Be Wary of Racism and Islamophobes

[Muslima]

Now I am off to my saturday. Have a peaceful Saturday guys. Ma Salaama

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Muslima wrote:Furthermore, we have to take seriously the reality that 1400 years of Islamic history, going back to the very example of Muhammad saw, condemns the usage of violence against non-combatants, what today we would call a civilian population.

Furthermore, we have to take seriously the reality that 1400 years of Islamic history, going back to the very example of Muhammad, non-Muslim non-combatants were routinely enslaved, including enslavement for sexual purposes, something that is expressly permitted by Islam and conducted by the Muhammad himself.

And still going on today. Disgusting.

PP again. Why has this religion not evolved over all those years? That's why it's considered a barbaric religion. Christianity has changed over the years. There are branches of Christianity that embrace some aspects of it and reject other aspects. How can there be ANY believers of Islam who are intelligent members of the civilized world who do not reject parts of it?

Because Islam does not work that way. You either accept Islam or you reject it. There is no half way. You either embrace the barbarism, or you are not a Muslim.

[Anonymous]

Muslima wrote:
Finally any person or groups of people who believe imams/scholars are infallible are upon falsehood given that in the Islamic doctrine Only God is Infallible, so to that PP quoting me Bin Baz & Quaradawi, maybe you think I consider them infallible? They are learned scholars but remain human beings as such I respect their interpretations of the Quran, I respect their dedications to the deen, but I have the right to disagree with any of their opinions, this is a God-Given right to any Muslim by the Almighty. The Quran is the only thing I regard as infallible, scholars are human beings, sometimes they get it right and sometimes they get it wrong!

I don't consider any of them infallible. My point was, and is, that they are just as learned as Hamza Yusuf, and preferring their interpretation of Islam to his, or even having the gall to acknowledge that they exist, or being skeptical of Yusuf in the same way you are skeptical of Bin Baz does not make me Islamophobic, christianevangelicalcrusader or whatever other word your friend wanted to invent. Do you agree with this? Or not?

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:
Because Islam does not work that way. You either accept Islam or you reject it. There is no half way. You either embrace the barbarism, or you are not a Muslim.

This is BS. If you believe that embracing barbarism is necessary to being a Muslim, you really do deserve to be described with some of the negative terms being discussed in this thread.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Because Islam does not work that way. You either accept Islam or you reject it. There is no half way. You either embrace the barbarism, or you are not a Muslim.

This is BS. If you believe that embracing barbarism is necessary to being a Muslim, you really do deserve to be described with some of the negative terms being discussed in this thread.

Barbarism is a value judgment. But the PP is correct in a sense that calling yourself a follower of a particular religion means you embrace it in toto, both beautiful as well as unlovely bits. If some of it appears barbaric to the outsiders, well, OK.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Because Islam does not work that way. You either accept Islam or you reject it. There is no half way. You either embrace the barbarism, or you are not a Muslim.

This is BS. If you believe that embracing barbarism is necessary to being a Muslim, you really do deserve to be described with some of the negative terms being discussed in this thread.

Barbarism is a value judgment. But the PP is correct in a sense that calling yourself a follower of a particular religion means you embrace it in toto, both beautiful as well as unlovely bits. If some of it appears barbaric to the outsiders, well, OK.

Then all Christians should be expected to embrace the barbarism committed by such groups as the Lord's Resistance Army, abortion clinic bombers, and the Christian Identity Movement? Do mainstream Christians embrace the hate of the Jonesboro Baptists?

Your statement is actually ludicrous. Most members of a religion cannot even agree on what the religion itself embraces, let alone embrace all of it. If there were one true Judaism, why would there be Reform, Conservative, Orthodox, etc. Is a reform Jew embracing every practice of a Hassid?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Because Islam does not work that way. You either accept Islam or you reject it. There is no half way. You either embrace the barbarism, or you are not a Muslim.

This is BS. If you believe that embracing barbarism is necessary to being a Muslim, you really do deserve to be described with some of the negative terms being discussed in this thread.

Barbarism is a value judgment. But the PP is correct in a sense that calling yourself a follower of a particular religion means you embrace it in toto, both beautiful as well as unlovely bits. If some of it appears barbaric to the outsiders, well, OK.

“If a man has a stubborn and rebellious son who will not obey the voice of his father or the voice of his mother, and who, when they have chastened him, will not heed them, then his father and his mother shall take hold of him and bring him out to the elders of his city, to the gate of his city. And they shall say to the elders of his city, ‘This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious; he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton and a drunkard.’ Then all the men of his city shall stone him to death with stones; so you shall put away the evil from among you, and all Israel shall hear and fear.
The Bible; Deuteronomy 21:18–21

I find the above barbaric.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Because Islam does not work that way. You either accept Islam or you reject it. There is no half way. You either embrace the barbarism, or you are not a Muslim.

This is BS. If you believe that embracing barbarism is necessary to being a Muslim, you really do deserve to be described with some of the negative terms being discussed in this thread.

Barbarism is a value judgment. But the PP is correct in a sense that calling yourself a follower of a particular religion means you embrace it in toto, both beautiful as well as unlovely bits. If some of it appears barbaric to the outsiders, well, OK.

“If a man has a stubborn and rebellious son who will not obey the voice of his father or the voice of his mother, and who, when they have chastened him, will not heed them, then his father and his mother shall take hold of him and bring him out to the elders of his city, to the gate of his city. And they shall say to the elders of his city, ‘This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious; he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton and a drunkard.’ Then all the men of his city shall stone him to death with stones; so you shall put away the evil from among you, and all Israel shall hear and fear.
The Bible; Deuteronomy 21:18–21

I find the above barbaric.

Thanks for that quote ... From the Old Testament.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Because Islam does not work that way. You either accept Islam or you reject it. There is no half way. You either embrace the barbarism, or you are not a Muslim.

This is BS. If you believe that embracing barbarism is necessary to being a Muslim, you really do deserve to be described with some of the negative terms being discussed in this thread.

Barbarism is a value judgment. But the PP is correct in a sense that calling yourself a follower of a particular religion means you embrace it in toto, both beautiful as well as unlovely bits. If some of it appears barbaric to the outsiders, well, OK.

Then all Christians should be expected to embrace the barbarism committed by such groups as the Lord's Resistance Army, abortion clinic bombers, and the Christian Identity Movement? Do mainstream Christians embrace the hate of the Jonesboro Baptists?

Your statement is actually ludicrous. Most members of a religion cannot even agree on what the religion itself embraces, let alone embrace all of it. If there were one true Judaism, why would there be Reform, Conservative, Orthodox, etc. Is a reform Jew embracing every practice of a Hassid?

You don't have to embrace anything people DO. But to the extent that the scripture of a particular religion contains particular bits of language, I personally don't think you can say that you believe in Chapter XI and Chapter XII but not Chapter XIII, and still call yourself a whatever, as long as the authenticity of that language is not in question. Never mind that the religion itself might have a position on that sort of cafeteria approach.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Because Islam does not work that way. You either accept Islam or you reject it. There is no half way. You either embrace the barbarism, or you are not a Muslim.

This is BS. If you believe that embracing barbarism is necessary to being a Muslim, you really do deserve to be described with some of the negative terms being discussed in this thread.

Barbarism is a value judgment. But the PP is correct in a sense that calling yourself a follower of a particular religion means you embrace it in toto, both beautiful as well as unlovely bits. If some of it appears barbaric to the outsiders, well, OK.

Then all Christians should be expected to embrace the barbarism committed by such groups as the Lord's Resistance Army, abortion clinic bombers, and the Christian Identity Movement? Do mainstream Christians embrace the hate of the Jonesboro Baptists?

Your statement is actually ludicrous. Most members of a religion cannot even agree on what the religion itself embraces, let alone embrace all of it. If there were one true Judaism, why would there be Reform, Conservative, Orthodox, etc. Is a reform Jew embracing every practice of a Hassid?

In this case you are conflating the actions of followers with the founder of the Religion himself. Muhammad himself owned "concubines" aka sex slaves https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maria_al-Qibtiyya, Muhammad himself handed out the women of defeated enemies as war booty to his soldiers (and himself) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Safiyya_bint_Huyayy. Are Muslims supposed to denounce the actions of their prophet as barbaric? Whatever your opinion, the fact remains that they do not. IS and Boko Haram are simply emulating the actions of Muhammad himself.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Because Islam does not work that way. You either accept Islam or you reject it. There is no half way. You either embrace the barbarism, or you are not a Muslim.

This is BS. If you believe that embracing barbarism is necessary to being a Muslim, you really do deserve to be described with some of the negative terms being discussed in this thread.

Barbarism is a value judgment. But the PP is correct in a sense that calling yourself a follower of a particular religion means you embrace it in toto, both beautiful as well as unlovely bits. If some of it appears barbaric to the outsiders, well, OK.

Then all Christians should be expected to embrace the barbarism committed by such groups as the Lord's Resistance Army, abortion clinic bombers, and the Christian Identity Movement? Do mainstream Christians embrace the hate of the Jonesboro Baptists?

Your statement is actually ludicrous. Most members of a religion cannot even agree on what the religion itself embraces, let alone embrace all of it. If there were one true Judaism, why would there be Reform, Conservative, Orthodox, etc. Is a reform Jew embracing every practice of a Hassid?

In this case you are conflating the actions of followers with the founder of the Religion himself. Muhammad himself owned "concubines" aka sex slaves https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maria_al-Qibtiyya, Muhammad himself handed out the women of defeated enemies as war booty to his soldiers (and himself) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Safiyya_bint_Huyayy. Are Muslims supposed to denounce the actions of their prophet as barbaric? Whatever your opinion, the fact remains that they do not. IS and Boko Haram are simply emulating the actions of Muhammad himself.

All you are illustrating is that Muhammad followed practices that were accepted at the time and also not unknown by figures central to other religions. As a person who is not religious, I have no objection to saying that by today's standards, Muhammad was wrong. But, today's standards are not equally applied to past practices or teachings of other religions. Singling out Islam in such a manner is discriminatory and the motives of those who do it can be justifiably questioned.

For your argument to have any standing, the practice of owning concubines would need to be practically the rule among Muslims rather than limited to extremist groups. When a practice is limited to extremists, it is by definition not part of the generally accepted practice of the religion.

I really don't know what you expect from the average Muslim. Very few would agree that taking concubines is acceptable. Is your intent to demonstrate to them that they are not properly following their religion? Do you want them to suddenly agree with your that Islam is barbaric and stop being Muslims? Do you not understand how insulting your approach is to most people -- Muslim or otherwise?

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:
For your argument to have any standing, the practice of owning concubines would need to be practically the rule among Muslims rather than limited to extremist groups. When a practice is limited to extremists, it is by definition not part of the generally accepted practice of the religion.

I really don't know what you expect from the average Muslim. Very few would agree that taking concubines is acceptable. Is your intent to demonstrate to them that they are not properly following their religion? Do you want them to suddenly agree with your that Islam is barbaric and stop being Muslims? Do you not understand how insulting your approach is to most people -- Muslim or otherwise?

Accepted practice and scriptural support is not the same thing. The practice may not exist any more, but as long as the scholars of the religion continue to support it or refuse to condemn it (not the extremists, the actual learned scholars), you can't argue that it is no longer acceptable to the followers of the religion. The fact that it is practically impossible is less relevant here. We aren't discussing practice, we are discussing what is permissible as far as the religion is concerned.

And I'm perfectly fine extending this rule to all religion.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:Very few would agree that taking concubines is acceptable.

And yet that question continues to come up at many fatwa sites. Go figure.

[Anonymous]

I'm a different poster. My concern all along has been that Muslima and her alter ego make blanket assertions that themselves misrepresent the diversity in Islam you so correctly point out.

Muslima is certainly entitled to her own, personal Islam. You and I actually agree that there is no one interpretation of many Islamic tenets.

Except, IMO, she veers into much shadier territory when she claims things that are directly contradicted in the Quran. I'm not so worried about hadith and sharia, but the Quran is purportedly God's own words. So when she makes glowing claims about women's equality and female captives, do you see a problem with people pointing out what the Quran actually says about these issues? IMO, if only the glowing bits are presented, DCUM starts to look like a conversion effort and readers miss the range of Islamic thought you so correctly point out.

[Anonymous]

NP. So, Muslima has admitted, on this very forum, that the majority of Muslim scholars have decided that the deserved punishment for apostasy, or leaving Islam, should be death. She sort of seems unable to reconcile that this would be an unacceptable belief to most people. She is constantly insisting that Islam is "beautiful" and I don't think she has a lot of self-awareness and maybe she should relieve herself from the role of Islam defender on this board.