14yr old girl reported as injured by the Taliban.

[Chris_Sleeps]

Regarding offering a place in paradise to martyrs I agree, but it is strictly in the confines of battle and the rules are laid out as to what constitutes 'allowed' and 'not allowed' in battle

Why do I always say something, and you agree with me and disagree with me at the same time? I'm correct, but I'm not quite correct, because of x, thus I'm incorrect.

 

My knowledge of the Quran isn't deep. I'm new to this. I try not to take the Zionist websites as the corner-stone of criticism, but there is open criticism of Islam that does exhist.

 

Islam allows slavery, they allow war - but if someone is a warrior and takes slaves I'm told "he isn't a proper Muslim". It's a very shallow defence.

 

You have already kept telling me it contradicts itself

It must do. Muslims themselves don't agree on all things, so it must do. All holy books are man made, and humans are imperfect, so it must do.

 

Let me guess at your response. You agree with me, but I'm not quite correct, thus I'm incorrect, thus you don't agree with me. The roundabout continues.

 

but have yet to show me where - less the accepted abrigations - as they are accepted they are not contradictions, as no one is trying to pretend that they still stand.

When my knowledge is deeper, I shall tackle this question. For now I'll play my student card - I'm still learning and I shall leave it be.

 

The fact remains that a Muslim is someone who lives in accordance with the Quran

The slave keeping warrior polygamist is still a Muslim then. That's good to know.

[Joseph Anton]

I haven't made any comment on my religious upbringing whatsoever.

oh I get it now, you're trolling! They would certainly have meaning to a real Christian.

 

You said your parents were 'notionally' CofE, that translates as them picking and choosing the bits that weren't too much hassle to follow, they're therefore hardly likely to impress upon their children the Christian message when they'd prefer to be watching Blue Peter or Magpie.

Well I'm an avowed atheist and that seems to be the most common view held in this country.

 

So if you are an avowed atheist what religion can you not understand your parents indoctrinating into you like you claimed earlier. I'm starting to doubt you have the ability to actual grasp your own points here. It seems that you are the one who is trolling. You see I never claimed to be Christian. Just that I hadn't been indoctrinated by my parents who were.

[boyfriday]

So if you are an avowed atheist what religion can you not understand your parents indoctrinating into you like you claimed earlier.

Sorry but you've lost me, could you point out where I said that?

I'm starting to doubt you have the ability to actual grasp your own points here.

The feeling's mutual.

You see I never claimed to be Christian.

I don't recall claiming you did.

Just that I hadn't been indoctrinated by my parents who were.

"Notionally", remember?

[PaliRichard]

Why do I always say something, and you agree with me and disagree with me at the same time? I'm correct, but I'm not quite correct, because of x, thus I'm incorrect.

 

My knowledge of the Quran isn't deep. I'm new to this. I try not to take the Zionist websites as the corner-stone of criticism, but there is open criticism of Islam that does exhist.[/Quote]

 

I agree and disagree because you have a broad understanding but sometimes miss the detail - that's not a criticism btw. There should be a very real criticism of Islam, but it should apply to matters that are of genuine - gay rights etc - not saying all Muslims are terrorists - and these are the threads I defend it for - rarely do we get threads having a go at the Qurans idea's of science being wrong - I would be against it for that.

 

Islam allows slavery, they allow war - but if someone is a warrior and takes slaves I'm told "he isn't a proper Muslim". It's a very shallow defenc[/Quote]

 

But your doing here what I criticised you for the other day, you're confusing the morals of Islam with the question 'what is' Islam? There are rules a Muslim must abide by in war - like I said PT did a good post on what those rules are.

 

It must do. Muslims themselves don't agree on all things, so it must do. All holy books are man made, and humans are imperfect, so it must do[/Quote]

 

Why 'must' it, I don't get why it 'must'. Just because it doesn't it doesn't make it divine, I think drawing the conclusion that just because it doesn't contain contradictions it is divine is silly - the length of time it took to compile it seems perfectly reasonable that they ironed the contradictions out.

 

Also you have to bear in mind that Muslim means one who practices in accordance with the Quran (essentially) but Muslims have supplimentary texts - often these do contradict the Quran, and this is a big criticism I have against say, Shariah law - that sometimes the punishments are based on Hadith which directly contradict the Quran - by the Qurans own standard this is wrong.

 

Let me guess at your response. You agree with me, but I'm not quite correct, thus I'm incorrect, thus you don't agree with me. The roundabout continues. [/Quote]

 

I'm just trying to be as honest as possible - now if there was a thread criticising what is claimed in the Quran as truth (there is no homosexuality in the animals kingdom - countless claims about science etc) I'm pretty sure we'd be singing from exactly the same hymn sheet.

 

The slave keeping warrior polygamist is still a Muslim then. That's good to know.

 

I never said I agreed with it.

Edited October 11, 2012 by PaliRichard

[Joseph Anton]

Sorry but you've lost me, could you point out where I said that?

 

That would be post 79. You clearly have a day to waste. I don't. I'll leave you to talk to someone else.

[boyfriday]

That would be post 79. You clearly have a day to waste. I don't. I'll leave you to talk to someone else.

 

I thought you were referring to me specifically rather than a general comment I made, your statement did read ambiguously.

 

But the point is that devoutly religious people will bring their children up under that regime and they'll be given little choice in it because the parents will believe they're doing them a favour.

 

Notionally religious people will be less bothered by it, perhaps 'notional' Muslims don't indoctrinate their children anymore than 'notional' Christians do.

[melthebell]

So if you are an avowed atheist what religion can you not understand your parents indoctrinating into you like you claimed earlier. I'm starting to doubt you have the ability to actual grasp your own points here. It seems that you are the one who is trolling. You see I never claimed to be Christian. Just that I hadn't been indoctrinated by my parents who were.

 

I thought you were referring to me specifically rather than a general comment I made, your statement did read ambiguously.

 

But the point is that devoutly religious people will bring their children up under that regime and they'll be given little choice in it because the parents will believe they're doing them a favour.

 

Notionally religious people will be less bothered by it, perhaps 'notional' Muslims don't indoctrinate their children anymore than 'notional' Christians do.

i think what you two are arguing over is semantics lol, apart from the real religious zealots i dont think its indoctrination in the family.

 

its somebody having kids and the kids either soak up what they see around them, or they dont

 

whether its religion, being a chav, vegetarianism or racism

 

we are veggie and so brought up our kids as veggie not as zealots, do or die types, but purely cos we dont buy, cook or eat meat in the house

 

the little un has discovered meat and eats it when out or from the chippy whatever, the eldest has a concience tho and is veggie

 

its more to do with your surroundings, your parents lives, what you see and hear and what they believe

 

some kids soak it up and follow cos they want to, some rebel, then theres the religious extremists and indoctrination which is completely different, thats forced against somebodys will

[maxmaximus]

I'm not claiming that.

 

I'm saying that Muslim means one who submits to the will of Allah, which is the Quran, as these terrorists very often act against the instructions in the Quran then they are, by definition, not Muslim.

 

If they attempt to kill anyone unless they are in a conflict on a battlefield and their lives are in danger - as a minimum requirement - then they are not Muslim. As people who shoot women for protesting, blow up trains/buses, fly into buildings etc are not on a battlefield where their life is in danger they are not Muslim - by definition.

 

So that is not my opinion, that is the fact of the matter - if you wish to define a Muslim as something different to that then you are using the word out of context.

 

There are probably millions of people with the same entrenched opinions as you, that claim millions of other people are wrong, there are also millions of other people with a different set of entrenched opinions that claim you are wrong, that’s just over one of the books written by men that claim to be the word of God. There are millions of other people with the entrenched opinion that their interpretation of their holy book is correct whilst others are wrong.

These are the kind of entrenched opinions and interpretations of books written by men that have started wars and it’s just as likely that you are all wrong.

[maxmaximus]

No I haven't, I'm merely commenting on the statements at hand.

 

If people want to start a thread about why they think Islam is not the true religion, I'd be happy to contribute as to why I think it's take on science is completely wrong, why I don't agree with lashing adulters etc, but we're not talking about that.

 

Regarding offering a place in paradise to martyrs I agree, but it is strictly in the confines of battle and the rules are laid out as to what constitutes 'allowed' and 'not allowed' in battle, PlainTalker made an excellent post the other day detailing accepted behaviour in war.

 

You have already kept telling me it contradicts itself but have yet to show me where - less the accepted abrigations - as they are accepted they are not contradictions, as no one is trying to pretend that they still stand.

 

The fact remains that a Muslim is someone who lives in accordance with the Quran - and the people who carry out these atrocities (and some who don't) are more often than not directly going against the teachings in the book - thus they are not Muslim.

 

Have some Muslims not already declaimed war on the West, supposedly because of the West’s attacks on their lands. If we are war then they are clearly allowed to take the actions that are approved by their book during war, which does involve killing people.

[Stan Tamudo]

There are probably millions of people with the same entrenched opinions as you, that claim millions of other people are wrong, there are also millions of other people with a different set of entrenched opinions that claim you are wrong, that’s just over one of the books written by men that claim to be the word of God. There are millions of other people with the entrenched opinion that their interpretation of their holy book is correct whilst others are wrong.

These are the kind of entrenched opinions and interpretations of books written by men that have started wars and it’s just as likely that you are all wrong.

 

A post that contains the word entrenched four times, that's got to be a forum record?