No Diversity in Islam

[openmind77]

They can do it peacefully, simply by the fact that their reproduction rate is beyond stasis, while, for example, many European countries are below stasis. Once a sufficient voting population is in place, they can control the votes.

This is unnecessary scaremongering. The Muslim population in Europe is currently 6%, by 2030 it will be 8%. It will be a long time before it ever gets close to 50%.

In the meantime, intermarriage, conversions, skepticism etc will reduce the percentage. Just like other Europeans, many educated Muslims will also tend to become non-religious and just ‘spiritual’.

 

[LoveMorrissey]

All cultures, religious or not are male-dominated it’s my belief that Islam has yet to modernise.

 

[dronald]

Sorry for the delayed response.

Look at it like this: A dude commits adultery with your neighbors wife then has her husband killed. The same dude runs around claiming to be Inspired by God and other dudes who commit more or less similar crimes claim that they too are inspired by God. Would you believe them? I wouldn’t. In real life, you wouldn’t believe them too but somehow you do now. The acclaimed sins and crimes attributed to the Prophets in the OT make no sense at all. That is why Muslims believe the OT has been distorted. As I already pointed out, historically, no one knows who and when exactly wrote which part of the OT and it has been edited and changed numerous times in history at the hands of many people who themselves were not infallible. I can’t in any way call this a book inspired by God.

Historically, we know that Islam doesn’t have a foot to stand on. That’s just being blatantly honest; as for your analogy; just because a man has evil actions doesn’t mean his words cannot be true. I should only assume that I shouldn’t listen to a word you’ve said so far due to the fact that you’ve sinned in the past. Let’s see what Jesus says about this:

Matthew 23:23 Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples, 2 “The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses’ seat, 3 so do and observe whatever they tell you, but not the works they do. For they preach, but do not practice.

You are not refuting anything. Muslims claim the OT has been distorted and historically there is enough evidence to support this claim (all the changes and editions done by God knows who are enough to show this). Furthermore, many sections are merely historical accounts again penned down by fallible people and not inspirations from God.
What we mean by distortion is that there are wrong things in it too. We don’t believe it is all wrong. The verses in the Quran that you cited are references to undistorted sections.

This is where Muslims must be extremely inconsistent. “Your history is probably corrupted, and we have no history so I believe in Islam!”

What you cite from C.S. Lewis has nothing to do with believing in Christianity or any other religion. Nearly nothing in this world is predictable and neither were the events in Islam. Lewis’ argument makes no sense: I am a Christian because it is a religion you could not have guessed. I can use the exact same argument to prove why I am a Muslim but the argument is flawed on many levels and useless.
I have no idea why you think it would make sense in Islam for Jesus to not be killed, for Prophet Muhammad and his twelve God appointed successors (except the last one) were all killed themselves. So nothing superheroish here.
By the way, no one accepts anything unless it makes sense. What other tool has God given us to discern between right and wrong except common-sense and reason? 22 = what? 5? Does that make sense? It makes sense to mock the person who claims 22 =5 and it makes sense to praise the person who claims 2*2=4. You are mocking Islam for accepting what makes sense and are praising non-Muslims for accepting what doesn’t make sense. This behavior doesn’t make sense to me. My reason and intellect find it unacceptable.

It does make sense; it’s just nothing that men could have came up with. Have you ever actually read the Bible?

Pope Leo is considered an embarrassment but someone who commits adultery and Murder isn’t? Doesn’t make sense to me.

The actions of David and Solomon were devastating to Israel.

We are not discussing someone getting away with their sins or not. You don’t follow a guide with a message who cannot guide you but rather leads you astray. God will not send a Prophet who will lead people astray and deceive them. It defeats the purpose. According to your beliefs David, a guide that was sent by God with a message to guide people to righteousness, led people astray. He led his neighbors wife astray and deceived her to commit adultery and he deceived others to make sure her husband got killed. There is no guarantee that a someone like this will not lead other people astray elsewhere instead of guiding them. Nothing that this person says can be believed or trusted. Is this how God guides his servants? My reason prevents me from accepting such a Prophet and such a God: either the God and Prophet are false or the narrations about them.

If you read the narration you’ll see that David was corrected by Samuel the Prophet; so I don’t really see your point. I think the issue is that you don’t actually know the Bible.

‘Muslim’ in Arabic refers to someone who submits (to Gods will). That is why Muslims are called ‘Muslims’. Technically speaking, we all submit to Gods will. The original Arabic text quotes the Disciples saying we are ‘muslims’ meaning we ‘submit to God’. The translator made a sloppy translation and translated it to ‘Muslim’. Other translations show the correct meaning:
corpus.quran.com/translation.jsp?chapter=3&verse=52

I knew this actually. Therefore, I am Muslim, Jews are Muslim, we’re all Muslim!

But here lays the problem that the same text says that the Muslims prevailed over the non-Muslims. Can I have some historical proof please? Again, I’m sure you have historical proof.

 

[peace_at_last]

Historically, we know that Islam doesn’t have a foot to stand on. That’s just being blatantly honest;

Historically, we know (your word against mine) that Islams foothold is much stronger than Christianities becasue we rely on what makes sense, but you rely on the OT that no one knows has been authored by who in which time and has been edited and changed numerous times. I wouldn’t call that a foot to stand on.

as for your analogy; just because a man has evil actions doesn’t mean his words cannot be true. I should only assume that I shouldn’t listen to a word you’ve said so far due to the fact that you’ve sinned in the past.

You’re putting words in my mouth. I mentioned specific wrongdoings. Very horrific sins like adultery, murder and a bunch of other outrageous crimes that were committed not by the average Joe, but by someone that is apparently special to God and chosen to guide people and be a role model. And I said I wouldn’t believe them if they claimed they were inspired by God, not everything they say.

Let’s see what Jesus says about this:

Matthew 23:23 Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples, 2 “The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses’ seat, 3 so do and observe whatever they tell you, but not the works they do. For they preach, but do not practice.

Funny that Jesus would tell the people to listen and obey the words of a group of people amongst whom were many adulterers, pedophiles, murderers and worst of all LIARS!!! He tells us to “do and observe whatever they tell” while they told many lies and made up fake stuff and claimed they were from God:

Ezekiel, son of man, condemn the prophets of Israel who say they speak in my name, but who preach messages that come from their own imagination. Tell them it’s time to hear my message.

3 I, the Lord God, say those lying prophets are doomed! They don’t see visions—they make up their own messages! 4 Israel’s prophets are no better than jackals[a] that hunt for food among the ruins of a city. 5 They don’t warn the people about coming trouble or tell them how dangerous it is to sin against me. 6 Those prophets lie by claiming they speak for me, but I have not even chosen them to be my prophets. And they still think their words will come true. 7 They say they’re preaching my messages, but they are full of lies—I did not speak to them!

There are numerous similar phrases in the OT and NT.

This is where Muslims must be extremely inconsistent. “Your history is probably corrupted, and we have no history so I believe in Islam!”

What?!

It does make sense; it’s just nothing that men could have came up with. Have you ever actually read the Bible?

We have many of those in Islam too.

The actions of David and Solomon were devastating to Israel.

We were speaking about David and Solomon not being considered as embarrassments-like the pope. No one said anything about devastation.

If you read the narration you’ll see that David was corrected by Samuel the Prophet; so I don’t really see your point. I think the issue is that you don’t actually know the Bible.

The point is pretty clear. I have repeated it many times. I’ll show you another example: According to the Bible Prophets commit great sins and lead people astray. David the Prophet committed sins and led people astray. Samuel came along and corrected David. But why should we trust Samuel, maybe he corrected nothing and made a bunch of other mistakes and led another group of people astray himself too? That is the point: The Prophets of the Bible are not trustworthy and can easily lead people astray.

I knew this actually. Therefore, I am Muslim, Jews are Muslim, we’re all Muslim!

But here lays the problem that the same text says that the Muslims prevailed over the non-Muslims. Can I have some historical proof please? Again, I’m sure you have historical proof.

What you are referring to says nothing about ‘Muslims’ prevailing over ‘non-Muslims’.
And by the way I am sure you have historical proof about the existence of Adam and Eve and many other topics brought up in the Bible that we cannot historically prove. The ‘historical proof’ card you are playing is very very lame. If it can be used as a tool to discredit the beliefs of a faith, then Christianity and Judaism are its first victims.

 

[dronald]

Historically, we know (your word against mine) that Islams foothold is much stronger than Christianities becasue we rely on what makes sense, but you rely on the OT that no one knows has been authored by who in which time and has been edited and changed numerous times. I wouldn’t call that a foot to stand on.

Muslims dont have a history prior to Muhammad. So youre wrong again.

You’re putting words in my mouth. I mentioned specific wrongdoings. Very horrific sins like adultery, murder and a bunch of other outrageous crimes that were committed not by the average Joe, but by someone that is apparently special to God and chosen to guide people and be a role model. And I said I wouldn’t believe them if they claimed they were inspired by God, not everything they say.

Theres something called the Criteria of embarrassment` which helps gather evidence of whether or not a story is true or false. If the Jews were going to make up a false story about their Prophets, it would make more sense that it would follow your narrative that they were perfect. The same goes for Jesus and the crucifixion; why would any of us make that up?

Besides, you should really read the Bible, you might actually like it.

Funny that Jesus would tell the people to listen and obey the words of a group of people amongst whom were many adulterers, pedophiles, murderers and worst of all LIARS!!! He tells us to “do and observe whatever they tell” while they told many lies and made up fake stuff and claimed they were from God:

I don’t think you understand the concept of sin in Christianity. Regardless, that’s what He said, do you deny this?

Ezekiel, son of man, condemn the prophets of Israel who say they speak in my name, but who preach messages that come from their own imagination. Tell them it’s time to hear my message.

3 I, the Lord God, say those lying prophets are doomed! They don’t see visions—they make up their own messages! 4 Israel’s prophets are no better than jackals[a] that hunt for food among the ruins of a city. 5 They don’t warn the people about coming trouble or tell them how dangerous it is to sin against me. 6 Those prophets lie by claiming they speak for me, but I have not even chosen them to be my prophets. And they still think their words will come true. 7 They say they’re preaching my messages, but they are full of lies—I did not speak to them!

There are numerous similar phrases in the OT and NT.

Information on the CEV from WIKI

Common mistake. You picked a translation that was created for the purpose of making the Bible easier to read for people who come from foreign countries and wish to understand the Bible.

Translations like the ESV, KJV, douay rheims, RSV are made for those who have a strong grasp of the English language; and not for children or foreigners.

Eze 13:1 The word of the Lord came to me: 2 “Son of man, prophesy against the prophets of Israel, who are prophesying, and say to those who prophesy from their own hearts: ‘Hear the word of the Lord!’ 3 Thus says the Lord God, Woe to the foolish prophets who follow their own spirit,** and have seen nothing**! 4 Your prophets have been like jackals among ruins, O Israel. 5 You have not gone up into the breaches, or built up a wall for the house of Israel, that it might stand in battle in the day of the Lord. 6 They have seen false visions and lying divinations. They say, ‘Declares the Lord,’ when the Lord has not sent them, and yet they expect him to fulfill their word. 7 Have you not seen a false vision and uttered a lying divination, whenever you have said, ‘Declares the Lord,’ although I have not spoken?”​

As you see here, Ezekiel is speaking of false Prophets who say they see this and that and don’t. Basically what we would say Muhammad is.

 

[dronald]

What?!

We have a history based on things that really did happen in the 1st Century. The Bible describes the old Jewish Temple and practices. Jesus took part in these practices, and we know this because that’s what Jewish people did.

Therefore we have a history, and for you to say that our history is wrong, you’re being inconsistent because you don’t even have a history to begin with.

We have many of those in Islam too.

I can never find anything myself.

We were speaking about David and Solomon not being considered as embarrassments-like the pope. No one said anything about devastation.

Yes, David and Solomon did embarrassing things and brought destruction on Israel.

2 Samuel 7 Nathan said to David, “You are the man! Thus says the Lord, the God of Israel, ‘I anointed you king over Israel, and I delivered you out of the hand of Saul. 8 And I gave you your master’s house and your master’s wives into your arms and gave you the house of Israel and of Judah. And if this were too little, I would add to you as much more. 9 Why have you despised the word of the Lord, to do what is evil in his sight? You have struck down Uriah the Hittite with the sword and have taken his wife to be your wife and have killed him with the sword of the Ammonites. 10 Now therefore the sword shall never depart from your house, because you have despised me and have taken the wife of Uriah the Hittite to be your wife.’ 11 Thus says the Lord, ‘Behold, I will raise up evil against you out of your own house. And I will take your wives before your eyes and give them to your neighbor, and he shall lie with your wives in the sight of this sun. 12 For you did it secretly, but I will do this thing before all Israel and before the sun.’” 13 David said to Nathan, “I have sinned against the Lord.” And Nathan said to David, “The Lord also has put away your sin; you shall not die. 14 Nevertheless, because by this deed you have utterly scorned the Lord,** the child who is born to you shall die.” 15 Then Nathan went to his house.

The point is pretty clear. I have repeated it many times. I’ll show you another example: According to the Bible Prophets commit great sins and lead people astray. David the Prophet committed sins and led people astray. Samuel came along and corrected David. But why should we trust Samuel, maybe he corrected nothing and made a bunch of other mistakes and led another group of people astray himself too? That is the point: The Prophets of the Bible are not trustworthy and can easily lead people astray.

Who did they lead astray by saying what?

What you are referring to says nothing about ‘Muslims’ prevailing over ‘non-Muslims’.
And by the way I am sure you have historical proof about the existence of Adam and Eve and many other topics brought up in the Bible that we cannot historically prove. The ‘historical proof’ card you are playing is very very lame. If it can be used as a tool to discredit the beliefs of a faith, then Christianity and Judaism are its first victims.

I have historical proof that Jesus died on a cross, and of Jewish practices that Jesus also would have practiced. I also know of a science called textual criticism that shows the Bible has gone unaltered.

As for your ‘prevailed’ question; it’s in one of the passages I quoted:

O ye who believe! Be ye helpers of God: As said Jesus the son of Mary to the Disciples, “Who will be my helpers to (the work of) God?” Said the disciples, “We are God’s helpers!” then a portion of the Children of Israel believed, and a portion disbelieved: but We gave power to those who believed, against their enemies, and they became the ones that prevailed.

—Qur’an, sura 61 (As-Saff), ayat 14[6]

Show me where this is in history please!**

 

[famdigy]

This thread was closed on the philosophy forum, so I’ll try here.

In a recent article in Crisis magazine William Kilpatrick argues … that the real Islam is the Wahabism of Saudi Arabia, with that of Isis being an extreme, fanatic form of Wahabism.

Pax
Linus2nd

I suppose the fact that most Muslims in the world do not ascribe to the Wahabi brand was conveniently ignored when he came to that conclusion.

 

[Contarini]

This thread was closed on the philosophy forum, so I’ll try here.

In a recent article in Crisis magazine William Kilpatrick argues that there is no diversity in Islam, that the shades of Islam we see in various countries are mere accomodations to the dominant culture, that the real Islam is the Wahabism of Saudi Arabia

We’ve been over this before. The argument makes no sense. Wahhabism is a modern movement. Never mind the absurdity of a member of one religion offering an opinion about what the “real” version of another religion is. Even a more defensible version like “Wahhabism is the historic mainstream of Islam” is historically ridiculous. It’s like saying “fundamentalist Protestantism is the historic mainstream of Christianity.”

How can a movement that originated in the 18th century be the standard, “real,” mainstream form of a religion that originated in the 7th? Because it supposedly gets back to original Islam? Yes right–and we all know how well that has worked for Protestants

Wahhabis will tell you that they are the “real Muslims,” of course, just as fundamentalist Protestants will tell you that they are “just New Testament Christians.” But why would any rational person believe them?

Edwin

 

[Dave_Noonan]

We’ve been over this before. The argument makes no sense. Wahhabism is a modern movement. Never mind the absurdity of a member of one religion offering an opinion about what the “real” version of another religion is. Even a more defensible version like “Wahhabism is the historic mainstream of Islam” is historically ridiculous. It’s like saying “fundamentalist Protestantism is the historic mainstream of Christianity.”

…Wahhabis will tell you that they are the “real Muslims,” of course, just as fundamentalist Protestants will tell you that they are “just New Testament Christians.” But why would any rational person believe them?

Edwin

Excellent analogy.