Can Islam be Reformed ? - Page 6 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

An atheist-free area for those of religious belief to discuss religious topics.

Moderator: PoFo Agora Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please. Religious topics may be discussed here or in The Agora. However, this forum is intended specifically as an area for those with religious belief to discuss religion without threads being derailed by atheist arguments. Please respect that. Political topics regarding religion belong in the Religion forum in the Political Issues section.
#14856821
SolarCross wrote:I don't recognise it as a criticism of myself. It looks and smells like you shit your pants and then blamed me for it. Notice in whose post the "criticism" is in? Is it in any of mine or is it in yours? That's right the shit is in your pants not mine. Occam's razor then suggests the poopy was produced by you and not me, I don't even have mod powers so how could I edit your posts?


What are you talking about?

Did you or did you not claim there was only one interpretation of Islam?

Here.
#14856827
Pants-of-dog wrote:What are you talking about?

Did you or did you not claim there was only one interpretation of Islam?

Here.


Dude, I said "interpretations" and posted a video, the content of the video was produced by a person different from myself. I don't like to assume gender but the video's author appears to be female whereas I appear to be male, thus we are unlikely to be the same person.

Moreover the person in the video's message was that the only interpretation of Islam that matters is that of the prophet Mohammad. She is not saying that there are no other interpretations only that they don't matter.

To elaborate on her point you personally can never read the Quran or the Hadith and then imagine that because that nice lady in the burka next door has not yet exploded or tried to kill you that in your own imagination you can interpret Islam as the most peaceful of religions, better even than Buddhism, but that interpretation doesn't matter because real muslims are reading the Quran and the Hadith and coming to completely different conclusions about what Mohammad wants them to do.
#14856833
SolarCross wrote:Dude, I said "interpretations" and posted a video, the content of the video was produced by person different from myself. I don't like to assume gender but the video's author appears to be female whereas I appear to be male, thus we are unlikely to be the same person.


Yes, your uncritical copying and pasting of someone else’s argument does clearly indicate that you did not make any effort at constructing your own argument, but I think we can all assume that you introduced this as an argument.

Moreover the person in the video's message was that the only interpretation of Islam that matters is that of the prophet Mohammad. She is not saying that there are no other interpretations only that they don't matter.


Why should they not matter?

The Sunnis and the Shias have different interpretations and fight over it. Are we supposed to assume they do not matter because you copied and pasted a video?

To elaborate on her point you personally can never read the Quran or the Hadith and then imagine that because that nice lady in the burka next door has not yet exploded or tried to kill you that in your own imagination you can interpret Islam as the most peaceful of religions, better even than Buddhism, but that interpretation doesn't matter because real muslims are reading the Quran and the Hadith and coming to completely different conclusions about what Mohammad wants them to do.


But it would be correct to assume that the woman in the burka next door does not have the same interpretation as ISIS since one is not attacking anyone while the other is.

And this matters because not being violently attacked also matters.
#14856843
Pants-of-dog wrote:Yes, your uncritical copying and pasting of someone else’s argument does clearly indicate that you did not make any effort at constructing your own argument, but I think we can all assume that you introduced this as an argument.
I've seen what you mean by "critical" it means toddler level ad-hominens (which is all Critical Theory is as you know). So I should have said "interpretations (video by a poopyhead)" in order not to be "uncritical" in your eyes.
Pants-of-dog wrote:Why should they not matter?

They don't matter the same way an interpretation of Jesus as a second hand car dealer doesn't matter. Most people are going to read the New Testament and realise Jesus in his own words has a completely different agenda. You can't fake out muslims that way it won't work, sooner or later they will pick up their own books and see your interpretation is fake.

Pants-of-dog wrote:The Sunnis and the Shias have different interpretations and fight over it. Are we supposed to assume they do not matter because you copied and pasted a video?

The Sunni and Shia interpretations are virtually identical where they differ is only on who they thought should have succeeded as Caliph after the Prophet Muhammad succumbed to an assassination attempt. The Sunni are happy that Abu Bakr succeeded him and the Shia are sad that Ali ibn Abi Talib didn't get the job (and that his younger son Hussein was ambushed and butchered by the supporters of Yazid a rival for the title of Caliph in later years). Other than that the Shia invented some extra stuff about a hidden imam that would come back at the end of the world.

Pants-of-dog wrote:But it would be correct to assume that the woman in the burka next door does not have the same interpretation as ISIS since one is not attacking anyone while the other is.

And this matters because not being violently attacked also matters.

The problem is that ISIS aren't interpreting the Hadith they are following it.
#14856848
@foxdemon

Like, I said, I don't care about who is the one bombing the Middle East, all I care about is the fact that they're bombing it! Ideology and debate isn't going to get us anywhere, diplomacy and warfare will and these things have universal rules and aren't tied to ideology. I can know for a fact that, regardless of who is president, that president will continue to bomb the MidEast. Hillary may be more open about it but Trump isn't going to care either.

It simply isn't relevant to me and even if you wanted to change my opinion on conservatives, I won't because I don't have an opinion on western conservatives. They don't affect me, the military and government affects and ideology has little effect on the US government. So you shouldn't be talking to me about this but SolarCross. SolarCross would be 100x more interested in your own posts than I would be.

However in terms of academic interests, I find that your ideas are very intriguing so I thank you for expressing them regardless. I simply think that you should be talking to someone else about this (i.e. SolarCross), someone who has spent most of his time on forums debating for your ideas, rather than someone thousands of miles away from all that action.

@SolarCross

You do happen to realize that the reason why ISIS is ISIS is because a majority of it's members didn't know how to read the Quran and only had it recited to them? You do realize that the reason why Islam in the ME is the way it is is because the "Golden Age of Islamic Scholarship" is gone, right? No one is critically reading the Quran anymore, no one is even literally following it. People just hear someone else talk about it and make their judgments from that.

The Sunni and Shia interpretations are virtually identical where they differ is only on who they thought should have succeeded as Caliph after the Prophet Muhammad succumbed to an assassination attempt. The Sunni are happy that Abu Bakr succeeded him and the Shia are sad that Ali ibn Abi Talib didn't get the job (and that his younger son Hussein was ambushed and butchered by the supporters of Yazid a rival for the title of Caliph in later years). Other than that the Shia invented some extra stuff about a hidden imam that would come back at the end of the world.


That's blatant BS. Shias and Sunnis differ not just in "who is the next caliph" but theologically too. Reading the opening paragraph of a Wikipedia article does not give you enough information about Sunnis and Shias. You may have researched stuff about the Quran and the hadith but your knowledge on Islamic sects is lacking mostly because that video of yours probably convinced you that they didn't matter anyways. You are able to competently debate the Quran and hadith but you are unable to prove that sects in Islam don't matter.

It takes more just a disagreement on the caliph to lead to thousands of years of blood feuding. You may think "ohh but they're Muslims!" however Muslims are human beings just like you and me and, as an Austrian, you must believe that all humans are rational decision makers who have their best selfish interests at heart. Blood feuding over something that insignificant during the modern era is not enough to cause millions of rational decision makers with their own interests at heart to kill each other.
#14856850
SolarCross wrote:I've seen what you mean by "critical" it means toddler level ad-hominens (which is all Critical Theory is as you know). So I should have said "interpretations (video by a poopyhead)" in order not to be "uncritical" in your eyes.


Even if we assume that I am bad at criticisng things, it still does not change the following two facts:

1. You provided no criticism of said video.

2. You copied and pasted the video in lieu of making your own argument.

They don't matter the same way an interpretation of Jesus as a second hand car dealer doesn't matter. Most people are going to read the New Testament and realise Jesus in his own words has a completely different agenda. You can't fake out muslims that way it won't work, sooner or later they will pick up their own books and see your interpretation is fake.


No one is trying to fake out Muslims.

In fact, your argument that they will read the Quran themselves and come up with their own interpretation is exactly my point.

The Sunni and Shia interpretations are virtually identical where they differ is only on who they thought should have succeeded as Caliph after the Prophet Muhammad succumbed to an assassination attempt. The Sunni are happy that Abu Bakr succeeded him and the Shia are sad that Ali ibn Abi Talib didn't get the job (and that his younger son Hussein was ambushed and butchered by the supporters of Yazid a rival for the title of Caliph in later years). Other than that the Shia invented some extra stuff about a hidden imam that would come back at the end of the world.


Your opinion anout the relative distinctness of these two interpretations does not magically mean that there is only one interpretation.

The problem is that ISIS aren't interpreting the Hadith they are following it.


They are following their interpretation of the Hadiths.

But that does not contradict the fact that the peaceful Muslim woman next door is following a radically different interpretation.
#14856851
The question should be: why we care if Islam could be reformed or not? If they want to live stuck in the 7th century, why should other nations interfere? Pull troops out of those countries, stop bombing them, close the borders of the Americas, Europe, Caribbean, and the part of Asia that doesn't have anything to do with Arab Muslims, Asian Muslims and African Muslims. Let them kill one another, in a decade or 2, a invasion wont be even necessary, half will be dead anyway
#14856852
That would be great, but the fact is that the modern global economy requires petroleum, and the Muslims are sitting on top of the oil that westerners want to sell.
#14856854
Pants-of-dog wrote:@SolarCross

You are not wrong because you are supposedly a bigot. You may be one or you may not. I do not know, care, or think about it.

You are wrong because many of your arguments are Islamophobic, and thus based on generalisations, stereotypes, fallacies, and moral posturing.


The problem with you is that you are really a broken record, that keeps repeating the same fraudulent arguments to every given answer or question.

Do you even know what phobia means?
A phobia is an irrational fear, a kind of anxiety disorder in which the individual has a relentless dread of a situation, living creature, place, or thing.

https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/249347.php

Would you call someone who rejects Nazism or Communism as having a phobia? Do you consider the rejection of Scientology a phobia? Human beings have likes and dislikes for everything and those are not phobias.

Rejecting Islam is based on rational ideas, facts that are easily proved. There's nothing irrational by rejecting Islam.

The irrational and phobic are the women and LBGT who support a project they have no idea what it is. It's irrational to support Islam and reject Nazism, both have same means to an end: end the jews. Islam just goes further in the idea of perversion, subjugates women, children, music, art and even dogs.

Islamophobia doesn't exist, there isn't any phobia against Islam. The phobic here seems to be you, who keep going on and on, comment after comment, rejecting every sort of liberty that Europe, America's and Asia seems to have, based on thin air to promote Islam.

I have the right to reject Islam, to oppose fascism. I have the right to reject Nazism. I'm not phobic, or irrational, actually is logic that guides my rejection. Only people who are irrational, not logic, and frankly, borderline stupid, would support Islamic ideology.

Intelligent and rational people discuss ideas, phobic and irrational people are attached to ideologies.
#14856856
Politiks wrote:The problem with you is that you are really a broken record, that keeps repeating the same fraudulent arguments to every given answer.


Then it should be easy to address them.

Do you even know what phobia means?
A phobia is an irrational fear, a kind of anxiety disorder in which the individual has a relentless dread of a situation, living creature, place, or thing.


https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/249347.php

Would you call someone who rejects Nazism or Communism as having a phobia? Do you consider the rejection of Scientology a phobia? Human beings have likes and dislikes for everything and those are not phobias.

Rejecting Islam is based on rational ideas, facts that are easily proved. There's nothing irrational by rejecting Islam.

The irrational and phobic are the women and LBGT who support a project they have no idea what it is.

Islamophobia doesn't exist, there isn't any phobia against Islam. The phobic here seems to be you, who keep going on comment after comment rejecting every sort of liberty that Europe, America's and Asia seems to have.

I have the right to reject Islam, to oppose fascism. I have the right to reject Nazism. I'm not phobic, or irrational, actually is logic that guides my rejection. Only people who are irrational, not logic, and frankly, borderline stupid, would support Islamic ideology.

Intelligent and rational people discuss ideas, phobic and irrational people are attached to ideologies.


https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/defin ... lamophobia

    Dislike of or prejudice against Islam or Muslims, especially as a political force.
#14856864
Pants-of-dog wrote:Then it should be easy to address them.



https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/defin ... lamophobia

    Dislike of or prejudice against Islam or Muslims, especially as a political force.


Interesting how giving a completely different meaning to the word Phobia to fit an agenda seems rational and logic. Phobia doesn't mean "dislike" or rejection based in logic and facts, is a irrational feeling.

Every single one of those actions were designed long ago, including miss using phobia. Barcelona Treat is a start to understand what is going on today.

About your points, they were all addressed to many times on this board, answered and then answered again, you're proven wrong all the time, yet you keep going on saying people don't address your points, when they do with basing their comments in facts you call it "opinions" trying to invalidate their perfectly valid argument. Rinse and repeat, is how you operate.

:roll:
#14856877
On the dumb points being posted on Islam. A few clarifications needed.

1-On sects, its preferable to identify which sect is being discussed. Since the Hadith you're mumbling about isn't shared by all sects. There are 6 sources of hadith in Sunni Islam, with several schools of thought and sects in Sunni Islam each taking 1 or more of those sources and ignoring the others.
No Sunni sect takes all 6 of them exists. And the material in those sources range from varying to outright contradicting each other in many points.

In Shia Islam, its even further divided since there are 12 sources with 4 schools of thought and over 30 different sects each having to some extent their own religion sharing some similarities with some sects and being the complete opposite of others.

Then there are the Quranist sects which don't recognize any hadith to begin with and have their own interpretations.

Furthermore there are some offshoots of Islam who have different versions of the Quran it self and even further sources of hadith different from the others, like the most known of them currently the Alawites.

Then there are the 7 readings of the Quran which each results in a different meaning of the Quran before even going to the Ijtihad and Qiyas part. This ,by the way, is the main reason there are sects in Islam and not, as some believe, the disagreement over the caliphate after Mohammad's death.


2- When talking about the so-called "shaira law". As mentioned before, Sharia means laws. The more accurate and factual name would be Islamic Sharia translating into Islamic law.
In this point, which version of Islamic laws are you talking about ?

3- In regard to the even more bullshit-filled point of "Islamic ideology". Islam is and has a spectrum of ideologies as anyone who ever held a book about it would know. In this point, which Islamic ideology are you addressing ?

4- When discussing the acclaimed human rights violations, there are 50 Muslim states in the world and within them there are over 200 different Muslim nations. Which one are you talking about ?


In the points stated as facts from the know-nothing team in here. Here are some highlights.

the only interpretation of Islam that matters is that of the prophet Mohammad.

There is no such thing, since everyone is trying to 1- know what exactly did mohammad say, and 2- what does it mean. The disagreements as shown earlier are quite extensive.


To elaborate on her point you personally can never read the Quran or the Hadith and then imagine that because that nice lady in the burka next door has not yet exploded or tried to kill you that in your own imagination you can interpret Islam as the most peaceful of religions, better even than Buddhism, but that interpretation doesn't matter because real muslims are reading the Quran and the Hadith and coming to completely different conclusions about what Mohammad wants them to do.

1- If every Muslim is gonna suddenly "blow up and kill everyone around them", humans would go extinct.

2- Reading the Quran alone actually can produce some of the most peaceful sects in the Islamic world.
Quranist sects, which don't recognize any hadith and stick to the Quran, are the most neutral ones out there and don't part-take in any conflict. In fact, as far as 'm aware, there was never in history a conflict the included any Quranist sect. Mainly because the Quran on it self clearly states that Muslims shouldn't try to enforce or expand their religion, and permits only defensive wars. It does talk alot about prophecies and how punishments work are in the afterlife, but not extensively on this one.
Anyone who actually bothers to read the full context of each verse would know this, though I'm sure most don't have sufficient mental capacity to read full texts.

sooner or later they will pick up their own books and see your interpretation is fake.

They did, turns out the results are not what you think they are.

Let them kill one another, in a decade or 2, a invasion wont be even necessary, half will be dead anyway

1400 years, overwhelming majority of it without any foreign presence, and it seems Muslims are still alive and growing bigger in number.
Shocker, I know.

Rejecting Islam is based on rational ideas, facts that are easily proved.

Demonstrated clearly by you proving them. :lol: :knife:


Intelligent and rational people discuss ideas, phobic and irrational people are attached to ideologies.

Exactly.
Intelligent and rational people discuss ideas, something which you've not done.
Phobic and irrational people are attached to ideologies. Considering the an ideology is a set of beliefs a person holds in its raw definition, you're attached to an ideology and in general rejecting facts or any discussion of ideas.
Russia-Ukraine War 2022

Yale course on Ukrainian history: https://www.you[…]

So the evidence shows that it was almost certainl[…]

Israel-Palestinian War 2023

Find Someone Who Loves You Like Israel Loves Att[…]

Hmmm, it the Ukraine aid package is all over mains[…]