslim apologist is biased (obviously), and then you recommend two other authors who are biased with an overly-charitable weakness that taints their analysis. I fail to see how recommending fighting bias with bias makes much sense? You’re basically saying objectivity doesn’t exist. ok. So then what’s the point? You say we should “scratch” objectivity and search for truth. How can one find truth when all that one reads is loaded with bias, including your own recommended authors? I must be tired or burned out today and missing something?

What on earth would give you such an idea? Spencer’s only goal in life seems to be to attack Islam. Now he may be right or he may be wrong on the various points he makes, but he’s sure not objective.

Of course our friendly Muslim apologist isn’t objective either.

Let’s scratch the whole “objective” thing and care about truth instead, shall we?

But if you want serious scholarly studies of Islam by non-Muslims, try Esposito or Hodgson. They have biases of their own–they whitewash a bit IMHO in their efforts to combat prejudice.

Edwin

 

[scipio337]

What on earth would give you such an idea? Spencer’s only goal in life seems to be to attack Islam. Now he may be right or he may be wrong on the various points he makes, but he’s sure not objective.

Of course our friendly Muslim apologist isn’t objective either.

Let’s scratch the whole “objective” thing and care about truth instead, shall we?

But if you want serious scholarly studies of Islam by non-Muslims, try Esposito or Hodgson. They have biases of their own–they whitewash a bit IMHO in their efforts to combat prejudice.

Edwin

I have to counter Esposito’s whitewashing with Lewis’ bare-knuckled approach.

I tend to agree with gurney: there are no obejectivity on the subject.

 

[SSTeacher]

SSTeacher;7376515:

I haven’t read the book but I went to Amazon and read the reviews (at the time of writing, there are 32). After reading the reviews my impression is that this book is indeed an objective study.

What on earth would give you such an idea? Spencer’s only goal in life seems to be to attack Islam. Now he may be right or he may be wrong on the various points he makes, but he’s sure not objective.

Of course our friendly Muslim apologist isn’t objective either.

Let’s scratch the whole “objective” thing and care about truth instead, shall we?

But if you want serious scholarly studies of Islam by non-Muslims, try Esposito or Hodgson. They have biases of their own–they whitewash a bit IMHO in their efforts to combat prejudice.

Edwin

So sorry for not only apparently getting the wrong impression from the reviewers but also for causing you great annoyance by posting the aforesaid impression. I’m at a loss to explain what on earth gave me such an idea. Hopefully, I haven’t totally spoiled your Christmas.

Festively,
Mick