Three Things About Islam

[Lil Red]

I am not posting to be inflammatory, but I would like to know phatmassers' thoughts on this video:
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ib9rofXQl6w[/media]

from the person who posted the video, on the description of this video:

[quote]Parts of the text have been strongly inspired by the website
http://www.citizenwarrior.com

Qu'ran online: http://quran.com/9/29
Abrogations: http://www.muhammadanism.org/Quran/abrogation_koran.pdf
Sharia: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uM4ODjVMc2s
Taqiyya: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taqiyya
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Quran/011-taqiyya.htm[/quote]

[Vincent Vega]

Very interesting information. I'd like to see the other side of the story too, as every debate material like this certainly has at least some bias(and I don't think it would be fair to us if a Muslim watched a video by protestants about how Catholics worship Mary and "crackers" and pray to their dead ancestors and so on and so forth), but this was certainly thought provoking.
Thanks for the post, Lil Red.

[Lil Red]

[quote name='USAirwaysIHS' date='22 July 2010 - 10:13 AM' timestamp='1279818780' post='2146339']
Very interesting information. I'd like to see the other side of the story too, as every debate material like this certainly has at least some bias(and I don't think it would be fair to us if a Muslim watched a video by protestants about how Catholics worship Mary and "crackers" and pray to their dead ancestors and so on and so forth), but this was certainly thought provoking.
Thanks for the post, Lil Red.
[/quote]
yes, that is why i posted it - because this is just one side of the story.

[HisChildForever]

I have heard that early passages are abrogated by later ones. It is the easiest way to explain contradictions in the text, at least. Some Muslims, however, reject the theory because they deem it impossible for there to be a contradiction in the Qur'an. Of course, that does not change the fact that there are contradictions. The Maulana Muhammad Ali of the Ahmadiyya sect stated:

[center]The principle on which the theory of abrogation is based is unacceptable, being contrary to the clear teachings of the Qur'an. A verse is considered to be abrogated when the two cannot be reconciled with each other; in other words, when they appear to contradict each other. But the Qur'an destroys this foundation when it declares that no part of it is at variance with another: "Will they not then meditate on the Qur'an? And if it were from any other than Allah, they would have found in it many a discrepancy" (4 : 82). [b]It was due to lack of meditation that one verse was thought to be at variance with another;[/b] and hence it is that in almost all cases where abrogation has been upheld by one person, there has been another who, being able to reconcile the two, has repudiated the alleged abrogation. (Ali, The Religion of Islam [The Ahmadiyya Anjuman Isha'at Islam (Lahore) U.S.A., Eighth Edition 2005], p. 32)[/center]

Either the contradiction exists, or the individual reading the passages is not meditating hard enough on them to see that they are in perfect unison (which is quite ridiculous, judging the various contradictions).

More from the same [url="http://www.answering-islam.org/Quran/Contra/qi019.html"]site[/url]:

[center]What Ali's candid admission shows is that the Muslims who appeal to abrogation do so primarily because they are unable of reconciling the errors within the Quran. Abrogation therefore becomes the convenient way of explaining away these discrepancies.

Amazingly, among the Muslims that accept abrogation are some who openly admit that the doctrine implies that there are contradictions within the Quran! Note, for example, what this Islamic site claims are the qualifications which are needed for someone seeking to be a mujtahid, i.e. a person wanting to 'exert himself' to form an opinion in legal matters:

A mujtahid should have the knowledge of nasikh and mansukh (abrogating and abrogated), i.e., which one out of two CONTRADICTORY and opposite texts is later in revelation. This might have occurred due to change of a rule, replacement, withdrawal or omission. It is not necessary to remember all such texts. But one must enquire the text related to the concerned issue. Past scholars have done a lot of work about an-Nasikh, and have listed all such verses and hadiths. Now it is not difficult to find it out anytime. (IslamOnline.net, Conditions of a Mujtahid; [url="http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/Satellite?pagename=IslamOnline-English-Ask_Scholar/FatwaE/FatwaE&cid=1119503544362"]source[/url])[/center]

A fairly well known contradiction of beliefs (not necessarily of texts), and the easiest way to destroy the foundation of Islam, is to understand what Islam says about the Bible. The Bible is a holy book, but it has been corrupted by man. But why would Allah allow one of his holy books to be corrupted? Similarly, why would Allah allow a goat to eat a piece of the Qur'an under Aisha's bed? I mean...goodness. Could you imagine if God in the Old Testament allowed the Ark of the Covenant to be profaned?

The bit about Islamic Law in the UK is completely correct. There is also nothing new about what he is listing as punishments under Islamic Law. You can find numerous articles about women being stoned to death for adultery - there was one posted on Phatmass recently - and I can pull up the statistics of homosexuals executed in Islamic countries for being homosexual if you would like. "Shari'a is the Law of Allah" - very interesting, unfortunately true, and a difficult concept for Westerners to grasp because of the separation between church and state.

Deception - there is an Islamic teaching called [i]taqiyya[/i]: "not showing their faith openly by means of pretense, dissimulation, or concealment, is a special type of LYING which is taught and used by Shi'a Muslims, cf. Sunni Muslims and Taqiyya"; more [url="http://www.answering-islam.org/Index/T/taqiyya.html"]here[/url]; in which it is morally permissible for a Muslim to lie about the faith to a non-Muslim.

LOL, as I write this post I keep pausing the video after key points. He just mentioned [i]taqiyya[/i], I was ahead of myself. Or the video, whatever.

I have such pity and compassion for Muslims because they are victims of this religion as much as the free world is, perhaps more so. Anyone interested should really consider reading "Son of Hamas" because the author really explains the religious and political ideologies of Islam from a first-hand experience. He is fairly neutral when it comes to the Israeli/Palestinian conflict and has such love for people on both sides.

He talks about Islam in this video. He gets hardcore around 2:37 - and note how he says to his interviewer "why distort the facts" (i.e. [i]taqiyya[/i]:

[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kOOQtMgLB3M&feature=related[/media]

"In my view, if Islam were implemented properly, this would spell the destruction of the Arab and Muslim world - the whole world, in fact - because every Muslim would become a Bin Laden."

[ardillacid]

Contemporary Islamic terrorism is not a mere continuation of Orthodox Sunni or Shia thought. Anybody who claims that is either lying to you or are confused. That doesn't mean that traditional Islam is something great or meritorious, just that contemporary Islamic radicalism is something different. At least, this is true about Al Quaeda. Like most propaganda this video is vague and doesn't seem to clearly define its terms. However the Islamic radicalism that most people think of when they hear the term is an Islamic-Leninist hybrid ideology. The author's claim is very analogous to someone claiming that the most radical elements of the South American Liberation Theology movements were authentically Catholic.

Edited July 22, 2010 by notardillacid

[ardillacid]

[quote name='HisChildForever' date='22 July 2010 - 02:06 PM' timestamp='1279821986' post='2146349']
I have heard that early passages are abrogated by later ones. It is the easiest way to explain contradictions in the text, at least. Some Muslims, however, reject the theory because they deem it impossible for there to be a contradiction in the Qur'an. Of course, that does not change the fact that there are contradictions. The Maulana Muhammad Ali of the Ahmadiyya sect stated:

[center]The principle on which the theory of abrogation is based is unacceptable, being contrary to the clear teachings of the Qur'an. A verse is considered to be abrogated when the two cannot be reconciled with each other; in other words, when they appear to contradict each other. But the Qur'an destroys this foundation when it declares that no part of it is at variance with another: "Will they not then meditate on the Qur'an? And if it were from any other than Allah, they would have found in it many a discrepancy" (4 : 82). [b]It was due to lack of meditation that one verse was thought to be at variance with another;[/b] and hence it is that in almost all cases where abrogation has been upheld by one person, there has been another who, being able to reconcile the two, has repudiated the alleged abrogation. (Ali, The Religion of Islam [The Ahmadiyya Anjuman Isha'at Islam (Lahore) U.S.A., Eighth Edition 2005], p. 32)[/center]

Either the contradiction exists, or the individual reading the passages is not meditating hard enough on them to see that they are in perfect unison (which is quite ridiculous, judging the various contradictions).

More from the same [url="http://www.answering-islam.org/Quran/Contra/qi019.html"]site[/url]:

[center]What Ali's candid admission shows is that the Muslims who appeal to abrogation do so primarily because they are unable of reconciling the errors within the Quran. Abrogation therefore becomes the convenient way of explaining away these discrepancies.

Amazingly, among the Muslims that accept abrogation are some who openly admit that the doctrine implies that there are contradictions within the Quran! Note, for example, what this Islamic site claims are the qualifications which are needed for someone seeking to be a mujtahid, i.e. a person wanting to 'exert himself' to form an opinion in legal matters:

A mujtahid should have the knowledge of nasikh and mansukh (abrogating and abrogated), i.e., which one out of two CONTRADICTORY and opposite texts is later in revelation. This might have occurred due to change of a rule, replacement, withdrawal or omission. It is not necessary to remember all such texts. But one must enquire the text related to the concerned issue. Past scholars have done a lot of work about an-Nasikh, and have listed all such verses and hadiths. Now it is not difficult to find it out anytime. (IslamOnline.net, Conditions of a Mujtahid; [url="http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/Satellite?pagename=IslamOnline-English-Ask_Scholar/FatwaE/FatwaE&cid=1119503544362"]source[/url])[/center]

A fairly well known contradiction of beliefs (not necessarily of texts), and the easiest way to destroy the foundation of Islam, is to understand what Islam says about the Bible. The Bible is a holy book, but it has been corrupted by man. But why would Allah allow one of his holy books to be corrupted? Similarly, why would Allah allow a goat to eat a piece of the Qur'an under Aisha's bed? I mean...goodness. Could you imagine if God in the Old Testament allowed the Ark of the Covenant to be profaned?

The bit about Islamic Law in the UK is completely correct. There is also nothing new about what he is listing as punishments under Islamic Law. You can find numerous articles about women being stoned to death for adultery - there was one posted on Phatmass recently - and I can pull up the statistics of homosexuals executed in Islamic countries for being homosexual if you would like. "Shari'a is the Law of Allah" - very interesting, unfortunately true, and a difficult concept for Westerners to grasp because of the separation between church and state.

Deception - there is an Islamic teaching called [i]taqiyya[/i]: "not showing their faith openly by means of pretense, dissimulation, or concealment, is a special type of LYING which is taught and used by Shi'a Muslims, cf. Sunni Muslims and Taqiyya"; more [url="http://www.answering-islam.org/Index/T/taqiyya.html"]here[/url]; in which it is morally permissible for a Muslim to lie about the faith to a non-Muslim.

LOL, as I write this post I keep pausing the video after key points. He just mentioned [i]taqiyya[/i], I was ahead of myself. Or the video, whatever.

I have such pity and compassion for Muslims because they are victims of this religion as much as the free world is, perhaps more so. Anyone interested should really consider reading "Son of Hamas" because the author really explains the religious and political ideologies of Islam from a first-hand experience. He is fairly neutral when it comes to the Israeli/Palestinian conflict and has such love for people on both sides.

He talks about Islam in this video. He gets hardcore around 2:37 - and note how he says to his interviewer "why distort the facts" (i.e. [i]taqiyya[/i]:

[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kOOQtMgLB3M&feature=related[/media]

"In my view, if Islam were implemented properly, this would spell the destruction of the Arab and Muslim world - the whole world, in fact - because every Muslim would become a Bin Laden."
[/quote]


Taqiyya is a doctrine formulated by Ismali (a type of Shia) Muslims. They were permitted to lie about their faith to avoid persecution under the Sunni Caliphate (Al-Ghazali, Sunni Islams greatest theologian, even formulated his very harsh views of what the state's strategy should be towards apostates in reaction to the Islami view. He showered them with polemics for allowing such a doctrine).

[HisChildForever]

[quote name='notardillacid' date='22 July 2010 - 02:22 PM' timestamp='1279822952' post='2146354']
Taqiyya is a doctrine formulated by Ismali (a type of Shia) Muslims. They were permitted to lie about their faith to avoid persecution under the Sunni Caliphate (Al-Ghazali, Sunni Islams greatest theologian, even formulated his very harsh views of what the state's strategy should be towards apostates in reaction to the Islami view. He showered them with polemics for allowing such a doctrine).
[/quote]

Source. I have tried to look myself and came up with nothing even close to this.

[ardillacid]

[quote name='HisChildForever' date='22 July 2010 - 02:31 PM' timestamp='1279823474' post='2146357']
Source. I have tried to look myself and came up with nothing even close to this.
[/quote]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taqiyya

I'll try to find the article I read about Al-Ghazali, apostasy laws, and the Ismalis. It may require JSTOR access.

[HisChildForever]

[quote name='notardillacid' date='22 July 2010 - 02:35 PM' timestamp='1279823719' post='2146359']
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taqiyya

I'll try to find the article I read about Al-Ghazali, apostasy laws, and the Ismalis. It may require JSTOR access.
[/quote]

I hope you find it, because Wikipedia? Tsk tsk, shame on you.

[Hassan]

[quote name='HisChildForever' date='22 July 2010 - 02:41 PM' timestamp='1279824110' post='2146361']
I hope you find it, because Wikipedia? Tsk tsk, shame on you.
[/quote]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/4530930.stm

[quote]
Wikipedia survives research test
The free online resource Wikipedia is about as accurate on science as the Encyclopedia Britannica, a study shows. [/quote]

Straight from the beeb

[HisChildForever]

Key words, "as accurate on science". Islam is not a science. Besides I have seen way too many Wikipedia pages with crazy things inserted.

[jeffpugh]

[quote name='Hassan' date='22 July 2010 - 02:50 PM' timestamp='1279824617' post='2146365']
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/4530930.stm



Straight from the beeb
[/quote]


God bless Wikipedia. On science.

[Seven77]

It is very much a cafeteria religion (as in cafeteria Catholic but different because the religion itself [i]allows[/i] you to pick and choose) … we should neither be surprised nor shocked by this (It's not Christianity-- Catholicism to be precise!).

[ardillacid]

All this is misguided. Muhammad was a sweet guy. See.

[img]http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4093/4819589804_a44aa798e6.jpg[/img]

Edited July 22, 2010 by notardillacid

[Hassan]

[quote name='HisChildForever' date='22 July 2010 - 02:53 PM' timestamp='1279824783' post='2146368']
Key words, "as accurate on science". Islam is not a science. Besides I have seen way too many Wikipedia pages with crazy things inserted.
[/quote]


[quote name='Sacred Music Man' date='22 July 2010 - 05:06 PM' timestamp='1279832819' post='2146406']


God bless Wikipedia. On science.
[/quote]
The research done by Nature only pertained to the articles of scientific nature. I feel comfortable extrapolating to other articles, especially ones that consistently use reliable references. It is rather easy to take the elitist route and say that Wikipedia is unreliable because the common man is able to edit it, but I have yet to see anything offered as proof against Wikipedia aside from personal anecdotes.