Interesting Take on Islam and Libertarianism

[Brant Gaede]

Xray, a home school is a private school. Also, I'm sure German private schools have to meet state standards. This means every child is essentially exposed to the same implicit you-belong-to-the-state crap. In the US it varies state by state. If I had children I'd live in a state where the government could dump the least shit on us.

--Brant

it's about liberty

[Xray]

As for the Pascalian wager, didn't you know about it? I know countless people who stay in their church "just in case it may be true after all", although they mostly believe the doctrine to be nonsense.

I could have sworn it was Al-Ghazali's teacher, Al-Juwayni that I was thinking of when I used it..

As for the koran containing passages of peace - it also contains passaged of raw hatred. It's he same jumbled mess as in the bible.

It doesn't contain hate at all, except for hating the oppression of another living being.. Unless of course you love oppression.. Hmmmm? Then I could understand why you think it contains hate..

Where I live, stoning a person to death for violating an alleged god's law is first degree-murder . So what punishement do you think is apt for the stoners?

Chopping off thieves' hands is also a severe crime here. What do you suggest as apt punishment should a bunch of muslim fundamentalists decide to apply your "God's law" in a German backyard?

They should be held accountable by being tried and punished to the full extent of the law of the Land.. In Islam we're forbidden from doing things outside of the law like that.. Therefore, if you're in a country with different laws then you must respect and adhere to those laws.

I see we now have reached stage 3 which I predicted: the believer says "it is no use debating this with you" and wants to get out of the discussion. They always want to end it when things get too close to the truth.

Hilarious.. Actually I never engaged in debate with you over this and have maintained since the beginning that I am not here to debate the issue of God's existence, but of course you appear to be some type of Atheist Fanatic who wishes to impose your beliefs on other people and can't respect their right to their own opinions.. Maybe your experience is showing you that it's not that the person doesn't want to discuss things with you out of 'getting to close to the truth' but rather it would be because your conduct is, in general repulsive and somewhat Salafi like in the way you wish to impose your beliefs on others.. Which in the end really shouldn't surprise me when you come from a country that has a history of imposing things on other people now shouldn't it?

There is a principle that says "who makes the claim has to offer the proof". You made the claim "god exists". I said show me the evidence. You have none.

The evidence was there for everyone to see when the Prophets were here with us and people wrote down their experiences and other people corroborated their stories, having seen the same things, prophet after prophet and religion after religion like Judaism, Christianity and Islam confirm each others view on the events of these miracles happening by people sent by God.. But now that there are no miracles occurring now you say that there is no evidence and thus it can't be proven.. How about you go over all of those stories and disprove each miracle that was recorded and corroborated by millions of people.. Disprove those because those events occurred, you just have to prove that no more powerful being than man made them happen and that there is somehow another explanation for them..

You seem to be one of the few here who doesn't let himself be misguided.

I would cut Adonis some slack though - for he is still very young and imo has not thought it all through enough.

How rude and insulting.. Don't try and say that my age is a factor here and that somehow means that I haven't had the time to think through my beliefs enough. Whilst I'm not the type to speak of the good things about myself, At the same time I can't allow such an insult to go unchecked. I am neither gullible nor stupid, my vast experiences in life and my thirst for knowledge and adeptness learning from what I see and hear I have attained more wisdom than most people in their 40's and 50's could ever hope to gain and I'm only 24 years old.. That's WHY I don't waste my time with debating people like you, because your conduct and the content of what you say, in addition to your lack of understanding about the subject which you speak about ie Islam and the Qur'an, the Will of God etc make you seem intellectually inept to grasp the concepts and context that you discuss..

The following is from my # 79 post:

View PostXray, on 03 January 2010 - 04:16 PM, said:

In my life, I have been in many discussions with (often fervent) advocates of ideologies, transcendent or not. No matter what the ideology, I have almost always observed a believer attitude not questioning the primary source.

Fervent Kantians quoted Kant with the same uncritical attitude of a Jehova's witness quoting the Bible; Marxists quoted from "The Capital" with the same uncritical attitude as feminists quoted from Simone de Beauvoir's "The Second Sex".

Critical questions were often answered from them merely by quoting their "bibles" again. Classic case of circular reasoning.

It is important not to let oneself be caught up in the maze and get off course, but to insist on the people explaining their premises. My approach is always: go for the premises.

So my first question to this poster would start at the base: "What is the primary source for your belief?" (More later).

Part II:

Almost always, the primary source is the "bible" of whatever belief held, the Capital, the Koran, Kant's collected works, the Old Testament, you name it.

Almost always, fervent believers quickly become very uncomfortable once you start asking probing questions about what is written in the primary source.

Simple questions like "How do you know that what is in there is the truth?" are frequently met with a defensive "You don't seem to know much about the belief/philosopy. Go educate yourself first." This is often done without the believer having a clue about how familiar the critic actually might be with the subject. I'll call this phase 1.

In course of the discusson, should the believer realize that a critic does have substantial knowledge on the subject, the next salve is fired off in phase 2: "You don't understand what you have read." Like in phase 1, this answer serves to keep the critic at arms' length, keep him/her away in fact.

If the critic insists that the believer explain, by pointing out contradictions, giving examples, or answering direct questions, phase 3 begins:

Either the believer ends the exchange ("It is no use discussing this with you" is a typical answer),

or

personal insults start. This can get quite dramatic.

If the message threatening the belief can't be refuted, the messenger is attacked instead. The accumulated frustration about not being able to disprove the critic's points is now directed at the person of the critic.

At the bottom of it lies fear of the belief being threatened. It is fear of truth, fear of everything going to collapse should the belief collapse.

This fear is so great that few arrive at shedding their cherished belief in an ideology. So they prefer to cling to the illusion of "objective value" ALL these ideologies claim for themselves.

So far, it has taken pretty much the route as predicted.

Don't worry AV, I don't want to impose anything on you.

In case of the religious believers in an omnipotent god, their commitment to all the phantasmagoria and hearsay is necessary for them to keep their faith.

Hence there can be no analyzing, no separating fact from absurdity - for this would expose the fallacy.

Why? Sold on the idea of an omni god, the logical inference in the mind of the believer is that reality is whatever the god chooses it to be at any given time like e. g. Jonah living in the belly of whale, rivers of water turning into blood, Noah's ark holding all species of animals and insects, etc.

Since the god can change reality at will, truth is whatever god (or gurus) says it is. Faith takes care of all contradictions. (The mentality of St. Augustine)

Edited January 21, 2010 by Xray

[Selene]

"In case of the subjective believers in an omnipotent reality, their commitment to all the phantasmagoria and hearsay is necessary for them to keep their subjective faith.

Hence there can be no analyzing, no separating fact from absurdity - for this would expose the fallacy.

Why? Sold on the idea of all values are subjective, the logical inference in the mind of the believer is that reality is whatever the subjective valuing chooses it to be at any given time like e. g. Ms. Xray employing the police state to fill her class with the property of the state, etc.

Since the subjective valuer cannot change reality at will, truth is whatever it is. The subjective valuer takes care of all contradictions. (The mentality of St. Ms. Xray)."

Brilliant Ms. Xray:

We finally agree. You are a perfect mirror of mystical belief.

Adam

Edited January 21, 2010 by Selene

[Xray]

[Adonis Vlahos] date='20 January 2010 - 05:11 PM' timestamp='1264029109' post='88630']

Xray

As for the koran containing passages of peace - it also contains passaged of raw hatred. It's he same jumbled mess as in the bible.

It doesn't contain hate at all, except for hating the oppression of another living being..

You either know far less about the koran than you claim to know, or you have deliberately ignored the many passages dealing with cruel treatment of non-believers or other enemies of the "true religion".

Here's a refresher to take off any rose-colord glasses people might want to put on about the allegedly 'peaceful' koran. What is written in there is every bit as revengeful and bloodthirsty as in the bible:

http://www.flex.com/~jai/satyamevajayate/hell.html

AV: Hilarious.. Actually I never engaged in debate with you over this and have maintained since the beginning that I am not here to debate the issue of God's existence

That's precisely what I meant when stating you haven't thought it through; for you decline to get into a discussion which involves checking the premises of your belief and exposing the thinking error underlying it: claiming the koran to be evidence of a god's existence.

AV: I'd happily marry a Jewish woman if I were in love with her and she could practice her religion as much as she liked, in fact I'd die protecting that right.

And who decides in which belief your children will be brought up? Judaism or Islam?

Or what if your queen of hearts happens to be a buddhist? Or an agnostic who does not want to have her children educated religiously at all? Or - - shudder! shudder! even a declared atheist who not only declines to have her children educted religiously, but actively challenges your belief?

Brant Gaede: Xray, a home school is a private school. Also, I'm sure German private schools have to meet state standards. This means every child is essentially exposed to the same implicit you-belong-to-the-state crap. In the US it varies state by state. If I had children I'd live in a state where the government could dump the least shit on us.

Thanks for the info Brant.

Yes private schools have to meet certain state standards in Germany as well.

So in the US, while there is quite a bit of variation of regulation of home schooling from state to state, it's all under the Federal Board Of Education I suppose.

Question for Selene:

Can you name one USA state that has absolutely no regulation of private school or home schooling? (Legally the same).

Selene: I would love to get her on a chess board or a public structured debate. They would have to stop it on cuts by the 12 move or the end of the first round.

Just curious: is your chess playing on the same 'quality' level as your alleged 'debating' skills?

Frankly, Selene, I have yet to see evidence of those skills here. Why would you want to go on a public debate when you have the opportunity to show me your debating prowess here on this forum? Give it a try, Selene, I'm all ears.

For so far, I have read little from you in the post exchange indicating a seasoned debater; instead, you have often resorted to name calling, of which 'Valkyrie' was one of the 'friendlier' names ...

If you like, we can start right here. You wrote:

S: "In case of the subjective believers in an omnipotent reality, their commitment to all the phantasmagoria and hearsay is necessary for them to keep their subjective faith.

This distortion of my post and attempt to reverse fall absurdly short and expose your lack of rebuttal.

Where do you find these "subjective believers"?

I understand objective, volitional entities (believers) who subjectively attribute value, but "subjective believers"?

That strawman is too wet to even thrash or burn.

How about "objective believers" who "discover" "objective values?" How does one discover "objective values" without the faith of mystical creation of said "objective values?" Values without a valuer? Now that is some mysticism!

S: "Why? Sold on the idea of all values are subjective, the logical inference in the mind of the believer is that reality is whatever the subjective valuing chooses it to be at any given time like e. g. Ms. Xray employing the

police state to fill her class with the property of the state, etc."

Sold on the idea that all values are subjective is sold on the idea of reality. The idea that all valuations are subjective comes from the simple observation that nothing has value unless and until subjectively attributed.

Would you explain how something has value without someone attributing value? How does attributing value equate with "objective value" since the notions are mutually exclusive"

Do you believe that "values" would exist "objectively" with no one doing the valuing? Are you saying there is effect without cause; value with no one attributing value?

Surely, you do not think that a rock is an "objective value" just because it may be used to crack a nut.

How about if the rock were used to kill someone? Would it be an "objective value" in this case as well? If not, it looks like "value or no value" comes down to subjective personal choice. How is subjective choice magically converted to "objective value?" Easy answer:

Non definitive word games and faith, of course. Why not define the term 'objective' as a basis first and stick to it?

S:Since the subjective valuer cannot change reality at will, truth is whatever it is. The subjective valuer takes care of all contradictions. (The mentality of St. Ms. Xray).

How absurd. Most assuredly, the "subjective valuer", that is, the objective identity, the person subjectively attributing value, cannot change reality; and truth is what it is.

This "subjective valuer" recognizes the fact that value is subjective, hence, there is no contradiction needing to be taken care of.

This problem is left for those who deny reality and imagine that value is objective.

S. "Brilliant Ms. Xray"

Not so brilliant on your part, Mr. Selene. For even with a rewrite, you managed to confirm that which you proposed to deny.

Edited January 22, 2010 by Xray

[Brant Gaede]

Xray, I am aware of no Federal regulations concerning home schooling in the U.S. There is a U.S. Dept. of Education, which should be abolished, but I've never heard of a "Federal Board of Education." If there is one it's not germane to home schooling.

--Brant

[Brant Gaede]

No one can prove God doesn't exist for that'd be proving a negative--can't be done for any alleged thing.

Belief in God is a matter of faith; leave it at that or necessarily become irrational about faith which will in turn corrupt other areas.

--Brant

faith and reason are mutually exclusionary

[BaalChatzaf]

No one can prove God doesn't exist for that'd be proving a negative--can't be done for any alleged thing.

The does not exist a pair of positive integers m, n which are relatively prime and such that (m/n)^2 = 2.

I can prove it. Would you like to see a proof?

I just love providing counter-examples. It is the joy of my life.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Brant Gaede]

No one can prove God doesn't exist for that'd be proving a negative--can't be done for any alleged thing.

The does not exist a pair of positive integers m, n which are relatively prime and such that (m/n)^2 = 2.

I can prove it. Would you like to see a proof?

I just love providing counter-examples. It is the joy of my life.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Impress me by proving that God doesn't exist.

--Brant

[Dragonfly]

No one can prove God doesn't exist for that'd be proving a negative--can't be done for any alleged thing.

The does not exist a pair of positive integers m, n which are relatively prime and such that (m/n)^2 = 2.

This is a nice example of the essential difference between analytic statements (like the last one) and synthetic statements (like the first one).

[BaalChatzaf]

Impress me by proving that God doesn't exist.

--Brant

If God does exist, then It is no omnipotent. Proof: If It were omnipotent it could bake a cake so big It could not eat it all. But what if It could not bake such a cake? Then it is not omnipotent.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Brant Gaede]

Impress me by proving that God doesn't exist.

--Brant

If God does exist, then It is no omnipotent. Proof: If It were omnipotent it could bake a cake so big It could not eat it all. But what if It could not bake such a cake? Then it is not omnipotent.

Ba'al Chatzaf

This explains my indigestion.

--Brant

in over my head but it tasted good

if you're going with "God does exist" as a premise, wouldn't you have to first adduce evidence that he does?

to know God is omnipotent wouldn't we first have to have other knowledge of God?--an old white guy with a beard in the sky?--maybe He's not omnipotent

all it seems you are trying to prove is that nothing does not exist and you start with the idea that nothing has this characteristic: omnipotence--so you prove omnipotence does not exist, not God

still in over my head

Edited January 23, 2010 by Brant Gaede

[anonrobt]

Impress me by proving that God doesn't exist.

--Brant

If God does exist, then It is no omnipotent. Proof: If It were omnipotent it could bake a cake so big It could not eat it all. But what if It could not bake such a cake? Then it is not omnipotent.

Ba'al Chatzaf

This explains my indigestion.

--Brant

in over my head but it tasted good

if you're going with "God does exist" as a premise, wouldn't you have to first adduce evidence that he does?

to know God is omnipotent wouldn't we first have to have other knowledge of God?--an old white guy with a beard in the sky?--maybe He's not omnipotent

all it seems you are trying to prove is that nothing does not exist and you start with the idea that nothing has this characteristic: omnipotence--so you prove omnipotence does not exist, not God

still in over my head

But - nothing does NOT exist - it is not some 'thing' in opposition to 'something' , but merely the ABSENCE of something...

as far as "God" goes, always love the line Peter O'Toole says in The Ruling Class - How do I know I am God? because every time I pray, I find I am talking to myself...

[Selene]

Brant:

It's like chickens and eggs.

I like to keep things simple also. Shoot the chickens. Crack the eggs. When I do it in reverse, I wind up with a mess and no more eggs or crippled chickens.

I leave that to the philosopher bloggers.

Adam

[Selene]

I am the biggest critic of the way the Mid East is after having lived there and seen it for myself.

It's completely unislamic. Don't attribute that to me nor my beliefs.

Adonis:

Are you familiar with these folks? Muslim's against Sharia?

http://www.reformislam.org/

OUR GOALS

• to educate Muslims about dangers presented by Islamic religious texts and why Islam must be reformed
• to educate non-Muslims about the differences between moderate Muslims and Islamists (a.k.a. Islamic Religious Fanatics, Radical Muslims, Muslim Fundamentalists, Islamic Extremists or Islamofascists)
• to educate both Muslims and non-Muslims alike that Moderate Muslims are also targets of Islamic Terror

OUR MANIFESTO

Acknowledging mistakes

The majority of the terrorist acts of the last three decades, including the 9/11 attacks, were perpetrated by Islamic fundamentalists in the name of Islam. We, as Muslims, find it abhorrent that Islam is used to murder millions of innocent people, Muslims and non-Muslims alike.

Inconsistencies in the Koran

Unfortunately, Islamic religious texts, including the Koran and the Hadith contain many passages, which call for Islamic domination and incite violence against non-Muslims. It is time to change that. Muslim fundamentalists believe that the Koran is the literal word of Allah. But could Allah, the most Merciful, the most Compassionate, command mass slaughter of people whose only fault is being non-Muslim?

The Koran & the Bible

Many Bible figures from Adam to Jesus (Isa) are considered to be prophets and are respected by Islam. Islamic scholars however believe that both the Old and the New Testament came from God, but that they were corrupted by the Jews and Christians over time. Could it be possible that the Koran itself was corrupted by Muslims over the last thirteen centuries?

The need for reform

Islam, in its present form, is not compatible with principles of freedom and democracy. Twenty-first century Muslims have two options: we can continue the barbaric policies of the seventh century perpetuated by Hassan al-Banna, Abdullah Azzam, Yassir Arafat, Ruhollah Khomeini, Osama bin Laden, Muslim Brotherhood, al-Qaeda, Hizballah, Hamas, Hizb-ut-Tahrir, etc., leading to a global war between Dar al-Islam (Islamic World) and Dar al-Harb (non-Islamic World), or we can reform Islam to keep our rich cultural heritage and to cleanse our religion from the reviled relics of the past. We, as Muslims who desire to live in harmony with people of other religions, agnostics, and atheists choose the latter option. We can no longer allow Islamic extremists to use our religion as a weapon. We must protect future generations of Muslims from being brainwashed by the Islamic radicals. If we do not stop the spread of Islamic fundamentalism, our children will become homicidal zombies.

Accepting responsibilities

To start the healing process, we must acknowledge evils done by Muslims in the name of Islam and accept responsibility for those evils. We must remove evil passages from Islamic religious texts, so that future generations of Muslims will not be confused by conflicting messages. Our religious message should be loud and clear: Islam is peace; Islam is love; Islam is light. War, murder, violence, divisiveness & discrimination are not Islamic values.

Religious privacy

Religion is the private matter of every individual. Any person should be able to freely practice any religion as long as the practice does not interfere with the local laws, and no person must be forced to practice any religion. Just as people are created equal, there is no one religion that is superior to another. Any set of beliefs that is spread by force is fundamentally immoral; it is no longer a religion, but a political ideology.

Equality

Islam is one of the many of the world's religions. There will be no Peace and Harmony in the World if Muslims and non-Muslims do not have equal rights. Islamic supremacy doctrine is just as repulsive as Aryan supremacy doctrine. History clearly shows what happens to the society whose members consider themselves above other peoples. All moderate Muslims must repudiate the mere notion of Islamic supremacy.

Sharia

Sharia Law must be abolished, because it is incompatible with norms of modern society.

Outdated practices

Any practices that might have been acceptable in the Seventh Century; i.e., stoning, cutting off body parts, marrying and/or having sex with children or animals, must be condemned by every Muslim.

Outdated verses

The following verses promote divisiveness and religious hatred, bigotry and discrimination. They must be either removed from the Koran or declared outdated and invalid, and marked as such.

Outdated words & phrases

Use of the following words and phrases or their variations must be prohibited during religious services:

• Infidel / Unbeliever: these terms have negative connotation and promote divisiveness and animosity; Islam is not the only religion

• Jihad: this word is often interpreted as Holy War against non-Muslims

• Mujaheed / Holy Warrior: no more wars in the name of Islam

• American (Christian / Crusader / Israeli / Zionist) occupation: these terms promote bigotry; at this point in time, Muslims living in non-Muslim lands have more freedoms than Muslims living in Muslim lands

Islam vs. violence

Islam has no place for violence. Any person calling for an act of violence in the name of Islam must be promptly excommunicated. Any grievances must be addressed by lawful authorities. It is the religious and civic duty of every Muslim to unconditionally condemn any act of terrorism perpetrated in the name of Islam. Any Muslim group that has ties to terrorism in any way, shape, or form, must be universally condemned by both religious and secular Muslims.

Portrayal of Prophets

While portrayal of Prophets is not an acceptable practice in Islam could be personally offensive to some Muslims, other religions do not have such restrictions. Therefore, the portrayal of the Prophets must be treated as a manifestation of free expression.

The Crusades vs. The Inquisition

While the Inquisition was a repulsive practice by Christian Fundamentalists, the Crusades were not unprovoked acts of aggression, but rather attempts to recapture formerly Christian lands controlled by Muslims.

MASH Joe Kaufman Legal Defense Fund

c/o David Horowitz Freedom Center

P.O. Box 55089

Sherman Oaks, CA 91499-1964

Contributors:

Khalim Massoud, USA

Ilshat Alsayef, Russia

Linda Ahmed, Sweden

Rashid Ahmed, Sweden

Grisha W., Israel

Sébastien Lebreton, France

Henrik de Nie, The Netherlands

Shem Tov Z., Israel

Kent Berge, Norway

Francesca C., Switzerland

Abdullah K, Germany

Ahmad Panjshir, Afghanistan

Maria Oostindien, The Netherlands

Ann McCullough, USA

Daniel Ellsworth, USA

Martin J. & Diane S. Cipa, USA

Sarah Tresher, USA

Damian Barrow, UK

Mitchell Carter, USA

Frank Petruzzi, USA

Christian Roddier, USA

Cindy Schneider, The Netherlands

[Ruth]

Adonis I have posted a question for you on the cookery forum if you can help me. Thanks.

[jeffrey smith]

Adonis:

Are you familiar with these folks? Muslim's against Sharia?

MASH Joe Kaufman Legal Defense Fund

c/o David Horowitz Freedom Center

P.O. Box 55089

Sherman Oaks, CA 91499-1964

Contributors:

Khalim Massoud, USA

Ilshat Alsayef, Russia

Linda Ahmed, Sweden

Rashid Ahmed, Sweden

Grisha W., Israel

Sébastien Lebreton, France

Henrik de Nie, The Netherlands

Shem Tov Z., Israel

Kent Berge, Norway

Francesca C., Switzerland

Abdullah K, Germany

Ahmad Panjshir, Afghanistan

Maria Oostindien, The Netherlands

Ann McCullough, USA

Daniel Ellsworth, USA

Martin J. & Diane S. Cipa, USA

Sarah Tresher, USA

Damian Barrow, UK

Mitchell Carter, USA

Frank Petruzzi, USA

Christian Roddier, USA

Cindy Schneider, The Netherlands

1) Is that David Horowitz the anti-jihadi writer?

2) I find it odd that out of 22 signers, all but six seem to have non-Islamic names. ("Shem Tov Z." is a Jewish name, and Grisha is probably Russian.) They may be all converts to Islam (Adonis, after all, has seen no need to stop using his name, even though it is that of a Greek demigod), but if so, the very fact that so many are converts and so few born Muslims suggests this organization are nowhere in the mainstream of Islamic culture.

Jeffrey S.

Edited January 24, 2010 by jeffrey smith

[Selene]

Jeffrey:

I am thinking yes as to Horowitz, but I have not confirmed it.

I also noticed the absence of Islamic names.

I am looking forward to Adonis' take on it.

Adam

[Libertarian Muslim]

Adonis:

Are you familiar with these folks? Muslim's against Sharia?

Yes, I've heard of them. Their ideas are outrageously silly.

Their view of Islam is tainted by the bad examples of Muslims mixed in with some silly right wing evangelist Christian propaganda and that's quite clear by their points. I wonder how many of them are actually calling themselves Muslim in their day to day life?

Islam doesn't need reformation, it's Muslims who do so that they can stop acting so barbaric and get in line with the actual meaning of the Qur'an and Sunnah of the Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him.

There's also nothing in Islam that says it's okay to have sex with children or animals. What a silly statement.

[jeffrey smith]

Adonis:

Are you familiar with these folks? Muslim's against Sharia?

Yes, I've heard of them. Their ideas are outrageously silly.

Their view of Islam is tainted by the bad examples of Muslims mixed in with some silly right wing evangelist Christian propaganda and that's quite clear by their points. I wonder how many of them are actually calling themselves Muslim in their day to day life?

Islam doesn't need reformation, it's Muslims who do so that they can stop acting so barbaric and get in line with the actual meaning of the Qur'an and Sunnah of the Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him.

There's also nothing in Islam that says it's okay to have sex with children or animals. What a silly statement.

On the contrary, Islam (or at least Shariah) is in need of reformation. You believe it needs reforming--but, like many reformers (Luther comes to mind) you are arguing that Islam has fallen from a pristine state and needs to return to that pristine state--what you call the "actual meaning of the Qur'an and Sunnah". I suggest that your views are not very different from these people--except that your views are shaped by actually being a Muslim, and their views may not be. You want to change it from within; they want to change it from without.

As for the sex with children--that's child marriage, which is still acceptable in many if not most Muslim societies, and was acceptable in Christian society until 1700 CE or so. Although I never heard anyone claim before that Islam condoned bestiality.

[BaalChatzaf]

Islam doesn't need reformation, it's Muslims who do so that they can stop acting so barbaric and get in line with the actual meaning of the Qur'an and Sunnah of the Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him.

And just who will determine what the "actual meaning" is? The local Imam? The bomb toting Jihadists? Or will it be the town council of moral correctness? Or will each come to his own conclusion? Oh what glorious confusion will follow! The Holy Spirit is the least accurate indication of what is true.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Libertarian Muslim]

And just who will determine what the "actual meaning" is? The local Imam? The bomb toting Jihadists? Or will it be the town council of moral correctness? Or will each come to his own conclusion? Oh what glorious confusion will follow! The Holy Spirit is the least accurate indication of what is true.

Ba'al Chatzaf

The local imam is rarely educated in Islam, they simply lead the prayers and download their sermons off of the internet preaching them. So I'd rule them out. I'd also rule out the majority of people who have studied it as they usually study without learning the language of Qur'anic Arabic properly.

I really respect people like Sheikh Hamza Yusuf and Zaid Shakir because they're balanced.

It's simply a war of ideas Ba'al. We have better ideas so we'll ultimately win. The extremists are destined to lose.

[Libertarian Muslim]

On the contrary, Islam (or at least Shariah) is in need of reformation. You believe it needs reforming--but, like many reformers (Luther comes to mind) you are arguing that Islam has fallen from a pristine state and needs to return to that pristine state--what you call the "actual meaning of the Qur'an and Sunnah". I suggest that your views are not very different from these people--except that your views are shaped by actually being a Muslim, and their views may not be. You want to change it from within; they want to change it from without.

As for the sex with children--that's child marriage, which is still acceptable in many if not most Muslim societies, and was acceptable in Christian society until 1700 CE or so. Although I never heard anyone claim before that Islam condoned bestiality.

No it's not, I never said that Shariah nor Islam needs reformation I said that Muslims do. Their understanding of Islam has been perverted. There's a huge difference. They have strayed from the original teachings and gone to extremes.

Islam doesn't accept child marriages. Again I'm not talking about the Arabs and Muslims I'm talking about Islam.

[Selene]

Adonis:

Thanks for your perspective on that group.

If I remember your narrative when you joined our little lunatic asylum, I believe you converted to Islam when you were 17ish?

Is my memory close?

If so, if you are comfortable describing that "moment of clarity," as my man in Pulp Fiction explained, referring to his moment of conversion, I would appreciate it.

Once again, thanks for your take on that organization, it made no sense to me, but I am very familiar with the political and personal repression that is routine in this radical Islamic wave that is assaulting the social fabrics of Europe and the US.

I floated a statement with some folks in town to the effect that we hear a lot about the Israeli hospital that is in Haiti and about all the Christian missionary work, but I do not hear anything about Islamic countries helping the Haitians.

The reactions that I received verified the undercurrent of real anger and hate towards "the current image of a "Muslim."

I am meandering in this post.

Sorry. A day of football does that to me!

Still interested in the reversion, if their was one.

Adam

[jeffrey smith]

On the contrary, Islam (or at least Shariah) is in need of reformation. You believe it needs reforming--but, like many reformers (Luther comes to mind) you are arguing that Islam has fallen from a pristine state and needs to return to that pristine state--what you call the "actual meaning of the Qur'an and Sunnah". I suggest that your views are not very different from these people--except that your views are shaped by actually being a Muslim, and their views may not be. You want to change it from within; they want to change it from without.

As for the sex with children--that's child marriage, which is still acceptable in many if not most Muslim societies, and was acceptable in Christian society until 1700 CE or so. Although I never heard anyone claim before that Islam condoned bestiality.

No it's not, I never said that Shariah nor Islam needs reformation I said that Muslims do. Their understanding of Islam has been perverted. There's a huge difference. They have strayed from the original teachings and gone to extremes.

Islam doesn't accept child marriages. Again I'm not talking about the Arabs and Muslims I'm talking about Islam.

Adonis, that's the same as saying that Islam needs reformation. Your call that the common understanding of Islam has been perverted and Muslims need to return to the pure form practiced by the original generation of Muslims follows the common pattern of reformers: return to an idealized primitive state (primitive meaning not unsophisticated but meaning native or original state).

Perhaps the difference is that apparently you mean an ideal form of Islam by the term "Islam" whereas I mean the stuff that those billions of people who call themselves Muslims do.

Jeffrey S.

[jeffrey smith]

A

Sorry. A day of football does that to me!

Adam

And it's all coming to my backyard (or almost--about five miles away) for the next fortnight. This morning's paper had an article saying we should root for the Jets and the Vikings today because more of their fans would come and more of them would spend more money than folks from Indianapolis and New Orleans....

Yeah, look how that turned out.

The stadium name was changed just in time for the hoopla in honor of an insurance company (I think). I wish they had kept the name they used this season--Landshark Stadium. The name was a marketing ploy by Jimmy Buffet's brand of lager.

Jeffrey S.