Why Some People Convert to Islam

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The right religion is the one that brings you closest to god

This.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
First of all, once again, I repeat -- whether a person converts or not is not indicative of the truth or falsity of Islam.

If that's so, why do Muslims make such a big deal of conversions? Why the title of this thread? I think you will do well to remember your ruminations on conversion have already led you down the path of numerical embarrassment once, when you claimed 25,000 is higher than 100,000.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:


Dr. Moore no longer speaks about this subject. He used to only for the purpose of education to student associations, anyway. It may be that Dr. Moore suffered a backlash from Islamophobes. If the hatred and fury exhibited by the Islamophobes here on DCUM is any indication of all of how supporters of the Quran or Islam may be treated, I can't blame Dr. Moore for declining interviews and speaking engagements now. What everyone has seen on DCUM was similar to a mob attack when a Muslim woman who went by the name "Muslima" came on the thread, "Tell me about Islam" to defend/clarify Islam. When I joined the discussion to validate Muslima's points, the Islamophobes went haywire on me. If they were simply interested in learning more about Islam but in the end did not like the principles of the faith, they could simply have said, "Well to each his own, I do not understand or like your religion." That's not what happened. The Islamophobes often pulled the most severest and harshest interpretations of Islam in hadith, Sharia, and real life examples and refused to acknowledge that the Qurans words always trump these in the face of any contradiction. It was clear to me that their motivation was simply to vilify the religion of 1.6 billion people. So maybe it's no wonder that Dr. Moore is afraid of people like them.

Fact. The so-called Islamophobes quoted the Quran at you. You lie when you say that people only pulled out the "severest and harshest" hadith and sharia.

Fact. You and Muslima represented your rosy version of Islam as the only Islam. You denied centuries of Islamic thinking and shariah and hadith that are still followed by millions of Muslims today.

If we pulled verses straight from the Quran to show you that sometimes even hadith, Sharia, and other man made laws can be incorrect. How can that be deemed "rosy" and false? The Quran's word trumps contradicting hadith and Sharia laws. I think we realized that it's not that you were confused about Islam, you were just angry with the people who hijacked our faith and were holding the entire faith accountable.

Fact. It is not "Islamophobic" to point out these things.

An Islamophobe is not simply ignorant about Islam. He or she is prejudiced or hates Islam. You are prejudiced because you pulled only the severest and harshest examples to advance your assertion that Islam is uncivilized and barbaric. How people around the world interpret our religion is not the fault of the religion. It's the fault of them.


If this is how your mind works, I join the other poster in being underwhelmed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
First of all, once again, I repeat -- whether a person converts or not is not indicative of the truth or falsity of Islam.

If that's so, why do Muslims make such a big deal of conversions? Why the title of this thread? I think you will do well to remember your ruminations on conversion have already led you down the path of numerical embarrassment once, when you claimed 25,000 is higher than 100,000.

First, because IT WAS ASKED. I know some people see Muslim women in their head covering and wonder, "Who the heck are those people?" Then when they hear of people converting to Islam, they assume the person must have been brainwashed. No. It is, in fact, an embracing, forgiving, religion that provides clear guidelines and rules about how best to live life and be closer to God. Many people feel a tremendous self of relief when they convert to Islam because it feels like they have come home. Islam is not the religion of any particular race or nationality. African Americans pray side by side happily with Bosnian muslims. Our belief system unifies us. I do not want the public to judge Islam by those animals that have hijacked my beloved faith and commit atrocities in its name. Those people, such as those that belong to ISIS, according to the Quran will burn in hell fire. Secondly, to show people like you especially 1) It IS a peaceful religion 2) It is JUST toward women (not to be confused with equality) 3) It demands that people treat our parents and the elderly well 4) Muslims do believe in the truth of the Quran (as proven through science) 5) It demands we treat prisoners of war, captives, slaves well (even though no one hears about owning slaves anymore!)…

I'm not embarrassed at all about the numbers I posted. I didn't address that because I was busy answering the other misleading information you and others were posting. Islam IS the fastest growing religion in the US and the conversion rate is rapid. I do believe the growth is mostly due to conversion, but I do not know if immigration has increased in the past few years. I tell you all this not to boast, but simply to let you know Muslims are here to stay. It makes no sense to carry so much hatred toward Muslims or Islam because one day you will not be able to avoid having to interact with Muslims.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I will address your points, one by one, because it is important for DCUMers to see the fallacy of your arguments and how you twist and writhe to get out of tight corners:

You said, "It is worth noting that Dr Moore never formally converted to Islam. I guess there are some things even Al-Saud can't buy.."

First of all, once again, I repeat -- whether a person converts or not is not indicative of the truth or falsity of Islam. Recall our discussion about Dr. Jerald Dirks (the ordained Deacon, graduate of Harvard Divinity School) who researched original manuscripts and learned that concepts such as divinity and trinity were add ons to the faith due to geo-political strife during the time, that Jesus himself never taught this. Just as he saw those documents so must have many other seminarians. Not all convert, however, even though they, too, saw evidence that seem to suggest significant parts of Christianity were indeed doctored. As I said before, it takes a special kind of fortitude to convert upon learning the truth because they may suffer backlash from converting. Here, in this situation with Dr. Moore, he clearly and unequivocally acknowledged the miraculous nature of the Quran, as far as identifying important aspects of fetal development, at a time when even the microscope wasn't invented and no one else, not Hippocrates, Galen, the Chinese, or the Romans wrote about. That is sufficient to prove that in his expert opinion, the Quran was accurate. This implies the verses were divinely inspired and science simply validated it. Dr. Moore doesn't need to convert to Islam because he already validated it with science.

Besides, when I provided the example of Dr. Dirks, you said one person's conversion was irrelevant and not indicative of the truth of Islam. I find it amusing that you now use lack of Dr. Moore's conversion as evidence of the same point.

Here, sweetie. You clearly missed the discussion of Dr. Dirks and his Ebionites on the other thread, so I'll repost it here. (That, or this is yet another of your transparent attempts to "spin" a discussion that embarrassed you into a "win" that never was.)

************

First off, there's a lot of debate about who the Ebionites were, and what we mean when we say "Ebionite". Appparently at one point all Judeo-Christians (i.e, still practicing Mosaic law) were referred to as "Ebionites." Also, there is a lot of "legend" (not my own word, see the Jewish source that follows) about individual Ebionite leaders and their groups (http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/5411-ebionites).

We do NOT have an original Ebionite gospel, despite Muslim OP's claims that we do. Many believe the Ebionites used a modified version of the Gospel of Matthew (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05242c.htm, also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search?search=gospel+of+ebionites&go=Go), with some obvious differences about Christ's divinity. Some groups of Ebionites may have had almost gnostic beliefs (i.e., they may have shared the gnostic idea of the "demi-urge"), but there appears to have been a lot of variation. The Ebionites probably continued to observe Mosaic law and things like circumcision. But again, we will never know for sure, because the original Ebionite manuscripts have vanished.

There were apparently some contemporaneous accounts of various Ebionite groups, but all of these have been lost, with the exception of the fragment from Epiphanius, who may or may not have understood the Ebionites. Again, you can read this fragment here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search?search=gospel+of+ebionites&go=Go. The references in Epiphanius to Ebionites arguing the point at which Jesus became divine (at birth vs. at baptism) are interesting for this debate on the Trinity, because this is the only fragment we still have today, and it doesn't actually challenge Christ's divinity.

I went to Dirk's website to see what exactly he says. There's nothing there about the Trinity, just how to contact him for speeches. (http://www.jeralddirksanddebradirks.com/)

Per his website, Dirks has been a practicing psychologist for the last 20 years. He is not, and never has been a Harvard Divinity School professor as OP claimed in her post of 09/11/2014 10:42 on the 2nd or 3rd page of thread. However, Dirks has taught at some Muslim middle schools. So I'm not sure about representing him as an eminent theologian. I definitely wouldn't put him in the same category as that home-churcher Muslim PP likes to cite as representative of all Christianity (this is the guy who says himself that he dropped out of two different universities because they told him not to take the Old Testament literally, but OP linked to this home churcher as supposed proof that all Christians should take the Old Testament literally). Also, it seems suggestive that none of the many online sites about the Ebionites even mention Dirks, although most of these sites (some of which I've linked to above) are very careful to cite multiple sources. You wouldn't necessarily expect the Christian websites to mention Dirks, but the Jewish sites or Wikipedia sources on the Ebionites might do so if he were a respected authority.

All of this suggests that Dirks' views on the Ebionites have yet to make him a widely-cited authority in this field. (How's that for an understatement?)

FWIW. Dirk's website makes it easy to contact him (for speaking gigs), so I'm not sure what OP is waiting for.

I am not interested in the Ebionites and I wasn't the poster who introduced the discussion of it. All I said was that Dr. Dirks was disheartened to find that many significant concepts in Christianity were add ons. I do not claim to know everything about the Ebionites and I do not even know if they practiced the original, true faith Jesus preached. However, in just reading about them recently, I learned that their belief system is similar to ours (despite that they reject Islam).

As for Dr. Dirks, he has a Masters degree from Harvard Divinity School AND a PhD in psychology. You keep bringing up the fact that he's a psychologist. BUT -- Do you know why he chose to become a psychotherapist instead of continuing to be a Deacon? Because he said he could not stand at the pulpit any longer and lecture his congregation on concepts that he knew were man made creations. Enough already.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

I'm not embarrassed at all about the numbers I posted. I didn't address that because I was busy answering the other misleading information you and others were posting. Islam IS the fastest growing religion in the US and the conversion rate is rapid. I do believe the growth is mostly due to conversion, but I do not know if immigration has increased in the past few years. I tell you all this not to boast, but simply to let you know Muslims are here to stay. It makes no sense to carry so much hatred toward Muslims or Islam because one day you will not be able to avoid having to interact with Muslims.

People like me? You don't know anything about me. I'm interacting with a big Muslim, a little Muslim and a Muslim inside my uterus all day long. There's nothing about Islam you can tell me I haven't already heard, read or seen. I grew up among them. But you have goggles on, and I don't.

I don't carry any hatred toward Muslims or Islam. I carry sarcasm and derision toward unsubstantiated claims - like the one you posted, that "Islam in the US grows more through conversion than through immigration" - and I'm not shy about showing it. You were pressed to show evidence for this. You posted BS numbers from an evangelical site that STILL showed Muslim immigration is FOUR TIMES HIGHER than Muslim conversions (which are not recorded, let's remind everyone again).

So, you "believe" growth is mostly due to conversion? Meaning you don't know? You don't know if immigration increased in the last few years? Dude, there's way more information available about immigration than about conversion (the subject on which no facts exist.) You should have just said "this is my theory, I don't know if numbers support it", and people would have left you alone. But you continued to claim you're right, and if only people weren't Islamophobic, they'd see that 25 is really higher than a hundred.

So let's have it out. You said Islam in the US grows more through conversion than through immigration. Is this your theory, or is this based on facts? If on facts, which facts?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

I'm not embarrassed at all about the numbers I posted. I didn't address that because I was busy answering the other misleading information you and others were posting. Islam IS the fastest growing religion in the US and the conversion rate is rapid. I do believe the growth is mostly due to conversion, but I do not know if immigration has increased in the past few years. I tell you all this not to boast, but simply to let you know Muslims are here to stay. It makes no sense to carry so much hatred toward Muslims or Islam because one day you will not be able to avoid having to interact with Muslims.

Since you evidently forgot this discussion, I'm happy to help by reposting:

The figure for 100,000 Muslim immigrants per year is backed by solid evidence from a survey of more than 8,000 immigrants (a fantastic sample in the world of statistics) by Princeton, NYU, Yale and RAND, all of which are highly-respected research organizations.

The figure of 25,000 converts per year comes from an evangelical organization that has a vested interest in inflating the numbers. Since none of us here are evangelicals (despite your many claims that we are evangelicals), I don't think we need to simply accept your number of 25,000 converts, which
(a) we have good reason to suspect might be inflated,
(b) for which no methodological support exists, because
(c) nobody, repeat nobody, collects data on the number of converts to Islam.
Also, (d) we need to offset the convert figures for people who leave Islam every year for atheism or other religions.

100,000 immigrants per year > 25,000 converts per year. (Just so we're clear, "per year" is a rate concept.)

For the record, we realize ISIS is an outlier and they are simply awful people with no relation to any religion at all. We don't think they represent Islam, they only represent pure evil.

However, you're not helping yourself when you accuse people of "so much hatred" just because they challenge your facts, a good example being your demonstrably wrong claims about converts above.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: African Americans pray side by side happily with Bosnian muslims. Our belief system unifies us. I do not want the public to judge Islam by those animals that have hijacked my beloved faith and commit atrocities in its name. Those people, such as those that belong to ISIS, according to the Quran will burn in hell fire. Secondly, to show people like you especially 1) It IS a peaceful religion 2) It is JUST toward women (not to be confused with equality) 3) It demands that people treat our parents and the elderly well 4) Muslims do believe in the truth of the Quran (as proven through science) 5) It demands we treat prisoners of war, captives, slaves well (even though no one hears about owning slaves anymore!)…

Sunnis and Shia do not pray side by side if they can avoid it.

You've tried very hard to show that Islam is just to women. Women of DCUM do not see Islam's position on women as justice. Not because they are Islamophobes, but because what they have is a much better deal than what Islam could possibly give them.

You could have stayed on the subject of goodness to elders and family, and people would have support you.

Good treatment of slaves is a lost case for you. Go read up on umm walads.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

5) It demands we treat prisoners of war, captives, slaves well (even though no one hears about owning slaves anymore!)…

It's like that whole 20-page conversation about concubines--women captured in war, rape, whether they get freed if they become pregnant or on the death of the master--never happened. SMH.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The right religion is the one that brings you closest to god

This.

THIS could have been such a nice ending to the thread.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It doesn't say what it is mixed WITH. And that mingled bit is mentioned only once vs. multiple mentions of sperm. The egg is not a liquid element. It can't be 'mixed' with sperm.

The Quran is quite specific when it wants to be - like in the parts that deal with inheritance. The sperm is mentioned in the Quran several times; the egg, never. The more logical explanation is that whoever wrote it went by what they could see with a naked eye - i.e. the sperm.

Plus, there are all these competing theories - dust, clay, earth, water, nothing. Sperm is but one idea.

I will address two points 1) What stages of pregnancy were identified in the Quran and 2) Did the Quran know about the mixing of both male and female reproductive fluid

1) to answer the first question, you have to refer to Sura 23 verse 12-14 which states:
"Man We did create from a quintessence (of clay);
Then We placed him as a (drop of) sperm in a place of rest, firmly fixed;
Then We made the sperm into a clot of congealed blood; then of that clot We made a foetus lump;
then We made out of that lump bones and clothed the bones with flesh; then We developed out of it
another creature. So blessed be Allah, the Best to create!"

The Arabic transliteration for the above verse is as follows:
"Wa laqad khalaqnalinsaana min-sulaalatim-mintiin;
Summa ja alnaahu nutfa-tan-fii qaraarim-makiin;
Summa khalaqnan-nutfata alaqatan-fa-khalaqnal-alaqata
muzgatan-fa-khalaqnal-muzgata 'izaaman-fa-kasawnal-izaama lahmaa;
summa 'ansha-naahukhalqan aakhar. Fatabaarakallaahu Ahsanulkhaaliqiin!"

Dr. Moore was quite astonished to read the verse above. The bold face words are translated as follows:
Nutfa - in Arabic it has several meanings. To decipher meaning one needs to look at the context in which it's used. It could mean a small amount of fluid.Here nutfa means mixed fluid.
Alaqa - this word translates to leech like clot. The human embryo is attached to the lining of the uterus, similar to the way a leech will attach itself to things.
Mudghah / muzga - this word translates to chewed like substance
Izaam - skeleton, bones
Lahm - muscles and flesh

So you see, the Quran describes the embryo above in the earliest stages (leech like clot, chewed like substance), well before the microscope was invented and when the embryo is not visible to the human eye. I have not seen where Galen, Hippocrates or the Romans did not use such words in their descriptions of the earliest embryo. This is why Dr. Moore found this verse so astonishing -- no one could have known what the earliest embryo looks like when it was not visible to the human eye.

Then here are the three stages (trimesters?) the Quran identifies in Arabic:
-Nutfa - And here nutfa has several substages:
a)Manei - this Arabic word may have several meaning: gushing fluid, a tiny bit of fluid, sperm, or male and female fluid
In the Quran Sura 75:37, It says "Was not man created from manei (germinal fluid)?" So here it makes reference to the fact that
BOTH male and female fluid are used to make life.
b) Sulalah- this Arabic word means it was gently extracted from fluid so it refers to one sperm gently extracted from semen to be the one to fertilize.
c) Nutfa Amshaj - the word nutfa is a singular noun but the word amshaj is a plural modifying adjective. In the Quran's Sura 7:2, it states, "We created man from
a nutfah amshaj." In proper grammar, a singular noun is usually paired with a singular modifying adjective, not a plural modifying adjective. But Dr. Moore says
this now makes sense since we know that the the zygote is singular but the chromosomes are plural. It's a multi-faceted single entity.
d) Taqdeer - this Arabic word means planning or programming. In the Quran's sura 80:19 it states,"From a tiny drop, He creates him and designs/programs him."
Dr. Moore says the chromosomes play the role of designing the fetus here so this verse makes sense.
e) Harth - this Arabic word means tilth and exactly like a plant develops roots, so does a blastocyst in the implanation stage.
-Khalq (or the shaping stage)
-Nash'ah (growth stage)

[Anonymous]

My above post actually answers both questions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: African Americans pray side by side happily with Bosnian muslims. Our belief system unifies us. I do not want the public to judge Islam by those animals that have hijacked my beloved faith and commit atrocities in its name. Those people, such as those that belong to ISIS, according to the Quran will burn in hell fire. Secondly, to show people like you especially 1) It IS a peaceful religion 2) It is JUST toward women (not to be confused with equality) 3) It demands that people treat our parents and the elderly well 4) Muslims do believe in the truth of the Quran (as proven through science) 5) It demands we treat prisoners of war, captives, slaves well (even though no one hears about owning slaves anymore!)…

Sunnis and Shia do not pray side by side if they can avoid it.

There are Shia mosques and there are Sunni mosques. However, some mosques are not designated as either and welcome everyone. I belong to such a mosque. I pray side by side with all Muslims.


You've tried very hard to show that Islam is just to women. Women of DCUM do not see Islam's position on women as justice. Not because they are Islamophobes, but because what they have is a much better deal than what Islam could possibly give them.

And that's perfectly fine if they do not believe Islam is just to women or if they feel they have a better deal. The islamophobe type behavior isn't because they don't like Islam or they feel Islam isn't just to women, it's the insistence on illustrating so by using only the severest or harshest examples via the Sharia, Hadith, or people. It is estimated there are 1.6 billion Muslims in the world. How can the negative examples shown be representative of all of them or even most of them? They simply are not. That is not to say Islam is not misinterpreted and womens rights are not trampled on in some countries where the Sharia is law. It most certainly is, but it does not represent Islam. It simply reflects the ignorance of those people, and those people who misunderstand Islam, not the entire Muslim population.


You could have stayed on the subject of goodness to elders and family, and people would have support you.
How was that possible with the islamophobes repeatedly showing misleading hadith and sharia that gave daughters only 50% of the inheritance or wives who never got any inheritance? How was that possible with the islamophobes who repeatedly brought up age old, outdated practices of concubinage and slavery and raping captives? Sorry, they intentionally vilified the religion despite a few people's protests.


Good treatment of slaves is a lost case for you. Go read up on umm walads.

Perfect example of what the islamophobes do -- use the example of atrocities around the world as a reflection of what the religion actually says.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

5) It demands we treat prisoners of war, captives, slaves well (even though no one hears about owning slaves anymore!)…

It's like that whole 20-page conversation about concubines--women captured in war, rape, whether they get freed if they become pregnant or on the death of the master--never happened. SMH.

Oh it happened alright. You just ignored the parts you didn't want to read.

[Anonymous]

How was that possible with the islamophobes repeatedly showing misleading hadith and sharia that gave daughters only 50% of the inheritance

That comes straight from the Koran, not hadith or not-directly-from-the-Koran sharia. Noting that fact surely cannot mark one as an Islamaphobe and it is not misleading to mention a crystal clear section of the Koran.

You stick to the Koran, fine. Why is it just in today's world that daughters get have of what sons get? Or that a woman with children gets one-eighth of the inheritance? (I recognize this was very liberal in 7th century Arabia.)

You will probably say it's because sons are supposed to support mothers and sisters. But maybe if the wife inherited everything, she could support both her sons and daughters, as well as herself without recourse to male relatives.

I am pretty sure women getting one-eighth (one quarter if childless) is very much related to the fact that a man can have four wives. So if he had four wives and all were childless, the wives would inherit everything. But now you have to justify how this one-eight/one-quarter distribution is applicable in countries without polygamy if the Koran as literally written is for all times and all places.

That you take the Koran literally is evident from your endless dissection of the verse on creation and attempts to show they were divinely inspired because they imply knowledge of the stages of the embryo not known at the time. Please give this up--you are convincing no one except maybe the obscure Dr. Moore.