Ask a Muslim [split from introductions]
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 5 Votes - 4.2 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
26-05-2012, 06:43 AM (This post was last modified: 26-05-2012 08:02 AM by Mark Fulton.)
RE: Ask a Muslim [split from introductions]
Hi internet mullah. Once again I congratulate you for staying cool. A lesser man would be fazed.

My friend, I have no delusions I can "deconvert" you. I will admit something though...I would like to see it happen. In my opinion Islam and Christianity are two of the most toxic causes of personal and political disharmony in the world. As the world gets better informed and educated, I see them both dying out, in the same way that cigarette smoking, homophobia and high fructose syrup are dying out. My "religion" is secular humanism fuelled by open mindedness and genuine human empathy. That is why I oppose Christianity, and, to a lesser extent, Islam.

While I know a fair bit about Islam, I don't really know enough to have a real involved conversation with you about the history. I can only offer you comments of a general nature such as I have already made. I do kid myself I know a bucket load about Christianity, however, and I can see definite parallels in the way you present your arguments and how many Christians talk about their faith.

I want you to know I am reading and absorbing everything you say, and I have learnt a lot from you. I'm genuinely interested to discover the real reasons you are so wrapped up in Islam. It's very difficult to have real conversations like this with typical Christians, I think because the cognitive dissonance is too much for them. They become angry and aggressive, or sulk away.

So please keep posting. Regards, Mark
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-05-2012, 07:52 AM
RE: Ask a Muslim [split from introductions]
(26-05-2012 02:43 AM)Internet Mullah Wrote:  
(25-05-2012 04:16 PM)Dom Wrote:  One other thing, I wonder why you came here?


I came here to challenge and to examine the soundness of my own beliefs. I am interested in debating people with opposing opinions. Also, I like to share what I know with others. I feel that there is more value in my knowledge when I share it with others. I feel that it is healthy to express my beliefs without actually forcing them onto anyone. So, that's why I'm here.

As for the whole punishment thing, which I was discussing with you, your main contention is that these punishments are too cruel and inhumane. But, my contention is that they are cruel for a good reason - i.e. for the purpose of deterring crimes - and history shows that harsher punishments are more effective in preventing crimes than more lenient ones.

It seems that we have both said what we wanted to say on this topic. Even though I disagree with you, Dom, I respect your opinions nonetheless.


I respect you too, for your patient demeanor and willingness to communicate. I always look for the person, not the ideology, the ideology is only one small aspect of the person. You seem like a calm, strong person and somehow I respect your ideology more than the christian one - up to one point, and that point is an absolute deal breaker.

Not that I think your delusions about Mohammed are any better than the Christian delusions about Jesus, but there is a certain serene strength about you that I haven't seen in most Christians. But that is likely just your personality, and you find it to be well fitted to being a Mullah.

However, the cruelty seems incoherent and so I focussed on it. I sense that you are basically a well meaning and compassionate person, yet you make room for unspeakably inhumane acts.

So I kept digging, but alas, I have not found that which distinguishes humans from animals most of all things - deep empathy and compassion. Your empathy only goes so far and then you slam the door on it.

It has helped me understand better why Islamic terrorists seem to be more prolific than others. Once the mind is made up that the purpose is justified, human lives that happen to collide with that purpose are not included in compassion. That is totally in sync with the culture that justifies cruelty for other reasons.

It is like Dr.Jekyll and Mr.Hyde, a bright side and a dark side.

Dear Mullah, if you open the door to cruelty for any reason, it festers on the mind. It leads people back to old instincts that should have been buried at some time during evolution. Not the physical evolution, but the cultural one. It dates back to times when people were warlike and, because of lack of better tools, war was incredibly bloody and cruel. You had to be calloused to live in the times of the first testament, humans behaved a lot more like animals then.

I'd like to think humanity as a whole will progress past that and wars will be a thing of the past and replaced with mutual respect. But all it takes for war to break out is a few individuals to engage in unprovoked cruelty.

So I see cruelty as a medieval remnant of early societal evolution, and I see it as the single most destructive component of humankind.

Luckily most of us have a healthy capacity for empathy, and in the best of all worlds society will be based on empathy and cruelty will be all but forgotten.

[Image: dobie.png]Science is the process we've designed to be responsible for generating our best guess as to what the fuck is going on. Girly Man
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Dom's post
26-05-2012, 08:29 AM
RE: Ask a Muslim [split from introductions]
Hello Internet Mullah,

Can you comment on the concept of Jihad in Islam. The fear pimps try to make everyone fear all Muslims as rabid death loving psychopaths. While there are indeed people that meet that description it obviously is not the truth. From my reading the concept according to moderate scholars is presented as an internal struggle and not so literal.

Secondly if ones conduct/actions can be labeled takfiri would there be a penalty for this behavior?

I apologize if this has been covered already but I did not see it in previous posts.

" Generally speaking, the errors in religion are dangerous; those in philosophy only ridiculous."
David Hume
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-05-2012, 08:40 AM
RE: Ask a Muslim [split from introductions]
Quote:6. It is known that some of the Quranic revelations came to Muhammad in
the presence of people. The Quran was revealed over the span of 23
years, where then that was mysterious, perhaps invisible teacher of
Muhammad? How could he have hidden himself for so long? Or how could
Muhammad who was constantly surrounded by companions, how was he able to
make frequent secret visits to that "mysterious teacher" or teachers
for 23 years without even being caught once?
This is not at all convincing. A schizophrenic gets visions regardless of who is present.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Chas's post
26-05-2012, 09:37 AM
RE: Ask a Muslim [split from introductions]
(19-05-2012 05:03 AM)Internet Mullah Wrote:  
(12-05-2012 05:01 AM)ALovelyChickenMan Wrote:  These 'scientific miracles' ... how are they scientific if they're either wrong or just meant to be a sign? signs hold no scientific value. None at all.
Well, in my opinion, there are certain things in the Quran which are very unlikely that man could have known about especially over 1,400 years ago. Furthermore, Muhammad was an illiterate man and he is not known to recieve any training in science, physics, geology, or anything. Yet, there are things that were discovered centuries later after the time of the Quranic revelations. There are even scientists who recognize that the some of the information in the Quran go beyond the scientific knowledge of the time and speaks of scientific facts and truths that have only recently been discovered. Here's an article where you can read some of their statements on the Quran. Also, concerning the verses on embryololgy, here's a paper that looks into those verses one-by-one in great detail:

Embryology in the Quran: A Scientific-Linguistic Analysis of Chapter 23

That being said, although the Quran may contain scientific details that were not known during that time, we do not actually consider the book as a "book of science," because teaching science is not the purpose of the book at all. Rather, the Quran is primarily meant to be a moral and a spiritual guideline. It is a text that seeks to engage the inner dimensions of man and to build his relationship with God through faith and worship.

The main reason that science is included in the Quran is to make us think and reflect on how God created nature so beautifully and wisely, not necessarily to show that these are scientific discoveries. There are many verses in the Quran that illustrate some of the phenomenons of the natural world such as the planets orbiting the sun, the stars, the alternation of the night and day, the various animals in this planet, the intricacies of our own psychological and physiological development, and the embryological stages, and so on. These things are included just to remind us that these are some of the signs of God's existence.
Thanks for the response.

I still have problems with calling them scientific at all. When they aren't and you seem to admit that. So why should that give any validity to the book?

You could find miracles in Moby Dick if you want to call them miracles, you can do a lot of things if you want them to be true, can't you? I don't imagine that you'd pick up a book and in a few years time go back and call the book miraculous. You'd probably laugh and be on your way. It'd simply be a good coincidence that does have the ability to be wrong... or does the time it was written have an affect on your judgement? I mean, the main problem I have with this is that I've seen some really intelligent theists succumb to standards such as this. Every little thing is a 'miracle'. It feels like a sacrifice of intelligence. But I'll stop ranting.

I've read about the embryology in the Quran and I'm still struggling to find what is so significant about it. Scientists can find many things that appear ahead of their time... what does it prove? There are also errors with the Quran about certain miracles, such as the speed of light - does that take away from the validity of the Quran? or is that just ignored? I've heard a lot of these miracles before and some are so vague which means that the passages are open to interpretation it's ridiculous. Like the water cycle one.

Can you read this please. And answer this question honestly, if this guy was an Islamic scholar instead of an engineer, would his predictions have been seen as divine?

Sapere aude! Have courage to use your own understanding!
Take the risk of thinking for yourself, much more happiness, truth, beauty, and wisdom will come to you that way.


Enlightenment is liberating.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes ALovelyChickenMan's post
26-05-2012, 12:51 PM
RE: Ask a Muslim [split from introductions]
(26-05-2012 08:29 AM)KidCharlemagne1962 Wrote:  Hello Internet Mullah,

Can you comment on the concept of Jihad in Islam. The fear pimps try to make everyone fear all Muslims as rabid death loving psychopaths. While there are indeed people that meet that description it obviously is not the truth. From my reading the concept according to moderate scholars is presented as an internal struggle and not so literal.

Secondly if ones conduct/actions can be labeled takfiri would there be a penalty for this behavior?

I apologize if this has been covered already but I did not see it in previous posts.
I'll see if I can answer the first part. He said to me that Jihad just means struggle. So there is no outward attack on anyone to join the faith. But if someone were to attack Muslims (for an unjust reason i.e it was unprovoked) then they're permitted to fight back.

Sapere aude! Have courage to use your own understanding!
Take the risk of thinking for yourself, much more happiness, truth, beauty, and wisdom will come to you that way.


Enlightenment is liberating.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-05-2012, 03:57 PM (This post was last modified: 30-05-2012 07:50 PM by Atothetheist.)
RE: Ask a Muslim [split from introductions]
(23-05-2012 04:05 AM)Internet Mullah Wrote:  
(19-05-2012 11:11 AM)Atothetheist Wrote:  If lets say He was self delusional, he could have had a mental illness. People hear voices everyday, even in present times. Does it matter if it is poetic or not, it all was in his head. There would be no hard proof for this because their was no way, back in that time that they could conclusivly prove that he was fucking bonkers.

I understand what you're saying. And you're right, no one can actually dismiss that argument as 100% invalid. But, still, I think it more counterintuititve to think that Muhammad was bonkers after knowing the kind of lifestyle that he had and the things that he did for Islam. Also, if he was really mad or insane, then I think that this would have been apparent in the Quran itself, because there would have been a lot of mistakes and meaningless string of words and other things that just doesn't make sense. On the contrary, from a scholarly point of view, all the facts in the Quran are correct and no one was able to prove that there was an error or a mistake in the book. So, how can a delusional man hear words that are correct every single time and yet so eloquent in it's literary style that no one else was ever able to produce something even similar to it? To me, that is the strongest reason that the Quran did not originate from Muhammad's mind, although I cannot prove that your argument wrong either.

Some also say that Muhammad may have had epilepsy. But, again, even modern Western scholars of Islam have rejected that idea as it is something very improbable. William Montgomery Watt, a Scottish historian, who wrote a biography of Muhmmad, also disagrees with the epilepsy diagnosis, saying that "there are no real grounds for such a view."

Elaborating, Watt says that "epilepsy leads to physical and mental degeneration, and there are no signs of that in Muhammad." He then goes further and states that Muhammad was psychologically sound in general: "He (Muhammad) was clearly in full possession of his faculties to the very end of his life." He concludes by stating "It is incredible that a person subject to epilepsy, or hysteria, or even ungovernable fits of emotion, could have been the active leader of military expeditions, or the cool far-seeing guide of a city-state and a growing religious community; but all this we know Muhammad to have been."

Also, here's an article about this:
The Origins of the Epilepsy Lie about Prophet Muhammad

(19-05-2012 11:11 AM)Atothetheist Wrote:  He could have been a liar. Saying that there is no hard proof for him telling a lie is not a good arguement.

Although there is no hard proof that Muhammad wasn't lying, as you said correclty, Atothetheist, my point is that assuming him to be a liar would go against everything that we do know about Muhammad. For example, Muhammad's reliability and credibility is enforced and substantiated by the fact that a liar usually lies for some worldly gain, but he rejected all worldly aspirations, and suffered tremendously for his message. He rejected the riches and power he was offered to stop promulgating his message. More significantly, he was persecuted for his beliefs, boycotted and exiled from his beloved city (Mecca), starved of food, and stoned by children to the point where his blood drenched his legs. Even his beloved companions were tortured and persecuted. So, after knowing these things, the psychological profile of the Prophet is obviously inconsistent with that of a liar, and to maintain that he was dishonest is tantamount of making bold claims without any evidence.

(19-05-2012 11:11 AM)Atothetheist Wrote:  There is no proof that Jesus ever told a lie (hard proof) so, by your standards, that would be an arguement for Christianity.

Yes, but I do not believe that Jesus lied either because we believe that Jesus was also a Prophet along with Muhammad and every other Prophet. When Jesus was a Prophet, that the religion that people had to follow. Then, after Muhmmad was appointed as a Prophet, then that was the religion that people had to follow. That being said, I should also mention that we know very little for sure about Jesus and some of the events surrounding him from the standpoint of secular history. Similarly, we don't know much about what the very first Christians believed either.

(19-05-2012 11:11 AM)Atothetheist Wrote:  I value your responses, but these were somthing that I saw issue with.

Thanks, Atothetheist, and I value your responses, too.


Internet Mullah, there are varying types of insanity. People who have such types are logical about somethings, but extremely off base with another. Just because you are insane in thinking that there is a fire going on in your house all of the time does not mean that you suddenly can't reason in other situations at school. ( I am using a aquatiance of mine's expierance.)

Again, back then there was no way to fully tell, and muhhamod's ( Totally butchered the name.) life story was a lomg time ago, a present analysis of the texts that are about his life is not at all, in any way, a reliable source of mental, and or sociopathic abnormalities.

As a response to what Muhhamod did for Islam, I know of tons of cases that a man, or woman have done remarkble stuff for aDELUSION. ( Charles Manson is one good example of ordering people to do stuff.)

Just because you are devoted, and do stuff for it, does not make it a verfiable, much less even true claim.

Now onto the liar part.

Prehaps Jesus was a horrible example, or analogy, but nonetheless I will use the same outline.
Buddhists revere their, for lack of knoweldge, " Buddha" as a nice guy, and of trustworthy and enlighted character.
THIS DOES NOT RULE OUT THE POSSIBILITY THAT IT WAS FAKE.

There are many possiblities and motives as to why Muhhamod might lie. Depending solely on descriptions of this man's "Trustworthy" Character may comfort you into thinking he was telling the truth, but other than that, there is absolutely no evidense that the Islamic faith is true. Even saying that his character supports the claims he makes isn't a strong arguement for/ nor against/ a religion.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Atothetheist's post
26-05-2012, 06:01 PM
RE: Ask a Muslim [split from introductions]
(26-05-2012 12:51 PM)ALovelyChickenMan Wrote:  
(26-05-2012 08:29 AM)KidCharlemagne1962 Wrote:  Hello Internet Mullah,

Can you comment on the concept of Jihad in Islam. The fear pimps try to make everyone fear all Muslims as rabid death loving psychopaths. While there are indeed people that meet that description it obviously is not the truth. From my reading the concept according to moderate scholars is presented as an internal struggle and not so literal.

Secondly if ones conduct/actions can be labeled takfiri would there be a penalty for this behavior?

I apologize if this has been covered already but I did not see it in previous posts.
I'll see if I can answer the first part. He said to me that Jihad just means struggle. So there is no outward attack on anyone to join the faith. But if someone were to attack Muslims (for an unjust reason i.e it was unprovoked) then they're permitted to fight back.
Thanks, that is what I was told also.

" Generally speaking, the errors in religion are dangerous; those in philosophy only ridiculous."
David Hume
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-05-2012, 03:40 AM (This post was last modified: 27-05-2012 03:45 AM by Internet Mullah.)
RE: Ask a Muslim [split from introductions]
(26-05-2012 06:43 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  I want you to know I am reading and absorbing everything you say, and I have learnt a lot from you. I'm genuinely interested to discover the real reasons you are so wrapped up in Islam. It's very difficult to have real conversations like this with typical Christians, I think because the cognitive dissonance is too much for them. They become angry and aggressive, or sulk away.

Thank you for the compliment.

Also, I am glad that you have learned a lot from my posts and that you are enjoying the discussions as well. I hope that you continue to feel this way.

(26-05-2012 08:29 AM)KidCharlemagne1962 Wrote:  Can you comment on the concept of Jihad in Islam. The fear pimps try to make everyone fear all Muslims as rabid death loving psychopaths. While there are indeed people that meet that description it obviously is not the truth. From my reading the concept according to moderate scholars is presented as an internal struggle and not so literal.

As ALovelyChickenman correctly answered, Jihad literally means "struggle," but it can also take on a military connotation which is a form of struggle that is only allowed when the Muslims are being attacked and when they have to defend themselves in such a situation, or when an enemy tries to drive them out of their homes, for example. These are the only times when a Jihad is allowed according to the Quran and according to the teachings of Muhammad (peace be upon him).

Now, it's alright if you didn't see them, KidCharlemagne, but I answered the same question more thoroughly in this post and this post.

(26-05-2012 08:29 AM)KidCharlemagne1962 Wrote:  Secondly if ones conduct/actions can be labeled takfiri would there be a penalty for this behavior?

First of all, you may already know this, but to those of you who don't know this, making a "takfir" on someone means that we are making a verbal statement about a Muslim saying that he or she is actually a disbeliever (or a "kaafir"). However, there are many Muslims who believe that the action of "takfir" itself is a sin, because we are making an open declaration about someone's belief even though he or she denies the truthfulness of the takfir.

Even if a Muslim does do or say something that hints that he or she may be a disbeliever, I don't think that we should make a takfir on that person because we don't really know whether or not he believes in Islam (especially if he claims to be a Muslim). As for the penalty, we believe that only God knows the penalty, unless the action can be classified as something which is considered to be a crime in Islam such as rape, adultery, theft, and murder, for example.

(26-05-2012 08:40 AM)Chas Wrote:  This is not at all convincing. A schizophrenic gets visions regardless of who is present.

Well, to me, Chas, that is convincing.

Secondly, your opinion that Muhammad was getting visions because he was schizophrenic is not something that is proven to be true nor disproven either. However, I already posted a detailed explanation on why I think it is very unlikely that Muhammad was schizophrenic, epileptic, and/or delusional earlier in this thread in this post and this post. I would like you to read them carefully and then comment on them, if you want to.

____________
Post numbers in which questions and/or comments are still pending: #s 40, 54, 142, 143, 148, 152, 155, 157
Approximate time for completion: Unknown
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-05-2012, 03:43 AM
RE: Ask a Muslim [split from introductions]
@ Everyone else:

I will respond to your questions or comments once I have sorted out all these different things in my head. I appreciate everyone's participation and for reading my posts. I also enjoyed a great deal discussing with you guys. And I will continue to do so. However, there is a lot to answer right now, and that's why I'm going to take a short break from the forum to think through each of the questions. I might be gone for a while, but don't worry because, insha'Allah (God willing), I'll be back.

In the mean time, feel free to ask me more questions. I've been reading everything in this thread and I will post my thoughts on them once I return.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: