|
You're doing a thing where you're expecting there to be an objective definition of a "morally justifiable life". Social moral standards shift and change, 10 years ago many of the people currently changing their Facebook profiles to rainbow-ized versions were calling people "faggots" and opposed to gay marriage. 25 years ago, "Don't Ask Don't Tell" was considered progressive by many. 50 years ago plenty of people thought "separate but equal" for blacks and whites was reasonable. What do you do, that is socially normal, that will be judged as immoral in the future? It's hard to know, and the standards are set by fickle people.
|
#
¿
Oct 1, 2015 14:12
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 17, 2024 14:56 |
|
|
cebrail posted:No, I'm not. I'm presuming everyone in this thread does not consider slavery or having sex with 9 year olds morally justifiable. I'm also not talking about people following Muhammad 1000 or 50 years ago, I'm talking about people following him in 2015. I don't get your angle. You're confused at how people can take historical context into account, and say, "we like THESE ideas this person had, but not these other ones any more because we've moved beyond that societally"? You think there should be prophets of every moral era, to match the standards of the time? I'm not sure what your argument is any more.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 1, 2015 22:05
|
|
|
Amun Khonsu posted:Shari'ah is a collection laws that govern Muslims personally, socially and/or nationally. It is developed based on the Qur'an, assorted Hadith and in consultation with experts in technology, medicine, economy and many other facets of modern life. Roughly 10% of Shariah is religious law that cannot be changed, such as the 5 pillars of Islam, our 6 basic beliefs and things related to religion. The rest of Shari'ah is not religious and can evolve based on the times, necessity or people who submit themselves to Shari'ah, such as civil and criminal law. Can you go into some of the specifics of the 10% that's held in common?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 14, 2015 15:15
|
|
|
is the praying towards mecca just a traditional thing, or is it theological? from what i have understood, mohammed was just a man and a prophet, and he just happened to travel to mecca and retake the kaaba, but that was more political than religious? then there are a bunch of hadith but you kind of disregard most of them because they're of questionable historicity... so what's the reason for praying in the direction of mecca rather than just praying wherever? is it your opinion that if mohammed hadn't been around, islam would have appeared from a different prophet? like in buddhism there's a belief that there are many buddhas throughout history and the dharma will be forgotten and re-remembered again and again. is there anything similar in islam?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 16, 2015 19:03
|
|
|
oh, another question: how do your beliefs relate to mainstream muslims? i.e. if you compared your beliefs to the most popular type of islam worldwide, what would the main differences be?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 16, 2015 19:19
|
|
|
I guess I'm asking stuff like, Abu Bakr vs Ali, what about the return of the caliphate, etc. Basically the major questions that divide Muslims and lead to intra-faith conflict. I'm not familiar with all the doctrinal differences but I understand that Shia and Sunni are fairly different overall. What are/where do you stand on the issues that divide the two?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 16, 2015 19:47
|
|
|
Amun Khonsu posted:The Shari'ah on women's dress indicates that a woman should cover all of her body except her hands, face and feet, according to most scholars. Wait, so the coverings are part of the "5 pillars/6 beliefs" of Sharia? ashgromnies fucked around with this message at 13:21 on Oct 22, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Oct 22, 2015 13:18
|
|
|
Amun Khonsu posted:EDIT to add: Just as a qualifier, I am married to a Muslim woman who does not wear a headscarf or veil. It's interesting that you gave a long list of theological basis for the practice and followed it with this. Is not wearing coverings common in your wife's tradition? How do they view the passages that recommend it?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 29, 2015 14:06
|
|
|
Amun Khonsu posted:Regarding men being able to marry Christian and Jewish women, there is a huge misconception among Muslims (particularly men) that they can do so willy nilly. There are strict rules regarding this. The Christian or Jewish women cannot ascribe partners with Allah (Jews by nature dont do this, but many Christians do). Also, the non-Muslim partner must agree before hand and hold to raising the children as Muslims. Also, the Jewish or Christian women must not be prevented from going to the shul (synagogue) or church if they wish. The women cannot hinder or make demands on the practice of Islam by her spouse or their children. I feel dumb because I'm so confused. Earlier when asking about Sharia, the takeaway seemed to be, "there are only a handful of large categories, but there aren't many specifics and there's a lot of different interpretations" but in this case, you give no room for interpretation and specify that there are "strict rules". Are those rules "sharia"? Are there actually many strict rules common to sharia, or what is this rule actually considered if not sharia?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 29, 2015 14:26
|
|
|
Why are westerners who haven't grown up in Islamic countries so critical of Ayaan Hirsi Ali? Like when she was a guest on the Daily Show, Jon Stewart would hardly let her talk, speaking over her whenever she tried describing her experiences, basically denying her the expression of them. Do you think she makes any good points, and why do you think "liberal" western media is so opposed to her?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 21, 2015 15:12
|
|
|
Amun Khonsu posted:She claims to have been abused by her father in the name of Islam. I think this explains a lot of her vitriol. Is that her position, though? The stuff I've seen from her has been calling for more moderates and a "reformation" of Islam to clearly say that Quranic literalism is unacceptable in the modern era.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 24, 2015 15:33
|
|
|
Tendai posted:Why do you think God can't talk in metaphors and expect us to think? This is basically the fundamentalist stance to take and it kind of baffles me when non-Muslims (I assume you aren't, if I'm wrong correct me) take this stance as well. Muslim does not equal literalist. Nothing in the basic statement of faith says "and also, you must take this literally rather than metaphorically." I think it's hard for western agnostics and atheists to understand. The texts obviously weren't metaphorical in the time of Mohammed -- the ugly parts of the Quran, like chopping the hands off thieves, were reality in those times. So the prevailing and earliest historical precedent is non-metaphorical, but now people are expected to pick and choose parts that should be read as metaphorical. And then you've got people like Al Baghdadi who has a Ph. D in Islamic studies and moderates saying, "well, he's not a real Muslim, it's a religion of peace"... but it seems like he is in a good position to know what the intent of various passages and historical precedent is, given his education and study? It seems disingenuous to hand wave him away as "not a real Muslim". Edit: I mean no disrespect with this post, I am just trying to reach an understanding of the moderate position, coming from the perspective of someone raised without religion (and raised suspicious of it). ashgromnies fucked around with this message at 04:42 on Nov 26, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Nov 26, 2015 04:39
|
|
|
Fuzz posted:It's not a statement against white people, but revisionist history is dictated by the victors, and by and large the modem world culture has been shaped and defined by white people, and it's reflected in the current shock and surprise at all them filthy terrist Muslims that apparently live in the US, when we've been there since the country was founded and fought for the US in WW1 and 2 and for 200 years no one gave a poo poo about the Muslims in their midst until the Cold War drove the US to start loving around in Muslim countries and having the CIA assassinate people or am militias to fight our wars. Then the Ayatollah raised its head and took some hostages and poo poo has just kept going south ever since, with the entire religion taking the blame for a bunch of radical assholes. Amun Khonsu posted:Muslim countries will find their way. However, they were the colonized, not the colonizers. It will take more time than it did for the colonizing nations of Europe or North America. Their being underdeveloped is not a reflection on the Islamic religion any more than it is a reflection on Christianity or Judaism.. These are revisionist perspectives as well. What about the Moghlai empire, or, gently caress, even the conquests Mohammed and Abu Bakr began in the Arabian Peninsula and spread throughout the Middle East and Northern Africa?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 26, 2015 15:23
|
|
|
How do you feel about the Obama administration's plea to American Muslims for self-policing and self-reporting of people believed to be flirting with radicalism?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 9, 2015 16:24
|
|
|
Just curious, when you say you "believe in the New Testament" what do you mean exactly?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 24, 2015 19:37
|
|
|
Immortan posted:Holy poo poo, yes he did. The indulgence of historical revisionism among religious apologists is hilariously onerous these days, especially w/r/t to Islam. Idk it sounds like it was at most one child, and her age is disputable. Unless you have some conclusive evidence you can share?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 26, 2015 07:37
|
|
|
Immortan posted:Wow, at least you're open about condoning pedophilia. lmao you're fuckin' dumb my point is that you're wrong about basically everything you've been saying ("has sex with children" when it is only aisha in question, and you think her age is conclusively settled), so i am calling attention to that fact to create more uncertainty around anything else you might say if you think that's "condoning pedophilia" you're really really stupid so, again, if you want to come in here and act like an authority, how about you behave like the other people acting as authorities and actually post some supporting evidence? if you can't substantiate your claims with any evidence then how can you expect to convince anyone? ashgromnies fucked around with this message at 08:19 on Dec 26, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Dec 26, 2015 08:13
|
|
|
Immortan posted:Why would I substantiate my claims when you already acknowledged it was true? what on earth are you talking about? i haven't acknowledged poo poo that you've said. try reading again. i said that the question of her age seems not settled -- she may or may not have been a "child", from what i can glean from this thread, and it may or may not have been acceptable practice at the time to marry "children" of such an age. that's hardly conclusive. and besides, i am not the only person here who could benefit from the fruits of your scholarship. please, share your research with us.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 26, 2015 08:27
|
|
|
okay so if it's "widely accepted" why haven't you posted any evidence? it should be easy to find edit: is this your schtick? making wild claims and then being unable to back them up and being insulting? ashgromnies fucked around with this message at 08:42 on Dec 26, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Dec 26, 2015 08:37
|
|
|
Immortan posted:The onus is on the apologist. surprise, they've posted enough evidence in here that any reasonable person, based solely on the material in this thread, would come to the conclusion that knowing aisha's exact age is very difficult
|
|
#
¿
Dec 26, 2015 08:44
|
|
|
Immortan posted:Don't call something "fact" that you cannot prove. Immortan posted:Holy poo poo, yes he did. The indulgence of historical revisionism among religious apologists is hilariously onerous these days, especially w/r/t to Islam. 
|
|
#
¿
Dec 26, 2015 20:18
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:Can you please repost the historians you cite, i think i missed that He never will, he is a literal unironic Trump supporter and this is his schtick: making claims contrary to visible evidence and then never substantiating them.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 26, 2015 23:18
|
|
|
Zakmonster posted:
Not mutually exclusive per se but sometimes incompatible and you gave a reason in your post 
|
|
#
¿
Dec 28, 2015 15:35
|
|
|
Amun Khonsu posted:"And the two who commit it among you, dishonor them both. But if they repent and correct themselves, leave them alone. Indeed, Allah is ever Accepting of repentance and Merciful." Quran 4:16[/i] I notice that it says "if they repent leave them alone" and encourages dishonoring homosexuals until they do repent. Do you agree?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 29, 2015 15:39
|
|
|
Amun Khonsu posted:If you read the verse prior to this one, Qur'an 4:15, you see that this verse is also in reference to a punitive measures for those found by a state court (with 4 witnesses; shariah standards threshold for judgements on illegal sexual conduct of any kind) to be guilty of lewdness between men, not people taking it upon themselves to mistreat them. So if there are 4 witnesses it's cool by you? edit: I guess what I'm getting at is, is there any way to remove things like that from Sharia? Earlier people were saying Sharia was not Quranic in nature and was subject to interpretation and there was no "book of Sharia laws" to speak of -- but this has direct reference in the Quran! ashgromnies fucked around with this message at 18:29 on Dec 29, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Dec 29, 2015 18:21
|
|
|
Zakmonster posted:Sounds dull. How do you play DnD? Right, but that's kind of a dodge of my question. If there were the witnesses and the prosecution and punishment happened according to the letter of the law, would you feel it is justified and moral? Or should the moral code be adjusted? Can it be? ashgromnies fucked around with this message at 19:29 on Dec 29, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Dec 29, 2015 19:25
|
|
|
Zakmonster posted:Smoking weed? Harmless, recreational, victimless, but still a crime (in some places?) 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.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 30, 2015 14:47
|
|
|
waitwhatno posted: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. 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. 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? ashgromnies fucked around with this message at 16:05 on Dec 30, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Dec 30, 2015 16:02
|
|
|
waitwhatno posted: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) 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.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 30, 2015 22:09
|
|
|
waitwhatno posted: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. You're a dick. I have been reading everything posted in this thread and calling out islamopobic jackasses when they roll in. I am interested in what the actual Muslims answering questions for us here think is a good, representative argument, and which religious officials they respect. I know I can use Google, but why even have this thread if we should just search there? Having a personal conversation with an expert can give a more unique/accurate perspective than finding whatever Google decides to return you. ashgromnies fucked around with this message at 01:24 on Dec 31, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Dec 31, 2015 01:21
|
|
|
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. I find it interesting that you use the word "prophet" to describe Muhammad, where the other Muslims in the thread said "Messenger" is more correct. Is this a sectarian difference?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 6, 2016 15:14
|
|
|
Fuzz posted:
So most liberal Muslims believe homosexuality is sinful and homosexuals should avoid having sex? That sounds like a fairly conservative position, but I guess when it's contrasted against, "homosexuals should be put to death" it seems more moderate...
|
|
#
¿
Jan 11, 2016 15:43
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 17, 2024 14:56 |
|
|
Jastiger posted:That is probably true though heh True in practice but it kinda eliminates "personal responsibility" and "control over desires". It sounds like this (which wasn't well-accepted by, well, anyone): https://www.twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/331907383771148288
|
|
#
¿
Jan 14, 2016 20:29
|
|