Dragon Fang (Your assumed name seems to drip with aggression),
You seem to think that attacking what you believe to be my religion is a solution to the issue of Islamic violence, torture, rapes, slavery, etc being done in the name of Allah daily around the planet, as "Allahu Akhbar" rings in our ears. Thus you think that quoting old testament verses is some sort of argument in favor of ISIS, Boko Haram, Al Qaeda, Hamas, and so forth. You even claim that old testament verses prove that Christianity is bloodier than Islam, despite the current daily news to the contrary, evidence you shrug off.
The claims of the Islamic "leadership", if there is such a thing, do in fact condemn the actions of ISIS (see the other posts here today), although not so much the actions of Boko Haram, Hamas, Al Qaeda etc. And while I am currently agnostic on the character of Islam as a holistic concept, your positioning of yourself as judge and attacker of the Other leads me back toward my previous suspicions of the character of those raised as Muslims. Local imams seem to have as much influence as do world leaders in Islam.
In fact, your claim to have removed any moral base that I might have, based on your assumption of my religious persuasion, is not a rational conclusion since you have no actual concept of what my religious persuasion might be, if any. I have not revealed my religious persuasion, if any, in any manner. I have maintained that Aristotelian, deductive, disciplined logic is the primary thrust of this blog, not religion of any type.
Using such logic is paramount is the determination of valid arguments (all religious positions are arguments susceptible to analysis). Your particular approach is to deviate away from the subject at hand by attacking what you think are the worldview underpinnings of your opposition; this is a logical fallacy, at a minimum it is a Red Herring.
The topic of discussion is Islam, and its use by murderers, rapists, kidnappers, terrorists, even against other Islamic ummah. This can in no manner be justified by quoting old testament verses, especially considering that Muslims consider the OT to be flawed and incorrect.
Considering that Uthman rewrote the sayings of the Prophet and then burned all the sources so that his version was all that was left, the accuracy of the Qur'an itself is considerably questionable. And since the model of Islam is the life of the Prophet, then the Qur'an, which is apparently considered a document of peace (at least when convenient to consider it so), is at odds with the example of the Prophet himself, who led a bloody life, lusting after children and women of other men.
This is the logical conundrum of Islam, and it results in Islamists who seem to feel legitimately engaged in violence similar to that of their prophet. Being congruent with the prophet then gives them the self-assurance of moral authority in their bloody actions. This has nothing to do with old testament verses; it is purely an Islamic issue. In fact, entire Islamic states war on each other, with no thought of the OT.
So the OT is completely without any bearing on the issue at hand.
What is at issue is why Islam generates so much bloody violence, when many claim it to be the religion of peace.
2 comments:
So first of all, what do you mean by "Islamic"? Unless it is defined as an action, forbidden or not, a Muslim does for what he believes to be good & holy under the person's understanding (like thinking gambling to donate to charity is permissible), then what you mentioned are "Unislamic".
Say, "My Lord has only forbidden immoralities - what is apparent of them and what is concealed - and sin, and oppression without right, and that you associate with Allah that for which He has not sent down authority, and that you say about Allah that which you do not know." (Quran 7:33)
And do not pursue that of which you have no knowledge. Indeed, the hearing, the sight and the heart - about all those [one] will be questioned. (Quran 17:36)
And do not say about what your tongues assert of untruth, "This is lawful and this is unlawful," to invent falsehood about Allah . Indeed, those who invent falsehood about Allah will not succeed. (Quran 16:116)
Abu Huraira. reported Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying: Do you know who is poor? They (the Companions of the Holy Prophet) said: A poor man amongst us is one who has neither dirham with him nor wealth. He (the Holy Prophet) said: The poor of my Umma would be he who would come on the Day of Resurrecton with prayers and fasts and Zakat but (he would find himself bankrupt on that day as he would have exhausted his funds of virtues) since he hurled abuses upon others, brought calumny against others and unlawfully consumed the wealth of others and shed the blood of others and beat others, and his virtues would be credited to the account of one (who suffered at his hand). And if his good deeds fall short to clear the account, then his sins would be entered in (his account) and he would be thrown in the Hell-Fire. -Sahih Muslim, Book 032, Hadith 6251
Second of all, where did you get the impression that I am in favor of ISIS, al-Qaida, Boko Haram, and so forth (although I am 50/50 on Hamas)? They are enemies of the Ummah which is evident by the fact that the vast majority of the people they kill are from their own community and Muslims. Furthermore, it is more than likely that politics is the main influence for these types of terrorists as, statistically, terrorist attacks sharply spiked with the presence of US drone attacks and occupations.
The actions condemned by "the Islamic leadership" aren't condemned because they are done by ISIS; they are condemned because they are wrong. Therefore, the condemnation can be applied to any group or cult who make use of these actions.
Robert was the one who brought Christianity into this by his claim that it is morally consistent and superior, and quoting the bible is the most efficient of the few ways to refute this claim. Although I agree that I dragged a Red Herring to the main conversation, and I apologize.
As I stated before, the prophet prophesied about the emergence of rebel groups who will attack Muslims. Therefore, such groups are to be fought.
Narrated Abu Sa`id Al-Khudri:
I heard Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) saying, "There will appear some people among you whose prayer will make you look down upon yours, and whose fasting will make you look down upon yours, but they will recite the Qur'an which will not exceed their throats (they will not act on it) and they will go out of Islam as an arrow goes out through the game whereupon the archer would examine the arrowhead but see nothing, and look at the unfeathered arrow but see nothing, and look at the arrow feathers but see nothing, and finally he suspects to find something in the lower part of the arrow." -ٍSahih al-Bukhari, Vol. 6, Book 61, Hadith 578
It was narrated from Abu Sa'eed Al-Khudri that the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) said:
"A group will secede at a time of division among the people, and they will be killed by the group that is closer to the truth." -ٍSahih Muslim, Book 5, Hadith 2326
As for your complain about the authenticity of the Quran, Uthman simply standardized the Quran; when people wrote the Quran, people usually wrote it for themselves. Meaning that they might add notes, add Hadiths, have different order of Suras, etc.
Many people during the time of `Uthman had their own explanatory notes in their personal copies of the Qur’an. Others had written down portions of the Qur’an themselves. In order to prevent any future issues of explanatory notes being considered as part of the Qur’an or arguments due to a mistake on the part of the writer – claiming that he has something of the Qur’an which others do not have – these old copies were burnt.
http://seekersguidance.org/ans-blog/2012/06/01/the-compilation-of-the-quran-and-why-uthman-ordered-that-some-copies-be-burned/
'A'isha reported that Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) never beat anyone with his hand, neither a woman nor a servant, but only, in the case when he had been fighting in the cause of Allah and he never took revenge for anything unless the things made inviolable by Allah were made violable; he then took revenge for Allah, the Exalted and Glorious. -Sahih Muslim, Book 30, Hadith 5756
Can you elaborate on your statement "a bloody life"?
Your claim of lust is strange considering that he was single till 25, and married a woman (Khadija) who was 15 years older than him who was previously married twice and had children. His marriages were mainly for social and political reasons.
Your last statement seems to have an equivocation fallacy. Do you mean Islam, as in the teachings of Islams, or a few Muslims?
Post a Comment