Islamic Positive Thread

[dennis tooth]

Do Rockstar games present Grand Theft Auto V as an ideology to live your life by?

 

Are people being killed because they don't accept Trevor Philips as the one true prophet?

 

Are you prone to presenting terrible analogies?

 

Only one of those questions can be answered with a "Yes".

It's not a terrible analogy to apply your logic on it to the legal system.

Very straightforward.

By claiming the Koran is the motive are you not providing a diminished responsibility argument for murder?

Should a murderers justification for murder be accepted on face value?

[dennis tooth]

TEHRAN (FNA)- A commander of the Syrian army in Aleppo said that the Saudi officials who have been driven nuts by advances of the government and popular forces in the province have sent 10,000 of their mercenaries and tens of tanks to assist the terrorists with keeping their ground.

"The Syrian army's victories in Aleppo have made al-Saud to frantically send 10,000 mercenaries along with over 95 tanks to Aleppo province to break the siege and rescue their besieged officers from the Eastern parts of Aleppo," Mohannad Haaj, a member of the Syrian parliament and commander of al-Mahavir Battalion of the Syrian army, told FNA on Wednesday.

He, meantime, said that the Syrian army, supported by the Russian fighter jets and other allies, could kill over 2,000 Saudi mercenaries and destroyed more than 70 tanks of the terrorists in different parts of the province in the past few days.

Latest reports said on Tuesday that the Syrian and Russian warplanes pounded the terrorist groups' gatherings and concentration centers in the Western neighborhoods of Aleppo, killing 20 and wounding several more.

20 militants were killed and several others were injured in Syrian and Russian airstrikes on their positions in Qabat al-Assad area in the Northern side of Rashedeen 4.

Also a notorious field commander of Ahrar al-Sham was killed in heavy fighting with the resistance forces in the Southern districts of Aleppo.

Abu Hassan al-Shami was killed in resistance fighters' attacks in the Southern battlefields of Aleppo city.

In the meantime, 48 terrorists, originally from Idlib province, were killed in the Syrian missile, artillery and air attacks in Southern Aleppo.

Also, fierce clashes are underway between terrorist groups and Kurdish fighters in Sheikh Maqsoud district in Northern part of Aleppo city.

[Stu Monty]

You know, I hate biblical literalists. I'm not sure which group of literalists i hate more though, those who are religious or those who aren't.

Who are you aiming that at?

 

Presumably not the person claiming that anything organised religion prescribes is no more valid than one person's personal conversation with God, and claiming any of a million interpretations of the writing are all as valid as each other?

[Guest Numero Veinticinco]

I'm aiming it at all biblical literalists.

[Stu Monty]

I'm aiming it at all biblical literalists.

Bit irrelevant to the conversation that was happening though. Wasn't it?

 

I hate banging my toe, not sure I'd throw into a non toe-focussed conversation.

[AngryOfTuebrook]

"I like turtles."

[Guest Numero Veinticinco]

Bit irrelevant to the conversation that was happening though. Wasn't it?

 

 

No.

[Stu Monty]

No.

 

You know, the tone here is kind of you being a dick.

 

You're not a dick, but you're very much dick-bombing the conversation instead of just addressing whoever you clandestinely disagree with.

 

Who was being a biblical literalist?

[Guest Numero Veinticinco]

I'm commenting on the discussion, Stu. I'm on my phone, mate. I can't quote without it being a right hassle. Why are you getting all defensive, it's the aggressive atheist's usual tactic; read something, judge it on the literal text and then dismiss it. Would you disagree with that? Even then, I was judging and commenting on a line a page or two back regarding people judging certain good bits and others certain bad bits.

[Stu Monty]

I'm commenting on the discussion, Stu. I'm on my phone, mate. I can't quote without it being a right hassle. Why are you getting all defensive, it's the aggressive atheist's usual tactic; read something, judge it on the literal text and then dismiss it. Would you disagree with that? Even then, I was judging and commenting on a line a page or two back regarding people judging certain good bits and others certain bad bits.

Fair enough, just struck me as one of those "I'm commenting on you, not to you" posts.

 

It narked me when I'm specifically avoiding literalism and stating that any single interpretation of any text, cannot be deemed any more or less valid (as the validity, in a system where you believe in an interventionist God, can come from that personal conversation you have).

 

This struggle to ringfence off what the "proper" interpretation is (with conformity apparently essential) just falls down with the slightest push.

 

If I wake tomorrow convinced that the god of religion x spoke to me in the night and told me to wage war target x then it's as valid as any other claim to true faith. Only by denying the very idea of a personal god can you strip me of my valid justification.

 

There are good and bad people. Each as "true" as the next.

[AngryOfTuebrook]

It narked me when I'm specifically avoiding literalism and stating that any single interpretation of any text, cannot be deemed any more or less valid (as the validity, in a system where you believe in an interventionist God, can come from that personal conversation you have).

 

This struggle to ringfence off what the "proper" interpretation is (with conformity apparently essential) just falls down with the slightest push.

 

If I wake tomorrow convinced that the god of religion x spoke to me in the night and told me to wage war target x then it's as valid as any other claim to true faith. Only by denying the very idea of a personal god can you strip me of my valid justification.

 

There are good and bad people. Each as "true" as the next.

I agree that, to a point, any interpretation of a specific bit of text can be considered equally valid.  (The limit of this is if people claim a meaning for something which is just not in those words, in any way shape or form.  This is not just a religious phenomenon; you see it, from time to time, in arguments about politics, etc.)  

 

I also agree that just because one particular interpretation is "mainstream" that doesn't make it more valid than any other interpretation.  I've got no dog in the fight over what a "proper" interpretation of scripture is.  (I'm an atheist, so it's all pretty much bollocks to me.)  I'd rather leave it to the members of any religion to argue over the finer points of their fiction.  However, I do get narked when I see bigots relentlessly putting a negative spin on Islam, when it's perfectly clear that they're giving a false, one-sided view of old books and cultural traditions that have both positive and negative aspects.

 

Where I do disagree is with your notion that a person can just claim to be a follower of some faith group - regardless of whether their beliefs or actions correspond with those of the rest of the group - and they should be considered a valid member of the group.  For better or worse, faith groups are defined by their beliefs and actions (or, at least, the actions their supposed to adhere to).  So, for example, the "Muslamic rape gangs" who have been imprisoned are people who may well have been born into Muslim families, but, by all reports, they did not adhere to any of the tenets of Islam; they should be known as what they are - paedos, rapists and cunts - but not Muslims.

 

If a person thinks they have a valid justification for their good or bad actions as a result of their personal relationship with God, that's a different thing to someone who believes their actions are validated by their membership of a faith group.  In the former case, as you say, nobody can deny that "validity" because there is no objective right or wrong way to have a relationship with God.  In the latter case, their justifications for their actions are objectively invalidated if they run counter to the rules and norms of the group.

 

I have never watched a game of baseball; I don't know the first thing about the sport and I have no intention of trying to follow it.  If I were to declare myself a Yankees fan, you would - quite rightly - tell me "no you're not, you're a tool".  Similarly, if I were to wake up tomorrow, having had an overnight "revelation" I couldn't start calling myself a Muslim or a Mormon or a Hindu, regardless of what I believe my personal relationship with God (or gods) is.

[Stu Monty]

I agree that, to a point, any interpretation of a specific bit of text can be considered equally valid.  (The limit of this is if people claim a meaning for something which is just not in those words, in any way shape or form.  This is not just a religious phenomenon; you see it, from time to time, in arguments about politics, etc.)  

 

I also agree that just because one particular interpretation is "mainstream" that doesn't make it more valid than any other interpretation.  I've got no dog in the fight over what a "proper" interpretation of scripture is.  (I'm an atheist, so it's all pretty much bollocks to me.)  I'd rather leave it to the members of any religion to argue over the finer points of their fiction.  However, I do get narked when I see bigots relentlessly putting a negative spin on Islam, when it's perfectly clear that they're giving a false, one-sided view of old books and cultural traditions that have both positive and negative aspects.

 

Where I do disagree is with your notion that a person can just claim to be a follower of some faith group - regardless of whether their beliefs or actions correspond with those of the rest of the group - and they should be considered a valid member of the group.  For better or worse, faith groups are defined by their beliefs and actions (or, at least, the actions their supposed to adhere to).  So, for example, the "Muslamic rape gangs" who have been imprisoned are people who may well have been born into Muslim families, but, by all reports, they did not adhere to any of the tenets of Islam; they should be known as what they are - paedos, rapists and cunts - but not Muslims.

 

If a person thinks they have a valid justification for their good or bad actions as a result of their personal relationship with God, that's a different thing to someone who believes their actions are validated by their membership of a faith group.  In the former case, as you say, nobody can deny that "validity" because there is no objective right or wrong way to have a relationship with God.  In the latter case, their justifications for their actions are objectively invalidated if they run counter to the rules and norms of the group.

 

I have never watched a game of baseball; I don't know the first thing about the sport and I have no intention of trying to follow it.  If I were to declare myself a Yankees fan, you would - quite rightly - tell me "no you're not, you're a tool".  Similarly, if I were to wake up tomorrow, having had an overnight "revelation" I couldn't start calling myself a Muslim or a Mormon or a Hindu, regardless of what I believe my personal relationship with God (or gods) is.

 

If the Muslim God came to you last night and told you to do his work and you do, then you're a Muslim. Whether that runs counter to what 99% of Muslims do and think or not. You're as pure a Muslim as it gets, you had a direct conversation with the Muslim god.

 

People raping in the name of Islam/Christianity are no less proper that those spreading peace. Both interpretations are equally valid and it will be possible for both be justified in sections the texts.  

[Jose Jones]

Stu Monty, on 11 Aug 2016 - 4:34 PM, said:

 

If the Muslim God came to you last night and told you to do his work and you do, then you're a Muslim. Whether that runs counter to what 99% of Muslims do and think or not. You're as pure a Muslim as it gets, you had a direct conversation with the Muslim god.

 

People raping in the name of Islam/Christianity are no less proper that those spreading peace. Both interpretations are equally valid and it will be possible for both be justified in sections the texts.

Don't think I agree with that matey.

Firstly there isn't a "Muslim God"

It is widely accepted (actually probably by Muslims more than the others) that the one God is the same for Jews, Christians and Muslims right?

The differences in beliefs and practices are at what point you believe the prophets stopped bringing the true word of God.

So the difference is the three religions is where you stop reading the books - stop at the old testament/Torah or keep going to Jesus or Mohammed. Therefore the texts and the teachings around them are the religion.

[AngryOfTuebrook]

If the Muslim God came to you last night and told you to do his work and you do, then you're a Muslim. Whether that runs counter to what 99% of Muslims do and think or not. You're as pure a Muslim as it gets, you had a direct conversation with the Muslim god.

 

People raping in the name of Islam/Christianity are no less proper that those spreading peace. Both interpretations are equally valid and it will be possible for both be justified in sections the texts.  

That's the point we're not going to agree on.  Muslim is as Muslim does.  Obviously, that leaves hu-u-uge areas of different interpretations of what a Muslim should do and all kinds of arguments for people to (all too literally) fight over.  But there has to be a cut-off point.

 

If you wake up tomorrow and say "God spoke to me and told me that, actually, Mohammed was his penultimate prophet, I'm the One True Muslim that you should all listen to and I've been working on some rewrites of the Koran" then whatever else you may be, you ain't no Muslim, bruv.

[Rico1304]

That's the point we're not going to agree on. Muslim is as Muslim does. Obviously, that leaves hu-u-uge areas of different interpretations of what a Muslim should do and all kinds of arguments for people to (all too literally) fight over. But there has to be a cut-off point.

 

If you wake up tomorrow and say "God spoke to me and told me that, actually, Mohammed was his penultimate prophet, I'm the One True Muslim that you should all listen to and I've been working on some rewrites of the Koran" then whatever else you may be, you ain't no Muslim, bruv.

Well, you might be an ahmadiyya Muslim. Like the bloke in Glasgow.

[AngryOfTuebrook]

Well, you might be an ahmadiyya Muslim. Like the bloke in Glasgow.

No.  They don't believe the bullshit I used as my example.

 

(Through the joys of Wikipedia, I've just discovered the distinction, in Ahmadiyya beliefs, between law-bearing prophets and subordinate prophets.  According to Ahmadiyya Muslims, Mohammed was the last law-bearing prophet.  "New prophets can come but they must be subordinate to Muhammad and cannot exceed him in excellence nor alter his teaching or bring any new law or religion."  So, nothing at all like my example.)

[Stu Monty]

That's the point we're not going to agree on.  Muslim is as Muslim does.  Obviously, that leaves hu-u-uge areas of different interpretations of what a Muslim should do and all kinds of arguments for people to (all too literally) fight over.  But there has to be a cut-off point.

 

If you wake up tomorrow and say "God spoke to me and told me that, actually, Mohammed was his penultimate prophet, I'm the One True Muslim that you should all listen to and I've been working on some rewrites of the Koran" then whatever else you may be, you ain't no Muslim, bruv.

 

So, amazingly, you are putting what some organised humans decide to do and say above what god tells someone in a religion. Which is, well, bonkers.

 

You can't have the conversation about religions whilst at the same time pretending that in them, the last word doesn't go to the deity.

[Stu Monty]

Don't think I agree with that matey.

Firstly there isn't a "Muslim God"

It is widely accepted (actually probably by Muslims more than the others) that the one God is the same for Jews, Christians and Muslims right?

The differences in beliefs and practices are at what point you believe the prophets stopped bringing the true word of God.

So the difference is the three religions is where you stop reading the books - stop at the old testament/Torah or keep going to Jesus or Mohammed. Therefore the texts and the teachings around them are the religion.

 

The Muslim god is the god that the Muslims worship. For clarity. 

 

The texts and the teachings are from god are they not? So you have three different texts and teachings from one god? How does that work?

[Mr Nando]

Positives: If you are a corrupt Muslim politician, the fear of being branded a racist/bigot means a blind eye is turned to electoral fraud. See the report into electoral fraud in Tower Hamlets. A letter was circulated in signed by 101 influential Muslim clerics, stating it was persons religious duty to vote for Lutfur Rahman. What the fuck....

 

If you are a migrant/muslim rapist then your crimes will be kept hush hush, for fear of sparking racial tensions. Your victims; women and children, will be asked not to go out alone at night (Sweden and Germany). Yes that's right punish the potential victims! Why the fuck don't you impose a curfew on all migrants? Oh but that's racist and bigoted, not ALL migrants are rapists, so lets make potential victims (citizens of the country) change their behaviour, just fuck off. See Germany, Sweden and Denmark. Oh and of course Rotherham/Rochdale etc. in this country.

Also is it any wonder Muslim men are prone to rape? (yes they are more likely to rape then European men, so the use of the word prone is apt) Considering how women are treated within the Islamic faith. In 2014 - 12% of convicted rapists in the Uk were Muslim and yet the Muslim population of Britain is only 4.5%! Hmmm, but pointing this fact out is racist and bigoted. Maybe that's how they got away with it in Rotherham and Rochdale for so long.

 

'He told police the attack was a sexual emergency as he had not had sex for four months after leaving his wife behind and coming to Austria as an asylum seeker in September 2015.' Iraqi national, convicted of raping a 10 year old boy. I mean what the fuck...?

 

On an un-related note. Why do the BBC start off an article with 'It is feared a British girl in Syria was killed by a Russian airstrike'. Feared? Why feared? She was a terrorist bride. She married someone who wants to bring death to the west, and yet it is 'feared' that she is dead. Come the fuck on. Who the fuck cares? If you are so fucking stupid that you want to leave all the freedoms and comforts you have in this country to become a terror bride, then I say good riddance to bad rubbish. The BBC article should of read: One down, Two to go. 

[AngryOfTuebrook]

So, amazingly, you are putting what some organised humans decide to do and say above what god tells someone in a religion. Which is, well, bonkers.

 

You can't have the conversation about religions whilst at the same time pretending that in them, the last word doesn't go to the deity.

That's not my point.

 

If God exists* then it's perfectly feasible for one individual to have a revelation and be right when the group is wrong. My point is that if that individual doesn't share the defining beliefs and mores of the group, then they are not a member of that group. The moment Martin Luther made his stand against the Catholic Church, he was no longer a Catholic.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

*He doesn't.

[Jairzinho]

Positives: If you are a corrupt Muslim politician, the fear of being branded a racist/bigot means a blind eye is turned to electoral fraud. See the report into electoral fraud in Tower Hamlets. A letter was circulated in signed by 101 influential Muslim clerics, stating it was persons religious duty to vote for Lutfur Rahman. What the fuck....

 

If you are a migrant/muslim rapist then your crimes will be kept hush hush, for fear of sparking racial tensions. Your victims; women and children, will be asked not to go out alone at night (Sweden and Germany). Yes that's right punish the potential victims! Why the fuck don't you impose a curfew on all migrants? Oh but that's racist and bigoted, not ALL migrants are rapists, so lets make potential victims (citizens of the country) change their behaviour, just fuck off. See Germany, Sweden and Denmark. Oh and of course Rotherham/Rochdale etc. in this country.

Also is it any wonder Muslim men are prone to rape? (yes they are more likely to rape then European men, so the use of the word prone is apt) Considering how women are treated within the Islamic faith. In 2014 - 12% of convicted rapists in the Uk were Muslim and yet the Muslim population of Britain is only 4.5%! Hmmm, but pointing this fact out is racist and bigoted. Maybe that's how they got away with it in Rotherham and Rochdale for so long.

 

'He told police the attack was a sexual emergency as he had not had sex for four months after leaving his wife behind and coming to Austria as an asylum seeker in September 2015.' Iraqi national, convicted of raping a 10 year old boy. I mean what the fuck...?

 

On an un-related note. Why do the BBC start off an article with 'It is feared a British girl in Syria was killed by a Russian airstrike'. Feared? Why feared? She was a terrorist bride. She married someone who wants to bring death to the west, and yet it is 'feared' that she is dead. Come the fuck on. Who the fuck cares? If you are so fucking stupid that you want to leave all the freedoms and comforts you have in this country to become a terror bride, then I say good riddance to bad rubbish. The BBC article should of read: One down, Two to go. 

 

Think you might have been looking for the Islamic Ray Gun Thread.

[AngryOfTuebrook]

Mr Nando, on my phone so I can't respond properly, but that's some fucked up racist shit you're spouting, you tit.

[cloggypop]

Mr Nando wears Lonsdale slip ons.

[Nelly-Szoboszlai]

I wonder if you can get this on the NHS?

 

https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=657035324446840&id=276157035868006

[VladimirIlyich]

Is this Nando an advertising bot that reacts to the word Muslim but quite often ends up on cookery threads where cloth is used.