|
What's the view of Christianity and Jews in Islam? Why do Jews get preferential treatment, but Christians don't? Is there a sect of Islam that tries to reconcile both Christianity and Islam? Something like a western version of the Sikh faith?
|
#
¿
Sep 25, 2015 07:35
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 21, 2024 00:03 |
|
|
This is a great thread, thanks for all the answers! How much is actually known about Mohammed and his personal views? If he was alive today, what would he think about the modern state of Islam in the world? What was early Islam like? Were there any major changes, as it grew in size and influence? (like Christianity turning from an apolitical religion for women, slaves and the poor to an opulent state religion)
|
|
#
¿
Sep 28, 2015 09:41
|
|
|
I was always fascinated by how the image of God/Gods changes over time. For example, the way Greek gods changed between the archaic and ancient period. Or the contrast between God in the old and the new testament. Are there any dramatic changes in the Islamic perspective, compared to Judaism and Christianity? I think someone already mentioned that Islam has a more pantheistic vibe to it.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 4, 2015 18:28
|
|
|
Tendai posted:That depends on entirely which line of thought you follow, wahdat al-wujud or wahdat ash-shuhud, the two areas I mentioned before. The first holds essentially that Allah and Creation are one and indivisible (this is a MASSIVE oversimplification, but it works), the second that they're totally separate. In my experience, this isn't something that the Average Muslim pays much mind to and is mostly focused on by some scholars and a whole lot of Sufis. Offhand I'd guess that the general point of view would be for wahdat ash-shuhud with Allah as a specific and anthropomorphic figure. IRC people are made in Gods image, according to Christianity. That's why it makes sense that God can have emotions like love for humanity. But how would that even work with a non anthropomorphic divine being? How to ascribe motivations to such a being?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 4, 2015 19:02
|
|
|
MrNemo posted:Although equally you can get pointlessly strict rules lawyer types as well, a friend of mine who hadn't prayed for years decided to do Ramadan. She got up for morning prayers and everything else but was almost in tears when one of the Malaysian workers informed her that her prayers for the day didn't count as her ankles were showing. Yes, the all-loving creator of the universe, the maker of billions of galaxies, cares whether your ankles showed during prayer or not. Of course! Some people are just too dumb to live, whether they are religious or not.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 24, 2015 13:58
|
|
|
pidan posted:I've always felt that Islam is pretty extremely focused on following a set of clearly defined rules. I mean, both Jews and Christians have teachings along the lines of: wait, what? I'm sure that's not true, even for Christianity. The majority of Christians in the world are Catholics, and they have a ridiculous amount of micromanaging rules for everyday life. There are rules on when to eat fish, how to pray, how to confess and how to gently caress. It's almost totalitarian.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 25, 2015 02:48
|
|
|
Bolocko posted:Regarding coitus, in effect yes, that's more or less the gist of it. Couples can do other things to avoid the possibility of pregnancy: Catholic Natural Family Planning is absolutely a thing. That seems totally inconsistent to me. A woman can only get pregnant during a few days of the month. If you are having sex outside that time period you are doing it just for fun and not for procreation, right?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 26, 2015 18:28
|
|
|
Bolocko posted:As I said, sex for fun isn't prohibited, and sex outside the fertility window isn't disrespectful of God's procreative design, which is not that we only have sex when pregnancy is most likely to occur. Please don't take it the wrong way, but this makes absolutely no sense to me. It seems like it's trying to unify two totally different views on sex. the ultimate purpose of sex should be procreation <-> it's totally fine to have sex for fun only, as much as you want, even if you don't want children I just don't get it, this is like when I tried to comprehend the Trinity, but with more sex. I think I'll stick to Islam as my fallback religion. At least it kinda makes logical sense most of the time.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 26, 2015 21:45
|
|
|
Amun Khonsu posted:The Qur'an speaks of the existence of Alien lifeforms, existence of multiple dimensions (known as M-Theory or String theory today), Day of Judgement on some of them, all of them look to One God. Here are some verses of the Qur'an that justify this. The belief in multiple worlds is probably as old as humanity and definitely predates Islam. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_pluralism Sorry, but I'm gonna be really skeptical about the Quran containing any specifics of modern astrophysics and cosmology.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 29, 2015 12:57
|
|
|
Amun Khonsu posted:However, it is clear that the Qur'an specifically mentions ideas that we have been discovering in the scientific realm for centuries since. It is a fact that has been the reason for technological advances during the Islamic Golden Age when Europe was in the Dark Ages, which helped them begin to revitalize their educational institutions during the renaissance and subsequently where we get the basis for much of our modern day technology. That's definitely true, but I find it pretty bizarre to claim that the Quran contains facts about modern science. I looked at the wikipedia page on the matter and every single example that they mentioned is just some extremely vague and generic statement, that can mean whatever you want it to mean. I see nothing there that hasn't been common knowledge in many regions of the world at that point. e: Like for example: "Have not those who disbelieve known that the heavens and the earth were of one piece, then We parted them and we made every living thing of water? Will they not then believe? I think "parting of heavens and earth" is already mentioned in Genesis? And all living organisms being made from primarily water is pretty self-evident to every human being. Why would you ever try to contort that into things like the big bang and hydrogen fusion? GABA ghoul fucked around with this message at 13:42 on Oct 29, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Oct 29, 2015 13:34
|
|
|
Amun Khonsu posted:wikipedia is not an Islamic source. No disagreement here. I was just curious about people who claim that the Quran can be a valuable contribution to science today, which is not something that you encounter with mainstream Christianity and the Bible very often.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 29, 2015 14:51
|
|
|
flakeloaf posted:That makes perfect sense. After all, the revelations of the Abrahamic holy texts all started with an infinite, omnipotent god telling a mortal man not only how to begin to comprehend the infinite, but that he should gain sufficient understanding of the idea to explain it to other mortals. An then there is the ancient text of the srimad bhagavatam, which has a chapter that is actually titled "calculating time from the atom" and begins with quote:The material manifestation's ultimate particle, which is indivisible and not formed into a body, is called the atom. It exists always as an invisible identity, even after the dissolution of all forms. The material body is but a combination of such atoms, but it is misunderstood by the common man. Indians knew 
|
|
#
¿
Oct 30, 2015 16:54
|
|
|
I know poo poo about Islam, but I can guarantee you that God doesn't give a single gently caress about a kid singing a Christmas song in school. If God is so stupid that he mistakes a Christmas carol for real idolatry, I don't even know what to say here.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 26, 2015 18:00
|
|
|
Zakmonster posted:Lifestyle choice is incorrect. We understand that homosexuality isn't a choice. As such, their 'end game' is celibacy. It's tough, and it's not fair because God made you this way (if you're the type of Muslim who believes that), but God also made some people to have crippling physical or mental disabilities. Not everyone's life circumstances are equal, and the understanding is that the harder your 'test' in this world, the better your reward in the next. So, if you had a gay kid, you would be totally fine with him/her living in misery and never finding love? Would you really want that for your own child, if all it takes for them to be happy and fulfilled is to embrace a more modern and liberal denomination of Islam? Wouldn't you want to have (adopted) grandkids some day?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 30, 2015 11:45
|
|
|
Zakmonster posted:Oh he can find love and be in a relationship with someone, as long as that relationship involves no sex. Sorry, but I can't take this serious. If you say that you are allowed to outlawyer god and his laws, than you are just making poo poo up at this point. I can just as well claim that gay sex, while standing up, is totally fine, since god forbade LAYING with a man, not standing up. After all, god knows what he is doing and chose his words carefully. If he meant sex and not laying, then he would have said so. Who are you to argue with god, yadda yadda ...
|
|
#
¿
Dec 30, 2015 14:35
|
|
|
ashgromnies posted:I think the difference is that many Westerners think smoking weed should not be a crime, and many westerners move towards that. But you said that homosexual actions (or other Zina) can never be considered acceptable by Muslims. There are sects/denominations of Islam that are totally fine with gays. I remember that because they got lovely death threats from some fundamentalist shitheads and it was all over the news. I don't remember what they are called, but you can probably google it. There is nothing magic or exceptional about Islam and their hate of gays, compared to other religions.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 30, 2015 15:01
|
|
|
ashgromnies posted:That's not what the Muslims in the thread are saying, though. They're saying it's always sin. People might "look the other way" but it's still sin and against sharia in any form -- is this incorrect? Because that's what the past page seems to have said. Well, the three muslims in this thread are not the only muslims in the world. There are some muslims who say that it is not a sin. (probably a tiny, tiny minority) quote:So it is, in fact, unique if compared to, say, Christianity which offers believers an easy "out" in the form of the old and new covenants. "Oh, yeah, the anti-gay stuff is all Old Testament and Jesus came by and said that we have a new law and don't need to worry about that any more" is the moderate Christian response. Do you see the difference? You picked a pretty bad example here, because only a minority of Christians believe that the Old Testament is no longer binding. For most Christians it is still the law of god (how much of it, depends on the denomination/sect). Look, this poo poo ain't magic. You either say that the rules in the Quran must always be considered in their historic context and that's how god intended for people to apply them, or you just lawyer your way out of it. Like, look at this: For ye practice your lusts on men in preference to women: ye are indeed a people transgressing beyond bounds. It clearly speaks about not PREFERING butt sex with men, so it applies to a situation where you already have sex with women. It's obviously a passage about not neglectin your womin' and denying her marital rights to her and not making children with her. If you never have sex with chicks, you are not PREFERING a men and you are totally fine to have butt sex with your boyfriend. - The Imam waitwhatno, on the Something Awful Forums
|
|
#
¿
Dec 30, 2015 17:13
|
|
|
ashgromnies posted:Are you a Muslim? You keep appealing to authority but haven't posted any imams that agree with your viewpoint and the self-identified Muslims in the thread contradict what you're saying. If you spend a couple seconds on google you will find multiple pro-gay Islamic scholars, Islamic pro-LGBT groups, gay Imams and whatever else you need. I'm sure as hell not gonna assemble a comprehensive list for you here, it's not like you give a poo poo or even gonna read it. 
|
|
#
¿
Dec 30, 2015 23:11
|
|
|
TacticalUrbanHomo posted:Doesn't sound like that to me. Sounds more to me like he's just trying to find the fluffiest words possible to express bigotry. Read the last two pages, being gay is not a sin. Only the splitting of rear end to ram cock is a sin. You can probably even kiss and it will not be a sin, but I dunno.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 2, 2016 15:44
|
|
|
Fuzz posted:If God doesn't like butt sex, oh well. If it's a sin, maybe he'll forgive it. If premarital sex is a sin, maybe he'll forgive me for it, too. I'm a pretty good person otherwise, and believe in God, so either way, even if I end up going to Hell for sinning more than good deeding, eventually I'll get out because I believe in God and that's the only unforgivable sin. Pleeeeaase, don't be silly. Islam is forever and ever incompatible with post-modern society. You don't exist and everybody knows that! Silly liberal strawman, thinks he is people. 
|
|
#
¿
Jan 3, 2016 19:47
|
|
|
Tendai posted:Is it really all that surprising that sex is used as a way to talk about Paradise, considering that sex is universal to the human experience and (generally speaking) feels really good? I've never quite understood the hang-up on those descriptions, to me it comes off as more a way of saying "Seriously guys, you have no idea how good this is gonna be, here's an attempt at describing it" than anything literal. I mean, of all the things to be all "gasp, look at those Muslims" about, that is... probably not high up on the list, I'd think. I think the hangup is more about the fact that you get a bunch of sex slaves in paradise. The idea of sex slaves is absolutely revolting to most modern people.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 5, 2016 16:25
|
|
|
Fizzil posted:i imagine its supposed to be a place where you can have anything Even sex slaves? Also, how is this any different from the Quran& The Gays situation earlier? You take the gay passage absolutely literal with zero wiggle room for interpretation. But the virgins passage is totally metaphorical and should not be taken literal? Why are they different?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 5, 2016 19:36
|
|
|
Maoist Pussy posted:Social justice would be Islam pulling out of Persia and North Africa and returning them to their historical cultures. Homo sapiens sapiens must immediately retreat from all occupied Neanderthal territory, by 5 pm tomorrow. If my social justice demands are not met by then, I WILL proceed to poo poo myself in public!
|
|
#
¿
Jan 7, 2016 00:53
|
|
|
There is no developed Islamic country yet, right? So how do you imagine such a country would look like? Would it be just as liberal and unreligious as a Christian country? I mean, all Muslims in this thread are far more religiously conservative than the average Christian in the west. Would a modern Islamic country be full of people like you or more of liberal types, like in the west?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 9, 2016 23:49
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 21, 2024 00:03 |
|
|
P-Mack posted:Check out Albania, which is literally European, if you're not just trolling. Albania is an impoverished shithole and very far away from being a developed country. Not sure what you are getting at. Fuzz posted:
Developed nations are getting increasingly less religious and more and more people turn to atheism and agnosticism. I guess I'm just wondering what conservative Muslims, who want Islam to grow and become stronger, think about this fate? Church membership in Europe is in free fall and the same thing will happen to Islam some day, but can a truly conservative Muslim wish for that?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 10, 2016 01:16
|
|
