As a rule I try not to reason with unreasonable people, but here I go. To say that Imams are the only people qualified to interpret the Quran is so incredibly asinine I don't know where to begin. That's like saying that anyone who isn't a politician has no business voting. The text is there, the historical background is there, and the translation of the language is there, so given that every one is working with the exact same information why is that only an Imam can interpret the information? Are other theologians who aren't Muslims genetically flawed and prone to stupidity? Why given all the same information are Imams the only ones intelligent enough to form an opinion? Also you show your ignorance on the topic saying "learned priests", Muslims don't have priests, their teachers are called Imams.

The main issue that i honestly think you have is that you are unable to think for yourself and draw your own conclusions and because you can't you just assume that other people can't. When people refuse to or lack the ability to think independently it is a recipe for disaster and history will show that. Some of the worst atrocities in history have been a result of the average person not questioning what was going on or drawing conclusions that the people in positions of power weren't drawing. But hey why take the time and effort to think when someone else can do it for you and tell you what to think?

Regarding the verses, a lot of people believe that having a knee-jerk reaction is a bad thing, and it can be if all you do is have that reaction and never follow up and educate yourself on whatever the issue may be. And I agree that some things that may seem "scary and evil" at first and that's why you should feel compelled to find out if they really are or not. When you have a reaction to something that makes you question it you should be urged to familiarize yourself with the subject. Now if some of these verses don't make you have any type of reaction or cause you to think maybe I don't know a lot about this religion then there very well may be something wrong with you. If you were to question something that to any thinking person seemed egregious, you learned about it, and me and you came out on different sides I'd respect your opinion and we could have an academic debate, but you didn't research it and refuse to think independently so it's impossible to respect your opinion or have a logical debate with you.

I said in my first post in this topic that there are many peaceful muslims who are in no way bad people, but to think that everyone who identifies themselves as a certain religion is an expert on that religion or even knows more than everyone who isn't part of that religion is absolutely ludicrous. This is true with all religions. There are hundreds of thousands of people who go to church every sunday and identify themselves as Christians who don't know the first thing about what the bible says. I've had conversations with pastors who don't have any concept of what the bible says or basic christian theology. This is by no means only a symptom of the christian religion, but it is a symptom of all religions. Many people were born into a religion that their parents practiced so by default they identified themselves as whatever the religion was. To think that all people who identify themselves as religious actually study their religion and their religions origins and history is naive and foolish.

To think that something cannot be true or valid because someone somewhere disagrees with it is insane, especially if when presented with with contradictory evidence you immediately dismiss it. I could find people who would say that the christian god is a woman, that doesn't make it true. And just because something such as theology is open to interpretation that doesn't mean that someone can't interpret it incorrectly.

I personally thought you asking if I saw how saying I had a conversation with Muslims in Tunisia was bordering on bias and stereotypical was hilarious. I was in Tunisia talking to people who had identified themselves as Muslims. Is stating your location and stating the religion that people you were talking to identified themselves as now bias and stereotypical? Also bringing up that Tunisia is one of the least militant countries in the Middle East and those people supporting America should bear greatly on your assessment as to how typical people there react to militant Islam versus other countries in that area. I also want to clarify that I wasn't saying the Quran says not to speak badly about anybody, it stipulates to not speak badly about other Muslims, it has different views on how to treat the Christians, Jews, Hindus, and others as opposed to how it says you should treat other Muslims.

You say that our history is clouded with prejudice, but this isn't our history. This is their history. Anyone who knows history know that it is written by the winners and the Muslims were successful in their campaigns so they wrote the history not us. Your point about the book not being written in English is also pretty absurd. Yes it wasn't written in English, but it can be easily translated, unless no one in the western world is or ever has been fluent in Arabic. I also didn't use the example of Muhammad to show that the Quran is promoting violence, I was hoping that you would have the sense to realize that it was shown to illustrate that he didn't fight in self defense, but more the opposite. A campaign is an offensive and self defense is the opposite of of an offensive.

A couple closing points. If you're going to comment on it you should know the difference between the Torah and the Bible. One difference between Judaism and Christianity that some people might call major is that Christians believe that Jesus was the second coming and Jewish people believe that he was not. So since Jewish people do not believe this the new testament is largely irrelevant to them whereas the new testament is the biggest basis of the Christian faith. The conspiracy theory stuff your touching on I see no reason to really discuss in this thread.

When you say it seems foolish to argue with a christian about the bible is way off base. If you have zero knowledge of the bible then yes you shouldn't argue with anyone about it because you have no knowledge of it, but if you do have knowledge of it it's perfectly fine to argue about it and it's actually a good thing. If beliefs were never challenged how would anyone realize any problems with their beliefs or reasoning. If no one was ever challenged on what they thought they would be forced to wallow in intellectual mediocrity or stupidity. It should help form someones opinion of an issue when they are presented with new knowledge they didn't previously have. The greatest accomplishments in history are largely from someone questioning what was accepted as fact. If people didn't question things we'd still think the world was flat, we'd never have gone to space, we wouldn't have any technology, and on and on. I actually honestly hope you learn to think independently, question things, and try to learn about things so that you can form with your own opinions. I don't care if you end up agreeing with me or not, it's just a bad thing for everyone if people can't think for themselves.

Good article. I wish more people thought that way and were willing to have rational discussions about sensitive issues.

From the article:

This is fair. But using this definition, I don't see any bigotry of this type present in this forum that even warrants this thread.

Although others might agree with you i would suggest I'm above average when it comes to reason.
I'd say that is true by definition, but I'd also add if I remember correctly the quran is not to be interpreted as M was to be the sole interpreter.
Ah the religion of democracy again. It seems you are suggesting a politician is immediately qualified to vote. Would we seek a communist, who is well studied in democracy to tell us how we might interpret democratic values? (side note democracy is a system in which stupid people get to out vote the intelligent).


It seems you haven't spent time contemplating the effects of translation and the context of time. These must be considered in your own studies.
Logic would dictate an intelligent and learned muslim would be needed to know what it means to be a muslim.
No but humans are prone to conditioning and bias.

An issue arises when a non muslim says this is what muslim means, and a muslim disagree.

It might be called ignorance, although I am bad with words and not finished my studies. Furthermore I may still refer to them as priests as it seems more easily identifiable.

I think rather its a fools game for an unlearned person to begin drawing conclusions, and after all we are all unlearned and carry many conclusions.

But its not independent if you have democracy as your root.

No, see you were simply taught this in school. The atrocities happened because people were coming to false conclusions based on an unwillingness to understand fellow man.
Both having others tell you what to think, and telling yourself what to think are dangerous and not different in this regard.

It would also be a bad thing to assume, at the beginning of such education, that one starts free of bias and conditioning that might affect ones conclusions.

then you might agree in this regard that the point you gave did not suggest what you suggested.
Yes but coming from a democratic perspective does not do that (any perspective for that matter).
.Well I shouldn't be inclined to take in from your contextual point of view tho should I? You are kinda just restating you " look its scary on the surface" point.

Because I did not study such things in the way you have, or the things you did, does not confirm I did not put my own time into such studies.

To ignore a learned muslim preists disagreements is twice as ludicrous.

see we are looking for intelligent pastors, not stupid Christians.
I doesn't support you point to suggest you don't agree with Christian pastors as well. Thinking so would be failed logic.

This is your problem you have with religion, it doesn't work like science, science is your religion and you don't agree with them and they don't agree with you.

Well the sample size on this is ludicrous.

Again this is you telling me your interpretation from a bias root.

. You are lost in your studies, WE are not separate from THEM

So you point out that they may not have acted violent and its possible they meant to seem violent? I'm positive you said historical FACT.

You need to spend some time studying language in this regard. But if you don't do it from an unbiased center you might arrive at the same false conclusion about language and the difficulties of context with words and translation .

Religious campaigns are not separate from economic and economy is not just money, it is the science of our daily lives. I don't want to pull this too out of context, but I wouldn't assume you understand the cause of war because of an interpretation of a book.

Firstly I haven't commented on them, and 2nd you sidestepped my question about the relation of the torah to the bible, I'm not getting at conspiracy but rather that to understand the context of the new testament we need to give the torah its proper context. Or perhaps I misunderstand their relation.

Arguing, and arguing with unlearned people, is not a productive activity, clearly its democracy that would condition one to disagree
Your point earlier is that self study should be used to lift such ignorance. Nonetheless I am only pointing out that arguing or fighting does not affect ignorance in a positive way, and usually soley serves to solidify divide.
Questioning is quite different than arguing from a conclusion
As i side note, i don't think ancient man believe in a flat world.

Its your religious belief that causes you to assume I don't see the value in thinking for oneself. The issue is that same belief causes you to tout that you are not subject to your own conditioning. You've made some assumptions about me that if we can have a moment, we can clear up, specifically with regards to the torah and quran, but I fear you are not here to clear up misunderstandings.

If you want to clear up misunderstandings please go ahead. Just know that I won't renounce facts and still think that you should actually research a subject before you debate about it rather than just have a pre-determined notion coming in that you are unwilling to change even though it's not based in any actual fact.

Ya but you talked about how knowledgeable you are on the new testament but its without the context of the Torah. And now you are suggesting I lack intelligence because I am questioning you about that.

I can't really clear up understandings until you drop such prejudices.

And its tough for you to claim you studied any of this without prejudice if we can't even get that far.

At this point, I think, it is fair to say that there is a clear pattern emerging here in multiple threads, where factual presentations and argument are being met with charges of bigotry, appeals to authority, and even ad hominem defenses.

is this you trying to set me up for a grand slam?

I stopped reading at the bold point, not only b/c it is a ridiculous assumption. But I wonder what your argument is rooted in, do you believe all Muslims would not speak ill of Osama Bin Laden? That's what I took from your comment unless I hopefully misunderstood what you were saying.


"It has often been claimed in the media that Muslims are "silent" and do not condemn terrorism. This page is intended to refute that claim. Muslims have not been silent. Not even close"

"Sadly, there have been cases of violating the Islamic tenets by zealous and deviant Muslims who refuse to pattern their conducts and behaviors after the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him). Their behavior did not originate from the teaching of true Islam. Rather, they are the result of human failure and shortcoming."

http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2...oston-marathon

http://www.monitor.co.ug/News/Nation...z/-/index.html

http://mediamatters.org/research/201...-the-wo/196058

http://www.muhajabah.com/otherscondemn.php

Just to list a very few

He said that most muslims are commanded not to speak ill of other muslims. He didn't say that you can't find a muslim in the world who criticized Osama Bin Laden.

+1

So if a Muslim scholar says an adulterous woman should be stoned to death i only think its evil because of my lack of understanding?

I know they are not real Muslims and only the "good" things are "True Islam". Cake and eat it too itt.

Yes. You're clearly interpreting it wrong, it may seem wrong to stone a woman to death, but it can't be because if you were to say that something in the Quran was wrong you would be a bigot.

No I meant it literally like "less advanced in mental, physical, or social development than is usual for one's age."

Are y'all ok?

Im fine. You have been using slights for a while now. Its good to see them so straight foreword.

Sorry was this intended to come across as sincere?

No thank you.

I didn't think so.

For being wicked smart you are not so smart if you dont think my post was sincere.

OrP feel free to take out this little back and forth of our tardship but id like the post newguy cant rap his head around to stay. I think its a fair criticism of not only Islam but this thread.

The following are historical facts about Muhammad that need no interpretation. They have nothing to do with theology and are only statements of fact like saying George Washington was the first U.S president.

1) Muhammad had sex with and married a 9 year old girl. I'm sure that a Muslim scholar could shed some light on to why this is ok, but out of my ignorance this seems wrong.

2) Muhammad said that Allah hates those who don't accept Islam. Again I'm incredibly ignorant and this seems wrong, but then again I'm not a muslim scholar so I can't speak to wether this is ok or not

3) Muhammad owned slaves, again I need a muslim scholar to explain why this is ok to me

4) Muhammad said it is ok to beat your wife, Who am I to judge

5) Muhammad encouraged his men to rape enslaved women, Again this is from the Quran and even though it advocates rape I must be reading it wrong, can someone please help me with this as I'm incredibly unqualified to read and draw conclusions

6) Muhammad ordered his followers to raid Meccan caravans and steal what they could, Stealing can be ok in the right context? I need an Imam to know if that's ok

7) Muhammad ordered prisoners of war murdered, I'll do the PC thing and say that's perfectly fine

8) When the Qurayza surrendered to Muhammad's army he ordered that every man from the age of 12 and be up be-headed, This sounds scary and bad, but I can't be sure

9) Muhammad ordered the widows of the murdered Qurayza to be kept as sex slaves, slavery can be ok in the right context

10) Muhammad ordered that 1/5 of all captured women would become his personal concubines, there's clearly a translation error on this one

11) When Muhammad finished his conquest of the Khaybar people he ordered that their treasurer have a fire lit on his chest until he revealed where they kept their treasure, it's wrong when the government tortures muslims, but muslims can torture whoever they want so this is ok

There are more examples of perfectly acceptable behavior by Muhammad, but I'm tired of listing them. I'm sure newguy and the kid will need muslim scholars to decide if all that was ethical. Also I'm sure that I'm now a bigot, but please understand that all of these historical facts are just a reflection of my personal ignorance.

The issue I have in your recent post about stoning adulterous women is you do not mention the great many Muslims who abhor what you claim. Coolerboy123 and seemingly now yourself have yet to give any attention or merit to the interpretation of the words in the Quran from a perspective other then your own.

I used view to view these types of discussions in a similar fashion to coolerboy123. I actually used to think the religion of Islam was one that was inferior to my own beliefs.

So I started to delve deeper into the teachings and history of Islam and eventually I went to a local masjid in turn meeting Muslims from around the world. My misconceptions of the true meaning of Islam were eventually debunked. I now view things with a more open mind and have the utmost respect for Islam and its Muslim followers.

That being said lets try and work together here.

Even though I just read through this I'm gonna give one more attempt at connecting with your intelligence. What would you say if I suggested you have to give your muslim brothers and sisters (we're all family right) some outs. Nobody likes to admit they are wrong, what if just to get along we Muslims (because thats whats needed in this world) we let them explain their way out of the Quaran, provided they continue to act in a peaceful manner and don't want to kill all infidels. If that sounds agreeable then I would ask if we are doing a service to the world be outing the 'real' quran on a public poker forum, or if maybe we should keep the 'outs' act up in both public an private situations so as not to fuel division, segregation, and conflict?

Sure i do. Ive said Islam has good and bad. And agree not only some Muslim scholars disagree with stoning, most do.

My problem is with you and other apologists is you dont acknowledge some scholars disagree and stoning and alike are a part of some Muslims religious views.

This is my real issue. You do what you clam i do when i dont do it but you do.


This is a good example of the above. You wont acknowledge the religious views of some Muslims and claim its me who doesn't.

I acknowledge both interpretations. Some say stoning is good some say its not.

Im not going to pick and choose which is right or wrong or who has the True religion or Correct interpretation. Ill leave that to you or better yet the Muslims who practice their religious beliefs.

I could i guess tell you which id prefer or what i think a novice reading of a verse means. But that wouldn't mean much. What people actually practice as a part of their beliefs and their religion is more important.

I dont think your mind is opened. Quite the opposite.

Again I have no personal issues with you and want to work with you, not against.

I mean this is amazing.

I wont tell people what their religion is and allow them to tell me what it is. Well you and new tell people what their religion is and force your version of a religion you dont even belong to on them and kick them out of that religion if they dont agree.. And im the bigot. Amazing.

Batiar, I give you my sincere apologies with specific regards to the my last post. I forgot that you did acknowledge at least some good aspects of Islam in other threads.

The reason I become a bit frustrated was b/c I saw your recent post about what Muslim clerics thought about stoning women and how I don't criticize these type of Clerics, which btw I would disagree with. This coupled with reading the most recent post by coolguy123 (which was very offensive to me) effected my composure.

Btw what are you talking about in the bold? I don't tell people what their religion is, I don't think newguy does either. Also I do not think you are a bigot. As for Coolguy123 I am still unsure of how he truly views Islam, I am hoping he can prove he is not Islamophobic, so far Coolguy has used tactics similar to those of Pam Geller and Robert Spencer of the Muslim hate group SIOA.