How can Islam be reformed if the Koran is the unalterable perfect word of God, and Mohammad was the exemplary human being to mimic?
I mean this in seriousness. After studying works by some Islamic scholars I'm finding it hard to find where reform could happen
You can't. The only way to reform Islam is to completely disregard the Koran. But then it wouldn't be Islam anymore.
Basically Islam as a religion is pretty fucking shitty
>How can Islam be reformed if the Koran is the unalterable perfect word of God, and Mohammad was the exemplary human being to mimic?
It cannot
The one thing I admire about muslims, it's that they still stick to the old medieval beliefs that are in their books, unlike christians who hypocrytically made their religion "evolve" despite the fact God never came on Earth/sent another prophet to allowed them such a thing
Religion doesnt make sense in general, but islam still makes more sense than Modern Christianty
I don't see the Islamic threat as a religious problem, its overwhelmingly a racial one.
By coming to terms with other Islamic opinions both new and old that the Koran isn't the unalterable, perfect word of God, or that if it is, that doesn't make ones interpretation and implementation of it the same, or that Muhammad was a flawed man who was nonetheless a source of moral guidance worth studying to understand faith, or that interpretations of what we know about Muhammad are not infallible and perhaps not even important to Islamic faith.
Catholicism and orthodox have largely held true. Any advancements in theology really made have been through their own scientists, philosophers and theologians. The most you could argue is Vatican II and that's still kinda flimsy
Islam was a scheme by Muhammad to get him everything he ever wanted.
He never intended for people to actually follow it.
There's Muslims in practically every race.
This would probably be best but I don't see it happening soon.
You mean a scheme by Medinans to get everything they wanted
More like a scheme by Medieval Iraqis and Syrians to get everything they wanted out of the Arab empire.
>Hurr religions must have reformation.
Why do people subscribe to whig history?
>Muhammed spread the intemporal universal truth of God
>his pedophilia is excusable because of historical context
Pick one and only one, mudslims
They need to complete the piety tree to get a free prophet and +3 culture from holy sites.
Makes sense.
>How can Islam be reformed if the Koran is the unalterable perfect word of God,
Try this one on for size.
>How can Christianity be reformed if the "OLD" Testament is the unalterable perfect word of God,
You know the bible says you cannot alter what's in it, anyone, even Jesus like (Catholics and the like) that arise are trying to lead you astray and are testing you.
But whaddya know
The bible became 'up for interpretation' and is no longer immutable. There are passages inside the bible, and not just books from the OT which are pretty fucking explicit about it. It also goes to say you HAVE TO DO EVERYTHING IN THE BOOKS. Meaning, even in todays world, you HAVE to stone women who have sex out of wedlock, it's what god has told you to do, and you must be careful to do so - or risk the plagues.
Like, it's VERY explicit.
>inb4 that refers to ancient israelites and not use
>because reasons given outside the bible
Failed his test, yet again.
You clearly know nothing about the OT, and the significance of Jesus.
To reduce your stoning first, he literally stop a stoning of a condemned woman, saying he who has not sinned cast the first stone.
Mosaic law items aren't followed by Christians
Dogma is merely an extension of conclusions and assumptions based off of the Bible. Theologians aren't retards, even Genesis is thought to be the best one could describe for it during the time in which it was written
Srsly mang
Your on Veeky Forums.
People thinking life is a civ game is disturbingly found in a massive amount if posters here.
>Srsly mang
I inb4'd your entire post. Idiot. You simply failed his test, you were lead astray by heretics and you believe them.
You literally gave no reasoning inside the bible except for subjective interpretation made by others OUTSIDE the bible.
Don't run away now.
You could ask the same thing of Christianity, but it happened.
Scholars will just find a new way to "interpret" the text that just so happens to line up with modern sensibilities. That's how religion works, that's how it survives through the centuries. Those that don't adapt, die.
By scholars I specifically mean theologians.
there are several reasons in the scripture for why christianity more easily leant itself to modernisation and liberalist reform.
One being that it already had the precedent of reform built into the scripture.
Jesus already said "sure follow the old law, but really listen to what I'm saying because it is more important"
This makes it a lot easier for christians to do the same with other barbaric and horrific old testament stuff.
On the other hand Muslims had the opposite. The rule they were provided with was naskh aka abrogation aka "when I reveal a divine message to you which contradicts a previous divine message, follow the more recent divine message". Muhammad waged his wars and committed most of his massacres later and so his essages of subjugation of non-muslims and jihad and having hard-hearts towards non-muslims and making them feel the humiliation of paying jizya abrogated all his earlier preaching of peaceful and harmonious co-existence.
also "give to caesar as unto caesar and give to god as unto god" helps christianity lend itself to separation of church and state more easily than Islam.
So basically there are a lot of reasons inherent to the religions why Islam remains practiced in a much more barbaric and cruel state than christianity.
Again, every single reasoning you gave is subjective interpretation of text which tells you it is not up for interpretation.
Are you even trying? Are you also literally retarded? That phrase you gave inside Islam tells you reform is literally possible, so long as he commands you to. There is nothing inside Christianity which says this - it says the literal exact fucking opposite, it says it's unbending, it says it CANNOT BE CHANGED.
Islam, however, says it can be changed and remain legitimate.
Every single one of your reasonings comes from "theologians" not the Apostles or Jesus Christ.
>You could ask the same thing of Christianity, but it happened.
Christianity is way different. Everything after Jesus ascends is to "Do we need to follow the Law now that Jesus happened, and we've gone global? No"(>inb4 non-pauline christianity/judaism). The other half is "Local churches, stop being retarded and factious" and Revelations, which is Revelations.
The Koran doesn't have that distinction.
You don't seem to realize that the problem isn't within the Quran but within the Hadeeths.
>says the literal exact fucking opposite, it says it's unbending, it says it CANNOT BE CHANGED.
en.wikipedia.org
The first christian council in history(recorded in the Bible) debated and concluded the Mosaic Law mostly no longer applies.
Now, we can debate how right they were, but modern christianity starts with the idea that those guys were right.
>Islam, however, says it can be changed and remain legitimate.
Changed in which domains?
>You could ask the same thing of Christianity
t. brainlet
>the bible says you cannot change it
>it's okay because these people said it can be changed
>they are not heretics
>even though the bible says they are heretics
Okay?
>here is a new bible
Okay?
you're a fucking retard m8. both posts you replied to had something jesus said, e.g. let he who is without sin...
The Bible is written by multiple people from completely different eras. The Bible is such a mish mash of random shit that's it's not too much of a stretch to say to people "yeah no that shit there is not relevant."
With the Koran however it's like Muhammad knew this sort of thing would be a risk to keeping his Religion the way he wanted it so he made it clear multiple times that literally everything in the book is the exact way it is meant to be.
Christians are largely pacified because Jesus is the most important figure in the Religion and he literally never put a foot wrong, whereas Muhammad was a fucking lunatic in every sense of the word.
>Changed in which domains?
So when he asked are you retarded? You didn't answer, but the answer is obviously yes?
>when I reveal a divine message to you which contradicts a previous divine message, follow the more recent divine message
Are you being retarded on purpose if you cannot see how that says Islam is open for change, so long as Allah or whoever the fuck is allowed to says you can? There is no such passage in the Bible. Like, you used evidence which says it can be changed, which you have interpreted it to say it CANNOT be changed? Seriously, take a step back and have a look at that pure idiotic ignorance.
You see, therein lies the difference between Muslims and Christians. Christians distort their books, you don't ACTUALLY believe the world was made in 7 days, right? Even though that is literally what your book says and it also says you HAVE to belive it. Muslims belive what they still can fervently, until it's changed. IT CAN change, doesn't mean it will, but on it's most basic level it is no static, like the bible is.
Just Because the bible HAS BECOME dynamic since, doesn't mean you are 'more correct' that Muslims. You have simply been doing the wrong thing for so long your peoples think it's correct.
>I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you to live in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel— 7 which is really no gospel at all. Evidently some people are throwing you into confusion and are trying to pervert the gospel of Christ. 8 But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let them be under God’s curse! 9 As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let them be under God’s curse!
Are you actually taking a meeting which we don't even know for sure as the Gospel?
The distinctions in text don't actually matter, what matters is if there's societal pressure to change or not. The text will then be bended or simply ignored. Consistency is not valued.
Says the dumb reactionimage.png poster.
>With the Koran however it's like Muhammad knew this sort of thing would be a risk to keeping his Religion the way he wanted it so he made it clear multiple times that literally everything in the book is the exact way it is meant to be.
Holy fuck, how do you not get it? YOUR FUCKING BIBLE SAYS THE EXACT SAME THING BUT IT BECAME OKAY TO CHANGE IT LONG AGO, NOT TODAY. Maybe since I put it in caps you will actually take it in. You have literally no point, your bible tells you not to fucking change it, you then use reasoning OUTSIDE the bible to justify the change. Holy shit, I am actually, word for word repeating myself. Do I need to go slower?
Mhm, yet their arguments are interpretations of said words made by theologians after his death, you know, the thing the bible tells you not to do xD.
>inb4 non-pauline christianity/judaism
>So when he asked are you retarded?
I'm not that poster, .
So, in what domains is the Quran be adapted today? Which parts can we ignore without compromising islamicity?
>So, in what domains is the Quran be adapted today? Which parts can we ignore without compromising islamicity?
Why the fuck do you think that is up for me to decide? That phrase says literally anything inside the Koran can be changed.
Do you disagree that Jesus said to follow the old law then proceeded to contradict the old law and give different instructions from the old law?
If you do then you're too ignorant or intellectually dishonest to continue this discussion with.
If all you want to do is posture even though you know that you're wrong then good for you.
>That phrase you gave inside Islam tells you reform is literally possible, so long as he commands you to.
yup, but age of prophets is canonically over in islam and canonically the most recent word of God is that which is provided in the koran, which has various verses about sharia law "being good for all time".
>there is nothing inside christianity which says this
except for when the messiah, the figure which christians declare themselves to be followers of, did this.
There are fundamental (heh) problems with the Koran being supposed the word of god. But I think the greater issue is the lack of real centralized religious authorities.
The clerics of multiple schools debate and come up with various interpretations of parts of the book, some more literal and some more metaphorical.
Most are closer to literal but there are some schools that are slightly more metaphorical and more at ease with pluralism.
Basically you need a heavily funded and backed islamic school and cleric slowly subverting existing sects and pushing their teachings. This isnt impossible, the fact that Saudi wahabist schools get oil money to spread their teachings and preachers abroad is proof that the ideology can be changed to a different direction. Islam was not as savage before modern Saudia Arabia's pact with their salafists.
The gulanist islamic sect is proof that a more amenable and secular friendly version of islam can be spread.
Well the "reform" already happened in form of wahhabis. Past muslim empires were a lot more liberal and less religious strict. These were the times where the most advancements happened and the most famous islamic scholars were the most devout muslims but also the biggest critics of islam. And in no islamic painting of that time is any veil or burqa depicted.
>yup, but age of prophets is canonically over in islam and canonically the most recent word of God is that which is provided in the koran, which has various verses about sharia law "being good for all time".
Kek, cause you know, that phrase says literally the opposite.
>Do you disagree that Jesus said to follow the old law then proceeded to contradict the old law and give different instructions from the old law?
Do you understand this has literally nothing to do with the Old Law. If you actually read the image only a few of the quotes are in the OT, there are many from the NT which say the same thing - the bible cannot be changed.
JESUS can obviously do whatever the fuck he likes, you are not fucking Jesus though. Hell - they set the bar too fucking high, did you read Galatians 1:6-9? It can be interpreted to say you cannot take anything, even that from Paul to be true - that is outside of what Jesus told you.
I mean it's extremely literal, the problems occur when you try to put your own subjective interpretations onto it.
I mean, I use examples of Old Law for the brutality of it, the parts about the bible being unchanging and all that jazz exist throughout it's entirety.
You're argument is simply
>you're an idiot
And you cannot use examples inside the actual bible, i.e. the teachings of jesus christ and the like to strengthen your argument as I can, because it directly refutes what you are trying to fucking say.
I mean, feel free to point me to the bible passage which says (not interpreted to say) you are separate from the ancient Israelite and not subject to their law, but keep in mind, that only refutes my part of the argument which says you have to still follow the OT, it doesn't refute the fact that the bible cannot be changed and be a dynamic piece of writing up for interpretation, like you say or others are trying to say the Koran is not. .
Yeah but like I said, a lot of shit Jesus says directly contradicts the old stuff, or at least implies a lot of the bad old stuff is wrong.
Jesus seems to stand against a lot of the bad shit in earlier parts of the Bible, or at least never directly affirms any of it. Muhammad on the other hand is both the source of all the bad shit in the Koran and the most important figure.
;e
So dumb shit said in Leviticus doesn't really matter. Yes people who ignore that stuff technically aren't following the Bible properly but it's much easier to justify ignoring parts of the Bible than it is the Koran, understnad that Mahmood?
>gulanist
t.fetulah gulen
>ignoring parts of the Bible than it is the Koran
You understand only a religious person can hold that viewpoint? Probably a Christian at that?
I don't follow either doctrines but that's probably the most retarded thing inside this thread.
>That phrase says literally anything inside the Koran can be changed.
No, the phrase means "the most recent verse in the book is the word on the subject".
And since the latter parts of the book are more "fuck everything non-islamic, since they just want to screw us", yeah....
Lastly, there needs to be a handful or even one successful and open country that just happens to be mostly islamic.
All the secular arab republics based in the Baath roots were socialists but failed to significantly improve the lives of their people. They were also harsh authoritarians who were good at supressing liberals but not islamists.
If there was just a single country like this it would galvanize more secular minded muslims.
Doesnt have to be gulanism, relatively speaking in the south east asian countries you even have buddhists and hindus living together.
Its not perfect but that they are despite clear instructions in the koran to murder them all shows it is possible for a more open interpretation of islam to exist.
Basically someone or some people need to foster a left leaning muslim SJW virus and have it spread over the middle east.
Yeah see now there you go interpreting it to mean whatever you want it to mean past it's explicit meaning. We would have to go to the Islamic roots of the words being used to be 'correct' here, but pretty sure the word is "message" and not "book" or "Quran" for a reason.
I don't even understand what you're saying.
My point was that if Muhammad, the fucking founder and leader of Islam says you need to kill infidels then that's a pretty hard thing to reform or ignore.
But if some cunt in Numbers or some shit says "fuck the gays lmao!" once then it's easier to pass that sort of thing off since Jesus never said anything about gays, and if it were really important he'd have probably brought it up.
Do you understand now Abdul? Abdullah? Sahir? Muhammad? Mohammad? Mehmet?
>Islam says you need to kill infidels then that's a pretty hard thing to reform or ignore.
Again, Christianity is a pretty hard thing to reform, until you fucking reform it. Reformation was simply not seen in your lifetime. YOu are missing the part where the Koran says you can actually reform it, all you need is a divine message, i.e. something to happen which says its no longer okay to kill infidels. The thing which YOU do not understand is that happens INSIDE THEIR BIBLE. It is not justifications made by people later who do not want to practice what they preach.
>all that memeposting as you get more and more frustrated with irrefutable logic
Kek. I mean, you don't have to make yourself look like an idiot, ya'know?
The current shia/sunni sectarian conflict is basically the islamic reformation wars happening right before our eyes.
I dont see how either side can achieve complete domination so itll end with a stand off and eventual cooling of relations.
So what you're telling me is, all we need to stop Muslims acting like total fucking retards is some new kind of Prophet who is capable of convincing all Muslims on earth that he is not only divine, but has greater knowledge than their senpai Muhammad?
Well excuse me if I don't hold out on that one Suleiman. All it took to reform Christianity was some shitty popes and an autistic German guy.
>So what you're telling me is, all we need to stop Muslims acting like total fucking retards is some new kind of Prophet who is capable of convincing all Muslims on earth that he is not only divine, but has greater knowledge than their senpai Muhammad?
Yeah sure. Still possible inside of their religion though.
But yeah, according to you, every Muslim follows their faith and I am actually dead right now since I was technically an infidel and I went to school with Muslims that killed me.
:(
Basically the US needs to stop giving Saudi Arabia so much fucking money. America is creating its own enemies.
This is the correct answer but unfortunately it won't happen as long as the US continues to back the Saudis. They literally punish any form of progressive reform or dissent with death.
They were probably too young to really care.
What you need to understand is that not every Islamic extremist is an ISIS member.Groups like theirs are funded and propped up by the so called "moderates".
You need to realise AT BEST we are dealing with a significant minority when it comes to Muslims who are fucking retarded nutjobs. Whenever polls are conducted wherein Muslims are asked shit like "should sharia be law?", and "should gay sex be legal?"
The wrong answer always comes in at around 30 - 50%
When we hear about the "radical minority" we tend to assume it's 1% or some shit when it's actually a hell of a lot higher.
As for some new Prophet, it's impossible. Muhammad is meant to be the most recent and final Prophet. Anyone claiming to be a new Prophet would be killed for daring the undermine Muhammad. So the only thing we can hold out hope for is that Allah is actually real and him sending a genuine divine being down to reform Islam. Yeah, I'm not going to betting any serious money on that one.
>Still possible inside of their religion though.
One of the main points of Islam is that Mo is the last and greatest prophet.
If you want a reformer that tried to do that, you go Bahai, but that's no longer Islam.
>One of the main points of Islam is that Mo is the last and greatest prophet.
Some Muslims believe this, but some don't.
>As for some new Prophet, it's impossible. Muhammad is meant to be the most recent and final Prophet. Anyone claiming to be a new Prophet would be killed for daring the undermine Muhammad. So the only thing we can hold out hope for is that Allah is actually real and him sending a genuine divine being down to reform Islam. Yeah, I'm not going to betting any serious money on that one.
You dont understand the argument. I don't care about Islam, I don't care about their prophets or if another will rise.
You or someone else used that quote and you said Islam cannot be reformed - here is evidence which says it.
That quote says the literal exact opposite.
>the rest of your post.
You understand just how retarded it is using percentages in this scenario? Like the rest of your post can proper ignore it's so subjective and /pol/-influenced it's not even funny. What is actually refutable and is a fallacy on your part is using a percentage to add to your claims where there is no proof that number is anywhere NEAR accurate. You then base your whole reasoning and actions on that number which may or may not be true.
Your argument is not even static, it's wishy washy at best. It's literally based on a statistic which is most probably propaganda modeled to say what they want to say.
>They were probably too young to really care.
Holy shit man, not every muslim wants to kill you. Go outside, leave your country, I actually feel sorry for you.
Bring back the Maliki school of Islam to which based Averroes belonged.
Make Islam great again.
Do you actually want links to the studies you monumental fucking retard?
>Muslims say they want to kill infidels and implement Sharia, but this doesn't mean what you are claiming it means RACIST.
actually go and commit suicide, I am serious.
You have never actually m et a Muslim, you are basing your argument on studies done which model whatever they want. Your argument is wishy-washy at best.
You understand the only way that percentage can be anywhere near accurate is if they got anywhere near 100% of the muslim population which is billions.
>calls study propoganda
>here I can link you to the studies
Kek. That is not how you refute the argument which was presented to you. You actually pulled the racist card because you do not know how to use a mathematical statistic.
I can continue? Actually link me to the studies, and I will show you just how retarded it is.
The Maliki Madhab is still around dude.(It is getting salafised though)
The Sharia (at least not in the same sense we understand it now) was never mentioned in the Quran. The Sharia was made after the Quran and references various religious sources. I have no idea where, specifically, you got the idea that the Quran refers to the Sharia as "being good for all time."
That said, the Bible does assert absolutes. In reality, it's as flexible as any other religion and doesn't display a true reality in the essence of how religion works, but given that is the case, it's no less easier to "corrupt" or "reform" than any other religion.
Examples of absolutes:
God will judge everyone on the basis of His absolute, eternal, unchangeable law. “Fear God and keep his commandments, for this is the whole duty of man. For God will bring every deed into judgment, including every secret thing, whether is it good or evil” (Ecclesiastes 12:13, 14, NIV).
“Speak and act as those who are going to be judged by the law that gives freedom” (James 2:12, NIV).
Christianity treats god as an absolute, the ultimate authority. I don't think they're as set up for clear liberalization as you think, after all, there were many Christians who opposed the liberalization of the 50's-60's.
So I'm basing my opinons on scientific studies rather than that one muslim I see in the shop every now and then, and you are claiming this is a poor way to form an opinion of a group of people? Really?
>Heh, your studies are propaganda.
You every seen that image of the guy who says
"You need to prove that your position is correct based on framework that I have set up which priori rules your opinion out? Can't do it huh? Looks like I win again."?
Because that is the level you are arguing on right.
I'm going to enjoy seeing you try and rationalise a poll wherein they simply ask questions to a random group of people and write down their responses.
>Kek, cause you know, that phrase says literally the opposite.
I don't understand what you're saying or how this is meant to be a refutation.
Abrogation applies only to verses where the koran contradicts itself.
>there are many from the NT which say the same thing - the bible cannot be changed.
And the bible isn't being changed different parts of it are being paid attention to.
>you are not fucking Jesus though
Irrelevent. When Jesus behaves against the laws/behaviour given in the old testament he provides an example to his followers.
>it directly refutes what you are trying to fucking say.
You seem to be very confused about what I am arguing.
I have said
>there are several reasons in the scripture for why christianity more easily leant itself to modernisation and liberalist reform.
I'm not arguing that Christian scripture has not been subverted at all.
I'm arguing that it has been easier to subvert to make it suitable for civilised and enlightened times because of what its scripture says, unlike Islam which remains in a very primitive, uncivilised, tribal and cruel state.
>gatestoneinstitute.org
hahahahahahahaha. There you go. You have used British societal problems and THEIR muslims and blanketed it over the entire world. Onto the utter retardation of the study.
>British Muslims sympathize with suicide bombers and people who commit other terrorist acts.
The key word in this sentence is SYMPATHIZE.
feel or express sympathy.
"it is easy to understand and sympathize with his predicament"
synonyms: pity, feel/be sorry for, show sympathy for, be sympathetic towards, show compassion for, be compassionate towards, commiserate, offer condolences to, feel for, show
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
agree with a sentiment, opinion, or ideology.
"they sympathize with critiques of traditional theory"
synonyms: agree, support, be in sympathy, be sympathetic towards, be in favour of, go along, favour, be well disposed to, approve of, commend, back, side with, align, encourage
"they sympathize with feminist critiques of traditional theory"
That word has 2 different meanings pretty much polar opposites which is decided by context, which is not given in that sentence of that article. Notice, that's a fucking article ABOUT the study, not the study itself. Just for the record, I too sympathize with suicide bombers. I do not agree with their actions but the state of their character.
Thanks for proving yourself to be a moron. Are you beginning to see you cannot use studies for almost anything, because they are almost never accurate? Statistically Australia is fatter than AMerican, even though Americans have more fat people than Australia has people.
>I'm not arguing that Christian scripture has not been subverted at all.
>I'm arguing that it has been easier to subvert to make it suitable for civilised and enlightened times because of what its scripture says, unlike Islam which remains in a very primitive, uncivilised, tribal and cruel state.
Then you are a literal idiot. No where did anyone say it's not hard to do, actually the exact opposite. It is no harder for Muslims to do, that's the point.
I have and not a single one wanted to kill me for the purpose of implementing Sharia.
But I don't think we should be ignorant to the fact that there are issues even among the non-violent Muslims in the community. A lot of them legitimately do frown upon homo-sexuality (though this number is decreasing within the western world) and there is a number who have anti-western sentiments.
I usually see this info from PEW, but at times I feel people misconstrue their statistics. For example, there are many who want to support Sharia law but it's left vague as to what degree they want to implement such law. In that sense, to say that all of these "sharia supporters" want to overthrow the government and implement draconian law has little foundation.
I live in Britain you stupid fucking autist, what exactly is different about our Muslims?
>Th-They sympsthise with ISIS but that's not bad!
I'm going to read the rest of your post just because I rarely see someone in such a state of denial. Just admit you are a Muslim and are desperately trying to prove to the world that your mongoloid bretheren aren't all that bad.
Oh wait, there isn't anything else in your post besides a dictionary definition of the word "sympathise" for some reason. Yes, I'm sure those polled "feel bad" for ISIS you stupid fucking retard. But let's just assume you are right in that one instance shall we to make you feel better?
what about the parts where they asked them things like "should sharia law be an option for Muslims"? The answers to that can't be misconstrued can they?
Hello?
>it's that they still stick to the old medieval beliefs
They pretty much live in medieval society so yeah.
They'll mellow out in 5-6 hundred years.
In this post It was implied that reformation in islam is an equivalent undertaking to reformation in christianity, or that they are of the same difficulty.
">How can Christianity be reformed if the "OLD" Testament is the unalterable perfect word of God,"
I very clearly disagreed with this from the first line of my first post
>there are several reasons in the scripture for why christianity more easily leant itself to modernisation and liberalist reform.
Are you able to follow the conversation now?
>For example, there are many who want to support Sharia law but it's left vague as to what degree they want to implement such law.
Exactly, you could ask Christians in the US if the ten commandments (or just the Bible in general) should be the law of the land and probably get a significant percentage, but most of them would be thinking about "thou shalt not kill", not "thou shalt have no other gods before me" or "honor the sabbath day".
>A lot of them legitimately do frown upon homo-sexuality
And? So fucking what? Why can't they denounce homosexuality? You want a free world? Then you need to allow people to not like some things. So long as they do not ACTUALLY kill homosexuals (most are not) then there is literally no problem. I hate homosexuals too, fervently. And no, it's not because im a closet homo, it's biologically wrong same sex marriages cannot lead to naturally born children - most of the time and if there is a naturally born child in a "homosexual" marriage then one party is not a homosexual, and it's fine. My problem is with homosexuallity, but I digress.
Even if they want Sharia law, so fucking what? Let them have Sharia law in their nation and watch it dissolve into an utter shit fest. Obviously there will not be Sharia law in American, unless of course it's voted in democratically.
If they come out and try to subvert the world they will get blown back into their fucking whole. The only reason ISIS cannot be defeated right now is they have no nation, they are everywhere.
Like, you are simply scared.
Sympathy does not mean they think violence is right and that Jihad was the proper thing to do. They could be sympathetic to the fact that life was so hard on them that it lead them to become violent, or that they were misguided in their faith, etc. There are lots of ways to construe the word sympathy.
If someone told you they were a Nazi sympathiser would you assume they meant "I feel bad for the Nazis"?
Symphathy, when used in the context of having it for a group of people with a certain ideology almost always means "I agree with them on certain points".
Cut this fucking shit out, please.
Not that I don't agree that statistics can and will be manipulated to suit an agenda, but "sympathize" in this context pretty much always means "agree with to a significant degree".
Koran go under any revisions? Did it get a part 2 like the Bible did? So it could be the new, cool, hip, more flexible version of the religious doctrine?
Koran 2: This Time It's Persianal
>Just admit you are a Muslim and are desperately trying to prove to the world that your mongoloid bretheren aren't all that bad.
Kek. No.
>Oh wait, there isn't anything else in your post besides a dictionary definition of the word "sympathise" for some reason. Yes, I'm sure those polled "feel bad" for ISIS you stupid fucking retard. But let's just assume you are right in that one instance shall we to make you feel better?
Kek, sure you can hold you argument, but the question 'do you sympathize with suicide bombers' has literally no meaning and is a loaded question to model a loaded statistic. When you break it down to its explicit meaning, it has none, since it has nocontext. Anyone who actually knows how to use the language (muslims most likely do not as English would most likely be their second language) then you would ask, "What do you mean? "
>I live in Britain you stupid fucking autist, what exactly is different about our Muslims?
British society is not that of the world?
>"should sharia law be an option for Muslims"? The answers to that can't be misconstrued can they?
No? But that question is also meaningless, sure in a Islamic nation Sharia law should be the law, there is no Islamic nation though, like there is a Jewish one.
>Yes, I'm sure those polled "feel bad" for ISIS
That wasn't the question though, see you are skewing it - the question was do they sympathize with SUICIDE BOMBERS - most logical person would. Sympathizing doesn't always mean agreeing with their actions, see loaded question, which you have based your entire reasoning on.
Literal retard. Pick up pic related. The media and people in power do this, it's the power (or tyranny) of words. They can say what ever you want them to say. You can argue your opinion all you want, you are not wrong, but you are arguing your opinion. I am arguing literal factual *things* within the English language.
In short, your opinion is a manipulation of your state.
>Are you able to follow the conversation now?
Kek. So do you literally want to go around in fucking circles? Just fuck off you are wrong, I am literally correct, you've argued opinion I argued bible passages.
Let's just leave it there.
I never said they weren't allowed to think this way, but I do think it's problematic for gay rights if the Islamic community is frowning upon them so much. For example, what if a Muslim who frequently goes to the Mosque comes out as gay and the Imam shuns him for coming out? Wouldn't the lack of support be an issue for that person? I think that is a legitimate issue, personally.
I don't get why you are claiming I'm "scared." I am not fear mongering, I am arguing that there are problems with the Islamic community as there is within Christian communities. Is it bad that I'm arguing that there are Muslims with problematic beliefs? I never said all of them hated gays and wanted them stoned, I said that there is a notable population of them that do.
When you say that, you are referring to the Nazi ideology specifically. A suicide bomber doesn't indicate any clear ideology, even in the case of fundamentalism. ISIS and the Al-Qaeda both fight for different reasons even if they're both nutjob jihadists. It can be argued that one Muslim could be supportive of ISIS but not the Al-Qaeda, so yes, the term you are using is pretty vague.
Care to explain how you came to that conclusion without using a bias? You literally cannot.
>The 615-page survey found that more than 100,000 British Muslims sympathize with suicide bombers and people who commit other terrorist acts.
There is actually nothing that can come of that statement, it has no meaning, there is no context. You can use a bias to fill in the blanks, which is fine, but it's not 'correct'.
>catholicism
>largely held true
Of all the Christian denominations Catholicism is probably the largest culprit of being "adaptive" and integrating non Christian practices / beliefs to increase their appeal. Half the reason protestants came to be was because people were sick of Catholics tacking on new practices that were nowhere in the bible.
Personally I find Catholicism really interesting because of how varied and flexible it is, I'm not saying it to shit on it, but it's fucking laughable to think they "largely held true."
>I never said they weren't allowed to think this way, but I do think it's problematic for gay rights if the Islamic community is frowning upon them so much. For example, what if a Muslim who frequently goes to the Mosque comes out as gay and the Imam shuns him for coming out? Wouldn't the lack of support be an issue for that person? I think that is a legitimate issue, personally.
I honestly do not care - if that's a problem for you, good on you. But it neither adds nor detracts from this argument.
>I said that there is a notable population of them that do.
As there are with Christians?
>I never said all of them hated gays and wanted them stoned
Not all that hate gays want them dead, also.
My bias is pretty much every single use of "sympathize" when used in a political context.
ie
>communist sympathizers
>nazi sympathizers
>sympathetic to [cause X]
>I am sympathetic to your cause
It has nothing to do with pity or anything like that.
You're not helping your argument by playing this kind of semantics game.
>the question 'do you sympathize with suicide bombers' has literally no meaning and is a loaded question to model a loaded statistic.
Maybe if you don't understand English you fucking cretin.
>I-It doesn't give context to the suicide bombing! Therefore those who answered yes didn't mean It!
Rly my nigga?
>British society is not that of the world?
Never claimed that it was. My question however was how exactly British Muslims have been made to be different by British society to a point where they would no longer be any sort of representative for Muslim populations in other western countries. You failed to answer this question.
>All these questions are meaningless!
The fact that people responded yes to them implies they had a meaning to a lot of the people who were polled, and if you're not a fucking moron it's fairly easy to realise what they meant when they responded with "yes" to the question "do you sympathise with suicide bombers". But if you want to play mr faggoty ass English teacher and smugly respond with "well accctually that question has no meaning so they aren't extremists =")" then go right ahead. They clearly understood the questions since they are not as vague as you imply they are.
In short, suck my dick faggot.
pedophilia is excusable because there's literally nothing wrong with pedophilia
I'll agree with you that Muslims aren't necessarily violent against gays, but I disagree with you that their disdain for them is not problematic. I don't push this standard on Islam any less than I do with Christianity, and I view it as an issue on both sides of that spectrum.
I already explained why I think it can be an issue, and if you want to be an ass and be inconsiderate of other people's personal issues, then that in of itself is an issue as far as I'm concerned.
>Rly my nigga?
>those who do not understand what they are saying understand what they are saying
Okay?
>My question however was how exactly British Muslims have been made to be different by British society to a point where they would no longer be any sort of representative for Muslim populations in other western countries
That's not the point though, you cannot use a survey done entirely of British Muslims, and use them as an example over say Australian Muslims. British society is not the world. If from the beginning you had said British Muslims or at least said you were only referring to Muslims inside Britain then you would have an argument, an idiotic argument, but an argument nonetheless.
>"well accctually that question has no meaning so they aren't extremists =")"
I love how you keep dodging everything. THis is not about them, it's about you. Like you can go on all you want - you are literally, factually wrong. You are using a statistic which has literally no meaning and you are basing your argument on it. The subject can be anything - it just happens to be muslims. It actually has nothing to do with muslims though, but the fallacy of your argument.
Like I mean, I wasn't shy about shifting the goal posts to the inaccuracy of the statistic and how stupid you are in basing your argument on a statistic. But you're wrong mate.
The level of intellect in your post makes me so happy I didn't grow up in bong-land, apparently it was on the cards when I was little and my parent decided not to move.
>They clearly understood the questions since they are not as vague as you imply they are.How can a yes or no answer be vague, the question can be vauge, the answer cannot.
I just want to make sure, do you actually understand the argument? Are you reading every word?
>You're not helping your argument by playing this kind of semantics game.
If you say so? You literally just proved ,my point that it's an even more so loaded statistic with malicious intent via usage of the worth sympathize for the bias it will incur on its readers.
You didn't even read my question. I said WITHOUT bias. See, when you take away that bias, it has no meaning. How is it not helping my case when it's further proving it's simply a loaded stat?
Here, I will make it even easier for you. THis is what that question means. Without bias. For purposes I will use the synonyms.
Original.
The 615-page survey found that more than 100,000 British Muslims sympathize with suicide bombers and people who commit other terrorist acts.
The 615-page survey found that more than 100,000 British Muslims pity suicide bombers and people who commit other terrorist acts.
The 615-page survey found that more than 100,000 British Muslims agree with suicide bombers and people who commit other terrorist acts.
See how those two statements have very different meaning? It's your (as you say) political bias which chooses the answer. Like you can say going the semantics route has nothing in my argument, but you have literally nothing if you accept this view point.
It's simply a loaded stat and cannot be used.
I did read your question.
Language is bias. It's all about context, and you only learn context when you see it in action. Personal experience is the biggest form of bias possible.
Like I said, this kind of nonsense is not helping your argument. You're not going to convince anyone by disputing the well-known context of a word.
>those who do not understand what they are saying understand what they are saying
As I already pointing out earlier in the thread your retarded "sympathy does not mean what you think it means" argument holds no water.
So when people respond with "Yes" to the question "Do you sympathise with suicide bombers" then they are almost certainly not saying they feel sorry for suicide bombers, since sympathy in this contexts denotes an alignment of beliefs with the person or group in question.
At no point this thread did I claim that British Muslims are representative of the Muslims the world over. Yet I asked you how exactly British Muslims would be noticably different than Muslims in other countries since their beliefs are mostly defined by a system that should not alter regardless of their location.
Why is this about me? The statistic does have meaning for the reasons I have pointed out. You stupid "the questions can be misinterpreted" holds no water since although the words used have multiple meanings, in the context of the questions they are used in the meaning is pretty singular and clear. Who the fuck hears the question "do you sympathise with ISIS" and thinks "Oh, he's asking me if I feel bad for ISIS"? Fucking nobody.
>Basing arguments around statistics is dumb, we should base them around general feeling instead
t. the most retarded man ever to walk the earth AKA the faggot I'm arguing with in this thread.
Wow great argument.
I explained to you what parts of the bible lead to christianity being more easily reformed, you responded by misunderstandig the argument and instead trying to contradict me by arguing that these were still subversions.
This obviously fails to contradict me and misses the point because yes, obviously christianity has been subverted, but the point is that these and other parts of christian scripture made it easier to subvert in the process of reformation.
I'm sorry this makes you so butthurt.
It probably also makes you butthurt that Christianity has reached a state for for civilised society while Islam remains primitive and unreformed and uncivilised, despite your claims that reformation in Islam is only as difficult as in Christianity.
Yeah no that's what all Quaric scholars have always understood that phrase to mean. The Koran as we have it now cannot be changed, Mohammed changed it because he was a liar and a false prophet but since his death no further revelation can be accepted by Muslims.
simply done.
>YOu are missing the part where the Koran says you can actually reform it, all you need is a divine message, i.e. something to happen which says its no longer okay to kill infidels.
Remind me what Mohammed said about further prophecies after him? Oh right he said there would be none. So much for that idea.
>Again, Christianity is a pretty hard thing to reform, until you fucking reform it.
The Bible is just the holy text of Christians, only some modern fundies ever treated it as infallible and beyond addition. The Koran is not at all like this, the Koran is the Word of God and describes itself as "clearly written", with no parables or metaphors. You cannot reform the Koran with the methods used to reform Christianity (biblical scholarship) because the "author" of the Koran is not some nameless priest or even Mohammed, it is God Himself.
You are a true moron. The Sunni / Shia split is over a 1,000 years old, and the "reformed" branch, shia, is MORE mystical and obscurantist than the parent branch.
There's many different ways to interpret any text, as testified by the many movements within islam with radically different approaches. There's the fundamentalist literalists, the rational approach inspired by greem philosophy and arabic mathematics, the mystical sufis, and all might differ on how they interpret the scripture, from more literal to more symbolic approaches. The thing is mystical experience itself can't be put into words by definition, so a text can be said to point towards a spiritual truth, but how to interpret those directions can vary wildly within any religion.
Like I said in the other post, context matters in language. A lot. So let's consider the context in which "sympathize" is used.
Firstly, there's the political context, like I already said. "Sympathize" is used to mean "agree with (partly or mostly) a cause". The most familiar usage is usually negative like "communist sympathizer", but not always. It could also be someone whose values align with a certain person or group but does not actually belong to that group.
Secondly, let's look at the original link to the study, because for some reason you people ITT didn't bother to look at the primary source:
icmunlimited.com
As we can see, the opposite of "sympathize" in this case is "condemn", which in this case means "disagree strongly". It would not make sense for "sympathize" to mean "pity" in this context. It's a question about political values, how they feel their values align with another group.
You can kick and scream about semantics all you want, but unless you can prove that ICM Unlimited meant something else, the widely accepted contextual definition is what matters. Or just find someone who's familiar with surveys and ask them what they think it means. I'm sure their answer will enlighten you.
Uthman reformed it by picking and choosing what became the Koran and what would be burned.
What did he mean by this.
The fundamental disagreement we seem to have is that you think context is a very difficult thing to determine when it comes to the English language, which I do not.
If I were to ask you the question: "Do you sympathise with Nazism?" you would not need to further inquire as to what the word sympathise means in this context.
Yes the word has more than one meaning, but the meaning of it in the context of the questions we are talking about is pretty clear to everyone except you. Therefore the study is valid and your argument is not.
>Catholicism and orthodox
Nah, just Orthodoxy.