Islamaphobia Legislation (UK)

FYI Mohammad wasn't illiterate.

This is a clue as to why hadith contradict.
Why some hadith were written by people over a hundred years after when he/she had never met the Prophet.
Why the wahabi/salafis are at war with the rest of the Muslim world.
Why there is a general confusion in young muslims today.
 
ANDREW GREEN said:
Including most Muslims. I don't think you actually want to discuss the reality of The Haddith because genocide, ie the massacre of all men of a whole tribe and the enslavement and rape of it's women are detailed in the Haddith. I take it you haven't read up on a 58yo Muhammed's unprovoked attacks on 2 serperate tribes Bani Al-Mustaliq and Banu Quarayza. After massacring all the Bani Al Mustaliq men Muhammed raped of Juwairiya who was 20 who's husband had just been murdered by Muhammed's men. Not that Muhammed's companions weren't busy raping the rest of the women. This is the Haddith where Muhammed states coitis interuptous is considered permissable because every soul will come to the earth.

During the Banu Quarayza massacre, Muhammed and his friends tortored and murdered the husband and father of Safiyya of Khayber while extracting their treasures from them. He then told off his mate Bilaal for letting Safiyya see her murdered family members. Then he got on with raping Safiyya. What's hilarious is many Muslims consider this a 'love story' and think Safiyya was well up for it with the 58yo who'd just tortured and murdered her family. But in the actual haddith they are guarding Safiyya to make sure she didn't stab or poison Muhammed.

Now I'd imagine most Muslims with decent levels of ethics who actually believe the story of Muhammed will disregard those Haddith as 'fabricated' because they don't want to believe it. But historically Muslim scholars never considered them to be fabricated. Also the Quran backs all this up by stating it's a man's right to have sex with any woman he possesses through slavery.

I don't actually believe The Haddith or Muhammed is 1 person. Because all Haddith were recorded 200 years after the so called Muhammed's death. Bare in mind Muhammed isn't really mentioned in The Quran. 1 period in time Muhammed is supposedly a peaceful man who is almost a pacifist in the manner he turns the other cheek. Then throughout both Quran and Haddith God gives him permission to rob carivans to survive and kill because he's fallen out with rival tribes. Then he goes and has wars and massacres tribes without provocation. Then he demands other tribes either submit to him and pay him tax or get wiped out. Also the only historic recording of Muhammed was supposedly way after Islam records his death. So therefore it makes there was more than 1 prophet Muhammed, which literally means 'praised one' and they were almogomated into 1 individual. In fact we know from Haddith that it was popular in Arabia for people to claim prophethood.

Looking at the Quran, it clearly has multiple authors, partly because it's heavily plagerised from various sources. We can see the literal quality in early revelations is far superior to latter ones. The latter revelations are generally rulings in law with no poetic quality.

Also if God truely is the author of the Quran why did he quote the incorrect scientific theory of the time? Why did he at time repeat the same story multiple times? Why does the Quran contradict itself? Why did God give his last word to humanity to an illiterate man who could not write it down? Not only that for something like 6 months Muhammed worshipped Allah alongside 2 other Goddesses. Why did God not correct him in that time?
Click to expand...
And it all came from a man who claimed to have been visited by an angel who apparently spoke for God, without any witnesses. The only confirmation that it was an angel came from Muhammad's wife's cousin Waraqa, who heard the description and confirmed it as being Gabriel, despite not being there. And how did he come to this conclusion? From the description of supposedly the same angel that had visited Moses centuries beforehand, another event at which Waraqa wasn't present at. Lucky this story is watertight and could not be falsified in any way.
 
Hoping this doesn't derail the thread, I *think* it is OT, so will add it here:


Now, I know a lot hate this guy, I'm personally on the fence, but the star of the video (imo) is this woman he is interviewing - her contribution is without a doubt, one of the best discussions I have heard or watched about Islam - calm, composed, informed and clearly intelligent.

I'll admit that the title of this video is massively wrong though - Tommy (Stephen) isn't educating her, I feel it's the other way around - she has him stumped on a number of occasions, and you see that he falls back to his default argument of 'that's what the book says'; even though she has explained that it's down to an individuals interpretation.

Not sure what this might add to the discussion - but somebody like this woman, could do wonders for helping people to understand Islam more imo, without the need to impose laws on this false 'Islamophobia' term.
 
Scort said:
I feel it's the other way around - she has him stumped on a number of occasions, and you see that he falls back to his default argument of 'that's what the book says'; even though she has explained that it's down to an individuals interpretation.
Click to expand...

The problem with that is that the book is supposed to be the literal word of God. An infallible, omnipotent being. No infallible being would leave their literal word open for multiple interpretations as that means their word is not infallible.
 
Scort said:
Click to expand...

A fine example of the distinction between Islam and Muslim. She seems a reasonable person, decent and friendly. She's been put on the spot and being pushed to try and reconcile her modern decency with the written texts in Islam. Something she probably seldom does on her own initiative. And something which when she does do it she can put on a preferred interpretation without being forced to evidence that it's the right interpretation. Passages about "scourging your wife" she'd likely either not pay much attention to or say "it means something else". Which is a reasonable thing to do if you are a decent person but want to call yourself a Muslim. You avoid it. The problem is that in Islam the Koran is regarded as the literal word of God and Mohammed explicitly a figure to emulate. These are core tenets of Islam. You can't skip them and be a Muslim. You can't say like a Christian might "Oh, Exodus is just some old Jewish myths. I think it has some basis in truth but it's not literal". And Mohammed isn't some semi-mythological figure from two-thousand years ago. He's a historical figure with a lot of documented details of his life. If you move away from any part of the Koran being the true word of God as dictated by an angel, and think it's human composition, you are no longer believing it's dictated by God. So when push comes to the shove, you end up in the situation this woman is put in where she's trying to find ways to justify the unjustifiable because she's a reasonable person forced to defend a group identity she belongs to. Whereas outside of having Tommy Robinson in your face, she'd probably never talk about why "scourging your wife" is probably an alright thing to say, she'd just ignore that part.

Which is why you can criticise Islam without disliking Muslims and why this document is wrong to say you can't. This document says that if I criticise Islam, I'm prejudiced against this woman. How can that be right?
 
Scort said:
Hoping this doesn't derail the thread, I *think* it is OT, so will add it here:


Now, I know a lot hate this guy, I'm personally on the fence, but the star of the video (imo) is this woman he is interviewing - her contribution is without a doubt, one of the best discussions I have heard or watched about Islam - calm, composed, informed and clearly intelligent.

I'll admit that the title of this video is massively wrong though - Tommy (Stephen) isn't educating her, I feel it's the other way around - she has him stumped on a number of occasions, and you see that he falls back to his default argument of 'that's what the book says'; even though she has explained that it's down to an individuals interpretation.

Not sure what this might add to the discussion - but somebody like this woman, could do wonders for helping people to understand Islam more imo, without the need to impose laws on this false 'Islamophobia' term.
Click to expand...
She makes a number of comments that need addressing:
1) Individual interpretation of the Quran - it wouldn't need interpreting if the message was absolutely clear from the outset. Why would a perfect God pass on the most important message mankind will ever receive in such a manner? If God wants us to treat each other with respect then his message should be "treat each other with respect" - don't give us passages about keeping slaves or beheading your enemies. If one person can interpret a passage where it says to do X, and another person interprets it as not to do X, then the book is at fault.

2) The Quran cannot be translated exactly - I'm going out on a limb here, but translation seems to work well enough when it comes to diplomacy, business deals, etc. What specific stumbling blocks are there with regards to translating the Quran?

3) She nitpicks over the severity of punishment to which women can be subjected to, completely missing the point that the Quran still advocates punishment for women.

Her position seems to be that those using the Quran to justify violence must be interpreting it incorrectly, whereas her peaceful interpretation must be correct. Since both parties would claim to be right, this just seems to be an assertion, is it not?
 
h4rm0ny said:
A fine example of the distinction between Islam and Muslim. She seems a reasonable person, decent and friendly. She's been put on the spot and being pushed to try and reconcile her modern decency with the written texts in Islam. Something she probably seldom does on her own initiative. And something which when she does do it she can put on a preferred interpretation without being forced to evidence that it's the right interpretation. Passages about "scourging your wife" she'd likely either not pay much attention to or say "it means something else". Which is a reasonable thing to do if you are a decent person but want to call yourself a Muslim. You avoid it. The problem is that in Islam the Koran is regarded as the literal word of God and Mohammed explicitly a figure to emulate. These are core tenets of Islam. You can't skip them and be a Muslim. You can't say like a Christian might "Oh, Exodus is just some old Jewish myths. I think it has some basis in truth but it's not literal". And Mohammed isn't some semi-mythological figure from two-thousand years ago. He's a historical figure with a lot of documented details of his life. If you move away from any part of the Koran being the true word of God as dictated by an angel, and think it's human composition, you are no longer believing it's dictated by God. So when push comes to the shove, you end up in the situation this woman is put in where she's trying to find ways to justify the unjustifiable because she's a reasonable person forced to defend a group identity she belongs to. Whereas outside of having Tommy Robinson in your face, she'd probably never talk about why "scourging your wife" is probably an alright thing to say, she'd just ignore that part.

Which is why you can criticise Islam without disliking Muslims and why this document is wrong to say you can't. This document says that if I criticise Islam, I'm prejudiced against this woman. How can that be right?
Click to expand...

Actually 'Muhammed' certainly is mythical and not historical.

As for Muslims following Islam, it's not really different from Christians following the Old Testament. There's an equal amount of ethically disagreeable actions and commands.

Religion of any sort is to a large extent a uses and gratifications model where people use it for their chosen desire.

The God of the Old Testament and Islam is a morally repugnant narcissist

That aside I don't believe the recomendation from this document states criticism of Islam is prejudiced.
 
enkoda said:
She makes a number of comments that need addressing:
1) Individual interpretation of the Quran - it wouldn't need interpreting if the message was absolutely clear from the outset. Why would a perfect God pass on the most important message mankind will ever receive in such a manner? If God wants us to treat each other with respect then his message should be "treat each other with respect" - don't give us passages about keeping slaves or beheading your enemies. If one person can interpret a passage where it says to do X, and another person interprets it as not to do X, then the book is at fault.

2) The Quran cannot be translated exactly - I'm going out on a limb here, but translation seems to work well enough when it comes to diplomacy, business deals, etc. What specific stumbling blocks are there with regards to translating the Quran?

3) She nitpicks over the severity of punishment to which women can be subjected to, completely missing the point that the Quran still advocates punishment for women.

Her position seems to be that those using the Quran to justify violence must be interpreting it incorrectly, whereas her peaceful interpretation must be correct. Since both parties would claim to be right, this just seems to be an assertion, is it not?
Click to expand...

1. Just to play devil's advocate, that is the test of man, to find the righteous solution. Okay I don't really believe that

2. Ofcourse it can't be translated. For one there was no written Arabic language when it was written and the scripture doesn't entirely translate into modern Arabic

For 2 it's been plagerised from Hebrew, Persian and other sources. Many of the words aren't Arabic in origin. So essentially it's not even writen in a single language.

3. Yea but the counter argument being that there are tons of quotes from Muhammed where he states men should be kind and tender to their wives.
 
ANDREW GREEN said:
1. Just to play devil's advocate, that is the test of man, to find the righteous solution. Okay I don't really believe that

2. Ofcourse it can't be translated. For one there was no written Arabic language when it was written and the scripture doesn't entirely translate into modern Arabic

For 2 it's been plagerised from Hebrew, Persian and other sources. Many of the words aren't Arabic in origin. So essentially it's not even writen in a single language.

3. Yea but the counter argument being that there are tons of quotes from Muhammed where he states men should be kind and tender to their wives.
Click to expand...
1) Neither do I, seems we agree.

2) Plagiarised, yes, definitely. Another agreement. :)

3) The Quran says husbands can beat their wives. Since it is the literal (and unalterable) word of God, what God wants you to do surpasses anything Muhammad might have to say on the matter. But then Muhammad does speak directly for God, so I guess that position of power could not be abused in any possible way whatsoever. Lucky too, there was absolutely zero possibility that people could confuse Muhammad's personal opinions on matters with God's wishes. Imagine what crazy, immoral, evil acts people would be willing to do if they thought it was God's commandments they were fulfilling rather than a man that's found himself in a position where thousands of followers will do anything he says if he starts it with "God has told me that you must...".

Unless of course you're implying that the Quran is Muhammad's work (i.e. of human origin) then I'm with you 100%. Full house of agreements - BINGO! :D
 
enkoda said:
She makes a number of comments that need addressing:
1) Individual interpretation of the Quran - it wouldn't need interpreting if the message was absolutely clear from the outset. Why would a perfect God pass on the most important message mankind will ever receive in such a manner? If God wants us to treat each other with respect then his message should be "treat each other with respect" - don't give us passages about keeping slaves or beheading your enemies. If one person can interpret a passage where it says to do X, and another person interprets it as not to do X, then the book is at fault.

2) The Quran cannot be translated exactly - I'm going out on a limb here, but translation seems to work well enough when it comes to diplomacy, business deals, etc. What specific stumbling blocks are there with regards to translating the Quran?

3) She nitpicks over the severity of punishment to which women can be subjected to, completely missing the point that the Quran still advocates punishment for women.

Her position seems to be that those using the Quran to justify violence must be interpreting it incorrectly, whereas her peaceful interpretation must be correct. Since both parties would claim to be right, this just seems to be an assertion, is it not?
Click to expand...

Some very good points, my own feedback:

1. I personally believe that the Quran (or even Bible for that matter) is man made, but claims to be the word of God - and because it is man made, and likely has several changes over its initial life, will be written to benefit those pushing it and will lose any absolute clarity some sky fairy may have.

2. I'd guess this might be down to how there are different meanings, interpretations, or even words, that we now use and understand vs what was around when this 'ancient text' was written. I can't back this up with any facts, it's just my best guess 2 pence style.

3. I completely agree with you on this, but times were different historically, and women were viewed as second class to men - so I guess that they just have to accept this is within the Quran? As for Tommy/her disagreeing on severity - Tommy (and some random woman Googling off camera) state "scourge" means X and Y, whereas this woman tries to suggest that it could also mean Z. Same goes for when Tommy mentions "mischief".

Personally, I loved the level headed discussion they are having - it has shown me that Tommy is very set in his interpretation of the Quran, and is a little reluctant to accept that there can be other interpretations; which this woman is trying to put forward.
 
Scort said:
3. I completely agree with you on this, but times were different historically, and women were viewed as second class to men - so I guess that they just have to accept this is within the Quran?
Click to expand...

But surely when god spoke to muhammad he would have let him know that this was wrong...remember, omnipotent and omniscient being!

Unless it isn't wrong. In which case we should all be beating women? Not really a religion of peace then!

Edit: or option 3, it's all made up by various people in an attempt to control the masses and gain power for their own ends?
 
Last edited:
Scort said:
Some very good points, my own feedback:

1. I personally believe that the Quran (or even Bible for that matter) is man made, but claims to be the word of God - and because it is man made, and likely has several changes over its initial life, will be written to benefit those pushing it and will lose any absolute clarity some sky fairy may have.

2. I'd guess this might be down to how there are different meanings, interpretations, or even words, that we now use and understand vs what was around when this 'ancient text' was written. I can't back this up with any facts, it's just my best guess 2 pence style.

3. I completely agree with you on this, but times were different historically, and women were viewed as second class to men - so I guess that they just have to accept this is within the Quran? As for Tommy/her disagreeing on severity - Tommy (and some random woman Googling off camera) state "scourge" means X and Y, whereas this woman tries to suggest that it could also mean Z. Same goes for when Tommy mentions "mischief".

Personally, I loved the level headed discussion they are having - it has shown me that Tommy is very set in his interpretation of the Quran, and is a little reluctant to accept that there can be other interpretations; which this woman is trying to put forward.
Click to expand...
On point 3, it doesn't matter if times were different, the Quran is from an eternal God. He never said "this book only applies until year X" just like he never said "in the future, you can pick and choose which bits you wish to follow". This is the sort of justification religious people use to defend acts sanctioned by their perfectly moral God which we find immoral in today's society. Slavery is the best example - if God didn't want us to own slaves he would have just said "do not own people as property". He had plenty to say on what you can eat, drink and wear, how many times you have to pray, where and in what direction, how badly you can punish your wife depending if its her first, second or third transgression, but nothing about slavery being immoral and not to do it.
 
Scort said:
Hoping this doesn't derail the thread, I *think* it is OT, so will add it here:


Now, I know a lot hate this guy, I'm personally on the fence, but the star of the video (imo) is this woman he is interviewing - her contribution is without a doubt, one of the best discussions I have heard or watched about Islam - calm, composed, informed and clearly intelligent.

I'll admit that the title of this video is massively wrong though - Tommy (Stephen) isn't educating her, I feel it's the other way around - she has him stumped on a number of occasions, and you see that he falls back to his default argument of 'that's what the book says'; even though she has explained that it's down to an individuals interpretation.

Not sure what this might add to the discussion - but somebody like this woman, could do wonders for helping people to understand Islam more imo, without the need to impose laws on this false 'Islamophobia' term.
Click to expand...
Hence the problem with blasphemy laws and anything anti speech, you only resolve issues with more free speech, not less.
 
enkoda said:
On point 3, it doesn't matter if times were different, the Quran is from an eternal God. He never said "this book only applies until year X" just like he never said "in the future, you can pick and choose which bits you wish to follow". This is the sort of justification religious people use to defend acts sanctioned by their perfectly moral God which we find immoral in today's society. Slavery is the best example - if God didn't want us to own slaves he would have just said "do not own people as property". He had plenty to say on what you can eat, drink and wear, how many times you have to pray, where and in what direction, how badly you can punish your wife depending if its her first, second or third transgression, but nothing about slavery being immoral and not to do it.
Click to expand...

The failings of mystical sky fairies I guess.
 
It's sad and troubling that legislation is being brought to bear to quell and oppress disenchantment with multiculturalism. The government seeing fit to bring such legislation says it all about its success in the UK. Are the secret police coming to a bar near you? ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom