Will the real Islam please stand up!

  • Thread starter Thread starter dolphinlove
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
mynamesjoe said:
Perhaps I was a little mistaken about the forbiddeness of Translation. But this link sorta talks about it.
from whom you fear
sunniforum.com/forum/showthread.php?47723-Is-the-Quran-Transliteration-permissible

However, my point wasn’t about the translation of the Quran, it was about what is IN the Quran.

hmmmm

Surah 4:34 “Men have authority over women because God has made the one superior to the other, and because they spend their wealth to maintain them. Good women are obedient. They guard their unseen parts because God has guarded them. As for those from whom you fear disobedience, admonish them and send them to beds apart and beat them. Then if they obey you, take no further action against them. Surely God is high, supreme.”

Surah 4:89 “They but wish that ye should reject Faith, as they do, and thus be on the same footing: But take not friends from their ranks until they flee in the way of Allah. But if they turn renegades, seize them and slay them wherever ye find them; and take no friends or helpers from their ranks”

Note, I’m not really sure how to reference the quran.

Two other things to keep in mind when seeing passages like these. One, these aren’t bad translations, all translations will say things similiar things, and that there are many more passages that promote violence. And more importantly Two, Unlike nearly all of the Old Testament verses of violence, the verses of violence in the Quran are mostly open-ended, meaning that they are not restrained by the historical context of the surrounding text.
Click to expand...
aren’t you aware that these manner are the best discovered by western Psychologists ,in case of troubles between husband and his wife I read that in a newspaper I hope that I could find some sources in english, and the sanctions are ordred exactly as the Psychologists ordered :
1-admonish the wife if she still get away from here husband then
2-send her to beds apart if she still away
3- beat here and here not hardly and not more that 3 times

2/ there is some verses in Quran came in war periode so do not focus on when we are living in peace time ,but focus on other verses which is really peacefull

like what a christian woman saiD on QURAN 😉 👍
youtube.com/watch?v=SqNzxtcRIMs
youtube.com/watch?v=GtQHi…eature=related
 
anouar,

Firstly, you don’t have to put your anger on me in your Arabic private message for this topic!!!, please use this public thread next time :dts:.

Secondly, I only posted one authentic hadith which supports current Muslim actions.

Thirdly, Muhammed preached Islam for over 23 years so surly at some points in his life he used politics and soften his actions against some people BUT that does not cover the fact that most of what is in Quran and Hadith are harsh instructions against non-Muslims.

Finally, I see you have been banned already, so I suggest you register again and discussing your view openly.
 
Please cite the appropriate Surahs from the Q’uran to back this claim.
[/quote]

*(Quran 9:29):
“Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the Religion of Truth, from among the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued”

**(Quran 47:4):
“Therefore, when ye meet the Unbelievers (in fight), smite at their necks; at length, when ye have thoroughly subdued them, bind a bond firmly (on them): thereafter (is the time for) either generosity or ransom: until the war lays down its burdens. Thus (are ye commanded): but if it had been Allah’s Will, He could certainly have exacted retribution from them (Himself); but (He lets you fight) in order to test you, some with others. But those who are slain in the way of Allah, He will never let their deeds be lost.”

**(Quran 9:5):
“But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war); but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practise regular charity, then open the way for them: for Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.”

(Quran 5:33):
“Indeed, the penalty for those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger and strive upon earth [to cause] corruption is none but that they be killed or crucified or that their hands and feet be cut off from opposite sides or that they be exiled from the land. That is for them a disgrace in this world; and for them in the Hereafter is a great punishment”.
 
i also was sent a private message by that poster to discuss Islam further. i did not reply. i see the posts were removed.
 
*You are wrong - Peter denied Jesus before he was chosen by Jesus to lead the Church. You forget also that after the Holy Spirit descended on the Apostles at Pentecost they were transformed completely. So much so that they all (bar one) died as martyrs for the Faith!. *
 
Sam_777 said:
Firstly, you don’t have to put your anger on me…
Click to expand...
It backfired, and answered dolphinlove`s question better than the rest of us could have. 🤷
7_Sorrows said:
i also was sent a private message…
Click to expand...
What is there to hide?

Cinette:
👍

Hes internationally known, so he has a reputation to protect. Hes the Director of Apologetics and Evangelization at Catholic Answers. 😃
 
Battleaxe said:
It backfired, and answered dolphinlove`s question better than the rest of us could have. 🤷

What is there to hide?

Cinette:
👍

Hes internationally known, so he has a reputation to protect. Hes the Director of Apologetics and Evangelization at Catholic Answers. 😃
Click to expand...
I have watched Tim Staples on EWTN and he is very credible, very staunch and knowledgeable.🙂
 
7_Sorrows said:
i also was sent a private message by that poster to discuss Islam further. i did not reply. i see the posts were removed.
Click to expand...
PMs are within the rules of the forum, if he sent you one, you should report it.
 
dolphinlove said:
After the horrible protest we have recently had in Sydney, a few muslims have come out saying they are disgraced by the way ‘a few of the minority’ have carried on. Koodos to them I say.
However, we see in countries, especially Pakistan, not a few, but a LOT are burning American flags and people are dying from these protests.
Some muslims claim that this is not the real islam, but from what we are seeing, im not agreeing with them.
Can muslims, or anyone prove that islam is not as bad as the impression they are giving?
Click to expand...
I remain baffled by the fondness of non-Muslims for this phrase “the real Islam.” It is not a phrase I would ever use, myself. I certainly don’t recognize the right of non-Christians to tell me what “real Christianity” is, nor would I waste my time trying to persuade a non-Christian that my version of Christianity was more “real” than someone else’s, unless of course as part of convincing them to accept Christianity itself.

One can speak of mainstream or classic versions of a religion, though even then only with caution. What does “real” mean in this context? I think people are using the word without thinking.

Islam, as defined by Muslims, is submission to the will of God revealed by His prophets. That means that from a Christian point of view, real Islam is Christianity.

Edwin
 
If anyone has ever read the Quran and Sunnah and Hadith, they would know that violent opposition towards anyone who looks at Muhammad the wrong way is encouraged. The Quran consists of one verse after another condemning unbelievers and describing the fire God’s own angels are preparing for them.

That’s the way it is. The majority of Muslims do not act this way, but IIRC a large portion of non-violent Muslims in Europe do sympathize with jihadists, even if they don’t act with them. Yes, violence is part of the “real Islam”. It’s right there in their holy writings. We should be grateful so many Muslims are not quite as devout.
 
Contarini said:
Islam, as defined by Muslims, is submission to the will of God revealed by His prophets. That means that from a Christian point of view, real Islam is Christianity.
Click to expand...
Theres an important difference: Christianity doesnt include Muhammad, along with some very hostile passages about us “people of the Book”. It`s not Christian. From our pespective, Galatians 1:8-9 fits.

Wherever the Bible contradicts the Quran, Muslims say we corrupted the Bible. 😦
 
Battleaxe said:
Theres an important difference: Christianity doesnt include Muhammad, along with some very hostile passages about us “people of the Book”.
Click to expand...
You missed my point, which is that it’s meaningless for non-Muslims to talk about “real Islam.”

If Islam is submission to God and His Messengers, then orthodox Christians do not regard any manifestation of the religion called Islam to be “real Islam,” for the reasons you give among others. If anything, the most “real” form of Islam would be the form closest to the truth, whether or not that had much to do with the historical teachings of Muhammad.

If Islam is simply a historical phenomenon, then it has no “essence” and no part of it is any more “real” than any other part.

Edwin
 
Contarini said:
You missed my point, which is that it’s meaningless for non-Muslims to talk about “real Islam.”
Click to expand...
Can`t agree with that.

My definition of “real Catholicism” is: following the Church`s teachings on Faith and Morals, with no picking and choosing. Total orthodoxy. It has nothing to do with what the majority do: eg most contracept.

Same with “real Islam”. It means following the teachings of Muhammad and the Quran and whatever else they have. It doesn`t necessarily mean what the majority believe and do.
If Islam is submission to God and His Messengers, then orthodox Christians do not regard any manifestation of the religion called Islam to be “real Islam,” for the reasons you give among others. If anything, the most “real” form of Islam would be the form closest to the truth, whether or not that had much to do with the historical teachings of Muhammad.
Click to expand...
Eh?
Whether its because its 2:45AM here or something else, something doesnt click. im too tired to think. 😊
Hope there aren`t too many typos…
 
Contarini said:
I remain baffled by the fondness of non-Muslims for this phrase “the real Islam.” It is not a phrase I would ever use, myself. I certainly don’t recognize the right of non-Christians to tell me what “real Christianity” is, nor would I waste my time trying to persuade a non-Christian that my version of Christianity was more “real” than someone else’s, unless of course as part of convincing them to accept Christianity itself.

One can speak of mainstream or classic versions of a religion, though even then only with caution. What does “real” mean in this context? I think people are using the word without thinking.

Islam, as defined by Muslims, is submission to the will of God revealed by His prophets. That means that from a Christian point of view, real Islam is Christianity.

Edwin
Click to expand...
A well thought out argument Edwin, within the framework of your Christian paradigm no less. Although, I have no doubt that alot of commentators will simply view it as semantics.

Ultimately the discussion about “the Real” version of (insert favorite religion, ideology, philosophy) by non-adherents is usually tied up with the notion that the behaviors exhibited by some members of the offending group are at variance with the core principles of the philosophy in question…

…or what outsiders take to be the core principles.

I think the more appropriate question, at least from a practical standpoint, is “Can a version of Islam that honors many of its older traditions still exist within the confines of a post-Islamic world?”

This is where it gets a little choppy. As evidenced by my “How many Muslims do you know in Real Life?” thread, the vast majority of CAF seems quite unaware of the social/moral/ethical practices of the religion and rely upon the news which only projects a selected (although attention grabbing) version of the religion.

This shouldn’t be treated as a “knock” against CAF or Catholicism btw. I had a friend ask a similar question (in reverse of course) on a few Islamic websites (domestic and foreign) with symmetric results.

Which leads to a kind of irony, for me at least.

Everywhere I go on the Net in my discussions about religion and philosophy, everyone regardless of what religion they may practice (if at all), is quite concerned about portrayals and misrepresentations of their religious culture.

But few ever seem to afford their non-adherent counterparts the same benefit of the doubt. And so they rely upon the very Media which they de-cry in their own specific cases to give them information about a group of people they have never had a direct/empirical experience with…
 
Battleaxe said:
Can`t agree with that.

My definition of “real Catholicism” is: following the Church`s teachings on Faith and Morals, with no picking and choosing. Total orthodoxy. It has nothing to do with what the majority do: eg most contracept.
Click to expand...
Right. And you’re a Catholic. You have the right to an opinion on the subject.

Of course, different Catholics who agree with you in principle have different views on what “total orthodoxy” consists of.

Between you, Andrew Greeley, and a sedevacantist, how would a non-Catholic choose which represented “real Catholicism”? It would be a meaningless question.

In an earlier round of this same debate, someone pointed out to me that I violate this principle when I speak of Catholicism. However, I do so only insofar as I myself am compelled by Catholicism and adhere in some sense to its teachings. When I speak of “real Catholicism” (which I try not to do but probably do on occasion), I mean “the Catholicism that I think is very likely true.” And the point I’m making is that that’s the only way in which anyone should use “real” about a religion. If you don’t think the religion is true, then you don’t think there’s any “real” version of it.
Same with “real Islam”. It means following the teachings of Muhammad and the Quran and whatever else they have.
Click to expand...
The honest and revealing phrase “whatever else they have” gives your whole argument away. You don’t know, and you frankly admit that you don’t know, exactly what the sources of authority in Islam are. In fact, as with any religion, different Muslims weigh different sources of authority differently and interpret those sources differently (all who call themselves Muslims, except for somewhat disingenuous Christian missionaries following up on the implications of the meaning of “Islam” I suggested earlier, accept the Qur’an and venerate the example of Muihammad, but they vary on the value they place on the hadith, which are traditions about Muhammad, on medieval law codes, on the teachings of the Sufi mystics, and so on, as well as on the internal relationship of the different sections of the Qur’an). There is no basis on which a non-Muslim can adjudicate which of these versions of Islam is more “real.”

As a conservative Catholic, you can meaningfully criticize liberal Catholics as unorthodox, because they differ from a standard of orthodoxy that you accept. But since you don’t accept any version of Islam as true, it makes no sense to judge one form of Islam to be truer or more orthodox than another. That’s for Muslims to do.

Edwin
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top