Thread: Muslims are good people BULLSHIT!

Originally Posted by Edwin30

All Islamic countries are based on shariah law to one extent or another, particularly, in matrimonial matters and matters of inheritance.

To be living in a country whose legal code is based on Sharia "to one extent or another" is not to be living under Sharia, any more than in the U.S. we live under English common law. We do not; we live under U.S. constitutional law, even though a lot of the law in most states is in fact based on English common law.

The real point you need to make is that Muslims in most countries are bound by the specific portions of Sharia which (you say) require them to make war on the infidel -- and that has nothing to do with matrimony or matters of inheritance.

Originally Posted by Edwin30

Mulsms have inferiority complexes because of the backwardness and decay of the Islamic world which is last in education, literacy, healthcare, productivity and industrial development.

Not one Islamic country has invented anything in 1000 years.
Not one Islamic country manufactures anything with global demand.

The only thing that Islam has given civilizaiton is Islam. And, terrorism

Tourism is a big industry in Egypt.

Been there, done that, bought the tee shirt. (Well not the tee shirt per se, but a lot of beautiful scarves and some nice gold Ankh earrings, and a belly dance outfit!)

Originally Posted by Edwin30

Now, you're reduced to trolling with nervous gibberish.

Nothing nervous about it, and it's not gibberish to anyone who understands logic. I am not a scholar of Islam, but I am a philosopher by education, and I know what I'm talking about here. What you have engaged in is a logical fallacy: an invalid argument. It's a classic fallacy, the argument from authority -- to present someone who is claimed as (or may actually be) an expert on a subject, and asserting that because that person says so, it is true. That does not follow. It is wrong.

If your expert says that there is only one form of Islam, then, expert or no, he is demonstrably incorrect. There are many forms of Islam, many Muslim sects. That some scholar or other says otherwise is not proof to the contrary, and the evidence in favor of that statement is overwhelming.

You have "demolished" nothing. You have merely asserted an invalid argument based on flawed logic.

Originally Posted by Dragontalk

To be living in a country whose legal code is based on Sharia "to one extent or another" is not to be living under Sharia, any more than in the U.S. we live under English common law. We do not; we live under U.S. constitutional law, even though a lot of the law in most states is in fact based on English common law.

The real point you need to make is that Muslims in most countries are bound by the specific portions of Sharia which (you say) require them to make war on the infidel -- and that has nothing to do with matrimony or matters of inheritance.

Get on a cruise ship, go into international waters, commit a crime or be the victim of a crime, and see how fast you are NOT under US Constitutional law.

Originally Posted by Dragontalk

To be living in a country whose legal code is based on Sharia "to one extent or another" is not to be living under Sharia

Er, yes, it is. All Islamic countries base matrimonial and inheritance matters on the shariah.

Originally Posted by Dragontalk

Nothing nervous about it, and it's not gibberish to anyone who understands logic. I am not a scholar of Islam, but I am a philosopher by education, and I know what I'm talking about here. What you have engaged in is a logical fallacy: an invalid argument. It's a classic fallacy, the argument from authority -- to present someone who is claimed as (or may actually be) an expert on a subject, and asserting that because that person says so, it is true. That does not follow. It is wrong.

If your expert says that there is only one form of Islam, then, expert or no, he is demonstrably incorrect. There are many forms of Islam, many Muslim sects. That some scholar or other says otherwise is not proof to the contrary, and the evidence in favor of that statement is overwhelming.

You have "demolished" nothing. You have merely asserted an invalid argument based on flawed logic.

You're posting gibberish because you're all flustered and nervous due to your utter ignorance of the subject matter

All Muslim sects ultimately defer to the shariah, which requires jihad.

Now, you know

Originally Posted by Edwin30

If it weren't for the Islamic Crusade that conquered Jerusalem and sought to annihilate Christians and destroy all Christian institutions, there would have been no Christian Crusade to prevent Muslim savagery

I really wish you wouldn't have taken that quote out of context.


Here is what I actually said:

The sum total of his and many others thinking is: 1) he doesn't like Christains, 2) muslims are better than Christians, 3) if it weren't for the Crusades there would be no islamic terrorism today.

You just can't reason with a bigot. If he doesn't know it, it isn't out there to be known.

Originally Posted by Edwin30

You're posting gibberish because you're all flustered and nervous due to your utter ignorance of the subject matter

Now you're reduced to personal insult, having completely failed to present a valid argument. I'm not the one who's flustered here, you are. In fairness, you're trying to defend an irrational and indefensible position, so that's bound to generate a certain amount of frustration.

All Muslim sects ultimately defer to the shariah, which requires jihad.

Obviously, not all Muslim sects interpret Sharia the way you and your pet expert do, because not all Muslim sects call for jihad in the sense of literal holy war. There are in fact different interpretations of the meaning of that word "jihad."

Here's another lesson in logic: that an argument may be valid and still lead to a false conclusion, if it's based on a false premise. Here's your argument above, in sylogistic form:

All Muslim sects are bound by Sharia.

Sharia calls for violence against the infidel.

All Muslim sects call for violence against the infidel.

That is a valid argument; that is to say, IF all Muslim sects are bound by Sharia, and IF Sharia calls for violence against then infidel, then indeed it follows that all Muslim sects call for violence against the infidel.

However, both of your premises are untrue. Sufism in many of its forms is not bound by Sharia, and Sharia does not unambiguously call for violence against the infidel. The word "jihad" literally means "struggle." It takes at least three forms: the internal struggle to maintain the faith, the struggle within society to improve it, and holy war. None of the Muslims I have known personally felt that they were obligated to engage in violence against the infidel. (I, myself, am an infidel, and no Muslim has ever threatened me in any way.)

Originally Posted by Dragontalk

Now you're reduced to personal insult, having completely failed to present a valid argument. I'm not the one who's flustered here, you are. In fairness, you're trying to defend an irrational and indefensible position, so that's bound to generate a certain amount of frustration.

Mirror mirror on the wall...

Obviously, not all Muslim sects interpret Sharia the way you and your pet expert do, because not all Muslim sects call for jihad in the sense of literal holy war. There are in fact different interpretations of the meaning of that word "jihad."

The Quran, hadith and Shariah all call for jihad.

But, you know better?

Here's another lesson in logic: that an argument may be valid and still lead to a false conclusion, if it's based on a false premise. Here's your argument above, in sylogistic form

In other words, you know zero about Islam and need to deflect with gibberish. Duly noted.

Originally Posted by Dragontalk

Sharia calls for violence against the infidel.

So, too, the Quran...

Quran 2:216...
Jihâd (holy fighting in Allâh's Cause) is ordained for you (Muslims) though you dislike it, and it may be that you dislike a thing which is good for you and that you like a thing which is bad for you. Allâh knows but you do not know.

And, the sunnah of Mahomet...

Bukhari V1B2N24...

Narrated Ibn Umar: Allah's Apostle said: "I have been ordered (by Allah) to fight against the people until they testify that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and that Muhammad is Allah's Apostle, and offer the prayers perfectly and give the obligatory charity, so if they perform that, then they save their lives and property from me except for Islamic laws and then their reckoning (accounts) will be done by Allah.

Originally Posted by Edwin30

The Quran, hadith and Shariah all call for jihad.

But, you know better?

Having known actually real-life Muslims and discussed religion with them, yes, I do. Muslims I have known do not believe that they have any obligation to engage in violence against infidels (like me). I have asked actual real-life Muslims about the call in the Koran for jihad, and received a lot of information about what the word means. I was told by a very devout Muslim that struggling against his own tendency for sin was jihad, and that engaging in political activism to increase justice in the community (he was a liberal politically) was also jihad. Talking to me about his faith was also jihad, in that he was answering my criticism and helping me to understand, with some hope that I would come to God. (Which I didn't -- so it goes.)

Obviously, there are Muslims who believe that way, since I have known such people personally. I believe that they constitute a vast majority of American and European Muslims. I believe, based on common sense, that they also constitute a majority, if perhaps unfortunately not so vast, of Muslims elsewhere. But the point is that one may, within Islam, craft a valid argument for peace.

Or not. But the hinge is whether one is personally inclined to peace. Islam will justify your actions either way.

Originally Posted by Dragontalk

Having known actually real-life Muslims and discussed religion with them, yes, I do. Muslims I have known do not believe that they have any obligation to engage in violence against infidels (like me).

If you do not believe in jihad, you will not be chasing virgins in paradise. LOL

Quran 47.4...

So, when you meet (in fight Jihâd in Allâh's Cause), those who disbelieve smite at their necks till when you have killed and wounded many of them, then bind a bond firmly (on them, i.e. take them as captives). Thereafter (is the time) either for generosity (i.e. free them without ransom), or ransom (according to what benefits Islâm), until the war lays down its burden. Thus [you are ordered by Allâh to continue in carrying out Jihâd against the disbelievers till they embrace Islâm (i.e. are saved from the punishment in the Hell-fire) or at least come under your protection], but if it had been Allâh's Will, He Himself could certainly have punished them (without you). But (He lets you fight), in order to test you, some with others. But those who are killed in the Way of Allâh, He will never let their deeds be lost

Quran 4:95...

Not equal are those of the believers who sit (at home), except those who are disabled (by injury or are blind or lame, etc.), and those who strive hard and fight in the Cause of Allâh with their wealth and their lives. Allâh has preferred in grades those who strive hard and fight with their wealth and their lives above those who sit (at home). Unto each, Allâh has promised good (Paradise), but Allâh has preferred those who strive hard and fight, above those who sit (at home) by a huge reward

Originally Posted by Edwin30

If you do not believe in jihad, you will not be chasing virgins in paradise.

Obviously, the Muslims I have known disagree. Your entire argument here, Edwin, rests on the assertion that Muslims HAVE to engage in violence, that they MUST believe this, and that ALL Muslims tend to religious violence based on these passages in the Koran and other sacred text. Obviously, that is not the case. Obviously, there is enough ambiguity here that Muslims who are so inclined can live peaceful lives and justify that religiously, even condemning religious violence and terrorism, which most Muslims do.

Just as obviously, those passages CAN be interpreted so as to call for violence. Islam isn't necessarily a religion of peace. But it can be one, if its followers wish. I have known Muslims who did wish that, and for them it was a religion of peace. Clearly, there are Muslims in the world for whom that is not the case.

This does not make Muslims anything other than human, with the full range and complement of human virtues and vices.