Australian Politics Forum - Gandalf, what the hell?

Auggie

Gold Member

Offline

The Bull Moose

Posts: 8571

Re: Gandalf, what the hell?
Reply #30 - Jan 31^st, 2018 at 4:22pm

polite_gandalf wrote on Jan 31^st, 2018 at 4:08pm:

Majid Nawaz - you do realise the foundation which he heads is mostly funded by far right think tanks - after government funding dried up?

That may be the case. I also don't doubt his intentions. I think he is genuinely passionate about what he does.

And what do you consider to be 'far-right'?

polite_gandalf wrote on Jan 31^st, 2018 at 4:08pm:

But surely you can appreciate that as a devout muslim, I only have so much 'wiggle room'.

Ok, so now we get to the crux of the issue. Absolutely, I totally agree that when it comes to ideological and/or religious commitment, it is fundamentally about their personal identity. Losing that identity or having that identity challenged can lead to 'cognitive dissonance' which can be extremely displeasing - like the world has been turned upside down - that everything you once believed is now false. I appreciate that can be startling.

polite_gandalf wrote on Jan 31^st, 2018 at 4:08pm:

I simply can't decide that a book that on the one hand I must believe is the divine word of God, is on the other hand flawed in parts.

This is an issue with your thinking and mentality. I think you can do it.

polite_gandalf wrote on Jan 31^st, 2018 at 4:08pm:

Be reasonable here, what would you expect of me - as a muslim? To turn around and declare that yes, the Quran is wrong in certain instances, muslims shouldn't abide by it?

The question is: what would be wrong with that? Would that make you less of a Muslim? Not in my eyes. As far as I'm concerned, a Muslim is a person who calls him/herself a Muslim, just as a Christian is a person who calls him/herself a Christian. Now, for you personally, you've got a community and peers to deal with and that is where it becomes problematic. If you espoused a partiality of the Quran, you'd be ostracized from your community and from your peers. Of course, you can't believe one thing and pretend to believe something else.

For example, I have no problem calling myself a Christian even though I don't believe that Christ rose from the dead. I don't even believe in God. Now, many people would laugh and say: "Caesar, you're not a Christian", to which I reply: "Ok, fine, if you say so."

polite_gandalf wrote on Jan 31^st, 2018 at 4:08pm:

Sure, its probably a good approach for clayton muslims, who don't really care what their religious texts actually say.

Are they any less Muslim than you? How are you to determine that?

polite_gandalf wrote on Jan 31^st, 2018 at 4:08pm:

But I'm sorry, insisting to a genuine muslim that he must choose to cut and paste bits and pieces of his text and concede that some of it is flawed and wrong - isn't a very productive approach. Surely you can understand this, no?

From the point of view that it would cause severe Cognitive and/or Cultural Dissonance, and result in an Identity Crisis, yes, I understand this. I also know that there are people out there who are able to cherry pick and are happy to do so. That you struggle to do so is a personal thing.

Back to top

The Progressive President

IP Logged

Auggie Gold Member Offline The Bull Moose Posts: 8571	Re: Gandalf, what the hell? Reply #31 - Jan 31^st, 2018 at 4:48pm Also, Gandalf, you do cherry-pick. You ignore some of the Hadith, but acknowledge other Hadith within the same writings.
Back to top	The Progressive President IP Logged

Aussie

Gold Member

Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 39470
Gender: male

Re: Gandalf, what the hell?
Reply #32 - Jan 31^st, 2018 at 4:58pm

Quote:

For example, I have no problem calling myself a Christian even though I don't believe that Christ rose from the dead. I don't even believe in God. Now, many people would laugh and say: "Caesar, you're not a Christian", to which I reply: "Ok, fine, if you say so."

I don't believe that Christ walked on water etc or rose from the dead or that God exists and I know that makes me an atheist. No false flag on my pole.

Back to top

IP Logged

Auggie

Gold Member

Offline

The Bull Moose

Posts: 8571

Re: Gandalf, what the hell?
Reply #33 - Jan 31^st, 2018 at 5:04pm

Aussie wrote on Jan 31^st, 2018 at 4:58pm:

Quote:

For example, I have no problem calling myself a Christian even though I don't believe that Christ rose from the dead. I don't even believe in God. Now, many people would laugh and say: "Caesar, you're not a Christian", to which I reply: "Ok, fine, if you say so."

I don't believe that Christ walked on water etc or rose from the dead or that God exists and I know that makes me an atheist. No false flag on my pole.

You got me there. In truth, I'm not really a Christian.

I'm an Atheist.

Back to top

The Progressive President

IP Logged

Neferti

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 7965
Canberra
Gender: female

Re: Gandalf, what the hell?
Reply #34 - Jan 31^st, 2018 at 5:07pm

Quote:

What Is an Atheist?

An atheist is anyone who doesn't believe in any gods. This is a very simple concept, but it's also widely misunderstood. For that reason, there are a variety of ways to state it.

Atheism is the lack of belief in gods; the absence of belief in gods; a disbelief in gods; or not believing in gods.

The most precise definition may be that an atheist is anyone who does not affirm the proposition "at least one god exists." This is not a proposition made by atheists.

Being an atheist requires nothing active or even conscious on the part of the atheist. All that is required is not "affirming" a proposition made by others.

Quote:

What Is an Agnostic?

An agnostic is anyone who doesn't claim to know whether any gods exist or not. This is also an uncomplicated idea, but it may be as misunderstood as atheism.

One major problem is that atheism and agnosticism both deal with questions regarding the existence of gods. Whereas atheism involves what a person does or does not believe, agnosticism involves what a person does or does not know. Belief and knowledge are related but nevertheless separate issues.

There's a simple test to tell if one is an agnostic or not. Do you know for sure if any gods exist? If so, then you're not an agnostic, but a theist. Do you know for sure that gods do not or even cannot exist? If so, then you're not an agnostic, but an atheist.

Everyone who cannot answer "yes" to one of those questions is a person who may or may not believe in one or more gods. However, since they don't also claim to know for sure, they are agnostic. The only question then is whether they are an agnostic theist or an agnostic atheist.

Back to top

IP Logged

Frank

Gold Member

Online

Australian Politics

Posts: 53012
Gender: male

Re: Gandalf, what the hell?
Reply #35 - Jan 31^st, 2018 at 8:30pm

polite_gandalf wrote on Jan 31^st, 2018 at 4:21pm:

Auggie wrote on Jan 31^st, 2018 at 3:59pm:

And again, as I said in the previous post, to state that Islam is not misogynistic is completely dishonest. All religions are misogynistic, even Christianity, but I can admit that, and recognize it's a problem. The Quran is clearly misogynistic, and the sooner you realize that the better.

I don't believe the Quran is misogynistic, the sooner you realise that the better.

The bible is undeniably misogynistic - but Christians get around that by dismissing the worst bits as the outdated opinions of mere men, and not representing the divine message. Moses did exactly that when not even he could back poor FD during his cringe-worthy defense (aka spineless apology) of St Paul's letters about women being beneath men, and ordering them to shut up and cover up in public.

But surely the point is, even christians can rationalise their horribly misogynistic text and move into the 21st century vis women's rights. Why are you so dead certain muslims can't do the same - and even worse, castigate the ones (like me) who do?

The koran is unalterable. Its full of straightforward misogyny.

The bible can be adopted to the times. The koran can't. That's why you are stuck with mohammed in the 7th centure and christianity is not stuck in the 4th.

Back to top

Estragon: I can’t go on like this.
Vladimir: That’s what you think.

IP Logged

Frank

Gold Member

Online

Australian Politics

Posts: 53012
Gender: male

Re: Gandalf, what the hell?
Reply #36 - Jan 31^st, 2018 at 8:31pm

Auggie wrote on Jan 31^st, 2018 at 5:04pm:

Aussie wrote on Jan 31^st, 2018 at 4:58pm:

Quote:

For example, I have no problem calling myself a Christian even though I don't believe that Christ rose from the dead. I don't even believe in God. Now, many people would laugh and say: "Caesar, you're not a Christian", to which I reply: "Ok, fine, if you say so."

I don't believe that Christ walked on water etc or rose from the dead or that God exists and I know that makes me an atheist. No false flag on my pole.

You got me there. In truth, I'm not really a Christian.

I'm an Atheist.

No. You are confused.

Back to top

Estragon: I can’t go on like this.
Vladimir: That’s what you think.

IP Logged

Frank

Gold Member

Online

Australian Politics

Posts: 53012
Gender: male

Re: Gandalf, what the hell?
Reply #37 - Jan 31^st, 2018 at 8:34pm

Brian Ross wrote on Jan 31^st, 2018 at 4:11pm:

Augie, you do know that most Muslims cannot even read the Q'ran? This is because it is written in archiac Arabic, with out the modern intonations that modern Arabic script use. Without the intonations, the meaning of the words change, often subtly, sometimes outrageously.

You are also aware that a lot of what many Muslims quote and believe in isn't even in the Q'ran but in the Hadiths? Hadiths which are known to be unreliable by scholars are often accepted as fact by believers. Many of the Hadiths were apparently created well after the death of Mohammed. There is currently a project in Turkey to examine all the Sunni Hadiths and determine their authenticity.

Islam is made up primarily of hearsay about what Mohammed said - exactly as Christianity is. The Bible consists of testimonies written between 75 and 150 years after the supposed death of Christ. The early Church edited the Bible heavily, removing testaments and redefining the relationships of various characters and rooting out what were described as "heresies". All religions are easily shown to be questionable, once the sources are examined properly. Roll Eyes

Christians are literate. Muslims are still the most illiterate people on earth. Iliterate AND unlettered. Dusty, thick rustics.

No comparison.

Back to top

Estragon: I can’t go on like this.
Vladimir: That’s what you think.

IP Logged

Auggie

Gold Member

Offline

The Bull Moose

Posts: 8571

Re: Gandalf, what the hell?
Reply #38 - Jan 31^st, 2018 at 8:52pm

Brian Ross wrote on Jan 31^st, 2018 at 4:11pm:

Augie, you do know that most Muslims cannot even read the Q'ran? This is because it is written in archiac Arabic, with out the modern intonations that modern Arabic script use. Without the intonations, the meaning of the words change, often subtly, sometimes outrageously.

Yes, but there is a consensus as to what words mean, and there are limitations to meanings.

You are also aware that a lot of what many Muslims quote and believe in isn't even in the Q'ran but in the Hadiths? Hadiths which are known to be unreliable by scholars are often accepted as fact by believers. Many of the Hadiths were apparently created well after the death of Mohammed. There is currently a project in Turkey to examine all the Sunni Hadiths and determine their authenticity.

There are some Hadith that are considered authoritative in the Sunni tradition, just as important as the Quran. They are considered to be legitimate sources. You and I may question them but many Muslims believe in the authenticity of the Hadith.

Islam is made up primarily of hearsay about what Mohammed said - exactly as Christianity is. The Bible consists of testimonies written between 75 and 150 years after the supposed death of Christ. The early Church edited the Bible heavily, removing testaments and redefining the relationships of various characters and rooting out what were described as "heresies". All religions are easily shown to be questionable, once the sources are examined properly. Roll Eyes

The difference is that the Quran is considered unalterable and applicable for all time, and most Muslims believe this. It may or may not be Christian doctrine, but the main point is that most Christians don't believe the Bible to be applicable for all time. It doesn't have the same level of infallibility as the Quran does.

Back to top

« Last Edit: Jan 31^st, 2018 at 9:24pm by Auggie »

The Progressive President

IP Logged

Karnal

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 98973

Re: Gandalf, what the hell?
Reply #39 - Jan 31^st, 2018 at 9:11pm

Frank wrote on Jan 31^st, 2018 at 8:30pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Jan 31^st, 2018 at 4:21pm:

Auggie wrote on Jan 31^st, 2018 at 3:59pm:

And again, as I said in the previous post, to state that Islam is not misogynistic is completely dishonest. All religions are misogynistic, even Christianity, but I can admit that, and recognize it's a problem. The Quran is clearly misogynistic, and the sooner you realize that the better.

I don't believe the Quran is misogynistic, the sooner you realise that the better.

The bible is undeniably misogynistic - but Christians get around that by dismissing the worst bits as the outdated opinions of mere men, and not representing the divine message. Moses did exactly that when not even he could back poor FD during his cringe-worthy defense (aka spineless apology) of St Paul's letters about women being beneath men, and ordering them to shut up and cover up in public.

But surely the point is, even christians can rationalise their horribly misogynistic text and move into the 21st century vis women's rights. Why are you so dead certain muslims can't do the same - and even worse, castigate the ones (like me) who do?

The koran is unalterable. Its full of straightforward misogyny.

The bible can be adopted to the times.

I say, That's not what Peter Jensen says.

What would he know, eh?

Back to top

IP Logged

sir prince duke alevine

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 23619
Gender: male

Re: Gandalf, what the hell?
Reply #40 - Jan 31^st, 2018 at 11:23pm

polite_gandalf wrote on Jan 31^st, 2018 at 2:51pm:

Auggie wrote on Jan 31^st, 2018 at 2:25pm:

Can you name me the other scholars?

You really could have saved us both some trouble and actually read the wiki article I linked.

eg:

Quote:

Translation by Muhsin Khan

Men are guardians of women, because Allah has made one superior to the other, and (also) because men spend their wealth (on them). So the pious wives are obedient. They guard (their chastity) in the absence of their husbands with the protection of Allah. But those women whom you fear will disobey and defy, admonish them; and (if they do not amend) separate them (from yourselves) in beds; and (if they still do not improve) turn away from them, striking a temporary parting. Then if they become cooperative with you, do not seek any way against them. Surely, Allah is Most High, Most Great.[21]

and...

Quote:

The Islamic scholar Tahir-ul-Qadri has given the same translation in his translation of the Quran "Irfan-ul-Quran" ("(...)and (if they still do not improve) turn away from them, striking a temporary parting.(...)").[21]

and on the general point of violence against women, its surprising how united scholars are...

Quote:

Jonathan A.C. Brown gives the wider scholarly tendency when it comes to the verse:

The vast majority of the ulama across the Sunni schools of law inherited the Prophet's unease over domestic violence and placed further restrictions on the evident meaning of the 'Wife Beating Verse'. A leading Meccan scholar from the second generation of Muslims, Ata' bin Abi Rabah, counseled a husband not to beat his wife even if she ignored him but rather to express his anger in some other way. Darimi, a teacher of both Tirmidhi and Muslim bin Hajjaj as well as a leading early scholar in Iran, collected all the Hadiths showing Muhammad's disapproval of beating in a chapter entitled 'The Prohibition on Striking Women'. A thirteenth-century scholar from Granada, Ibn Faras, notes that one camp of ulama had staked out a stance forbidding striking a wife altogether, declaring it contrary to the Prophet's example and denying the authenticity of any Hadiths that seemed to permit beating. Even Ibn Hajar, the pillar of late medieval Sunni Hadith scholarship, concludes that, contrary to what seems to be an explicit command in the Qur'an, the Hadiths of the Prophet leave no doubt that striking one's wife to discipline her actually falls under the Shariah ruling of 'strongly disliked' or 'disliked verging on prohibited'.[16]

Men are superior to women who must be obedient. How spiritually fulfilling, yes gandalf? Even your moderate apologist interpretation is as regressive as it comes.

And while I’m positive you’re lying about nawas’s funding, as lying is your favourite hobby, what would it matter where his funding comes from? I’d rather you explain what it is that majid says that is wrong, as opposed to worrying about who donates to his think tank.

Back to top

Disclaimer for Mothra per POST so it is forever acknowledged: Saying 'Islam' or 'Muslims' doesn't mean ALL muslims. This does not target individual muslims who's opinion I am not aware of.

IP Logged

Karnal

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 98973

Re: Gandalf, what the hell?
Reply #41 - Feb 1^st, 2018 at 1:24am

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Jan 31^st, 2018 at 11:23pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Jan 31^st, 2018 at 2:51pm:

Auggie wrote on Jan 31^st, 2018 at 2:25pm:

Can you name me the other scholars?

You really could have saved us both some trouble and actually read the wiki article I linked.

eg:

Quote:

Translation by Muhsin Khan

Men are guardians of women, because Allah has made one superior to the other, and (also) because men spend their wealth (on them). So the pious wives are obedient. They guard (their chastity) in the absence of their husbands with the protection of Allah. But those women whom you fear will disobey and defy, admonish them; and (if they do not amend) separate them (from yourselves) in beds; and (if they still do not improve) turn away from them, striking a temporary parting. Then if they become cooperative with you, do not seek any way against them. Surely, Allah is Most High, Most Great.[21]

and...

Quote:

The Islamic scholar Tahir-ul-Qadri has given the same translation in his translation of the Quran "Irfan-ul-Quran" ("(...)and (if they still do not improve) turn away from them, striking a temporary parting.(...)").[21]

and on the general point of violence against women, its surprising how united scholars are...

Quote:

Jonathan A.C. Brown gives the wider scholarly tendency when it comes to the verse:

The vast majority of the ulama across the Sunni schools of law inherited the Prophet's unease over domestic violence and placed further restrictions on the evident meaning of the 'Wife Beating Verse'. A leading Meccan scholar from the second generation of Muslims, Ata' bin Abi Rabah, counseled a husband not to beat his wife even if she ignored him but rather to express his anger in some other way. Darimi, a teacher of both Tirmidhi and Muslim bin Hajjaj as well as a leading early scholar in Iran, collected all the Hadiths showing Muhammad's disapproval of beating in a chapter entitled 'The Prohibition on Striking Women'. A thirteenth-century scholar from Granada, Ibn Faras, notes that one camp of ulama had staked out a stance forbidding striking a wife altogether, declaring it contrary to the Prophet's example and denying the authenticity of any Hadiths that seemed to permit beating. Even Ibn Hajar, the pillar of late medieval Sunni Hadith scholarship, concludes that, contrary to what seems to be an explicit command in the Qur'an, the Hadiths of the Prophet leave no doubt that striking one's wife to discipline her actually falls under the Shariah ruling of 'strongly disliked' or 'disliked verging on prohibited'.[16]

Men are superior to women who must be obedient. How spiritually fulfilling, yes gandalf? Even your moderate apologist interpretation is as regressive as it comes.

And while I’m positive you’re lying about nawas’s funding, as lying is your favourite hobby, what would it matter where his funding comes from? I’d rather you explain what it is that majid says that is wrong, as opposed to worrying about who donates to his think tank.

Good to have you back, Alevine. We're all friends here.

Remember, you're a friend too.

Back to top

IP Logged

freediver

Gold Member

Online

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 51356
At my desk.

Re: Gandalf, what the hell?
Reply #42 - Feb 1^st, 2018 at 7:29am

polite_gandalf wrote on Jan 31^st, 2018 at 2:21pm:

Auggie wrote on Jan 31^st, 2018 at 2:07pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Jan 31^st, 2018 at 2:05pm:

Auggie wrote on Jan 31^st, 2018 at 2:03pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Jan 31^st, 2018 at 2:01pm:

Auggie wrote on Jan 26^th, 2018 at 10:51am:

Well, if one converts to Islam because they feel inspired by it and have read the scriptures, I don't understand how you could feel spiritually-fulfilled by Islam.

And did you reach this conclusion because you have read and closely studied all the Islamic scriptures and concluded definitively that they are comprehensibly spritually unfulfilling?

Question: were you aware of the wife-beating verse before or after you converted?

There is no wife-beating verse, I have covered this many times.

Now, that is clearly misguided, Gandalf. You're using the translation of some post-modernist Islamic woman (Laila Bakhtiar) who has written ONE Quran with that translation.

There is no consensus for her translation - nearly every single Quran printed in the world translate daraba as 'hit' or strike.

Refusing this is fundamentally dishonest.

There are many scholars who reject the physical beating interpretation - claiming there isn't just reinforces my view that you are talking through your behind when you claim you decided Islam was comprehensively spiritually unfulfilling as a result of a rigorous study of all Islamic text (and by necessity all its interpretations).

To me the best argument against the physical beating interpretation is the fact that the root word d-r-b is, in several different verses, used in ways that is impossible to be interpreted as any sort of physical hitting. Which of course you would know from your comprehensive study of all Islamic text.

That the physical beating interpretation isn't nearly as universal as you make out can easily be gleaned from a simple search for a wikipedia article:

Quote:

the term iḍribūhunna (usually translated, 'beat them') in 4:34 comes from the root ḍaraba (Arabic: ضرب).[39] The word has been used many times in the Quran to mean: to hit, to travel the earth, to set up, to condemn and to give examples. Thus scholars interpret iḍribūhunna in different ways. Whereas many interpret it to mean "to strike", others hold that the term means "to separate".[38] Such an action is to be administered only if neither the husband nor the wife are willing to divorce.[40] In the context of this verse, iḍribūhunna has also been interpreted to mean "go to bed with them",[41] the Arabic root word "daraba" being taken from the prosaic example "the stud-camel covered the she-camel".[42]
the term daraba is translated by Yusuf Ali as "beat," but the Arabic word is used elsewhere in the Qur'an to convey different meanings. The phrase, "Daraba Allah mathalan" translates to, "Allah gives or sets an example." [43] The use of this word might be compared to the way "to strike" is used in English, which can mean, "to strike a pose," or "to strike a bargain," not just referring to the physical act of hitting something.[44] The use of daraba is also intentional, because a different Arabic word exists, "darraba" which is translated to, "to strike repeatedly or intensely." [43]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An-Nisa,_34#Other_translation_of_the_Verse_4:34

Do you believe that Muhammad struck his own favourite child bride, causing her pain, after she left the house without his permission?

polite_gandalf wrote on Jan 31^st, 2018 at 3:03pm:

Auggie wrote on Jan 31^st, 2018 at 2:25pm:

So, the majority of scholars have got it wrong for over 1400 years? That's a tall order.

Absolutely. And no, its not a tall order by any stretch. Consider that before Galileo "the majority of scholars" believed that the sun revolved around the earth. Or if you want an analogy closer to religion (although the geocentric model was highly influenced by religion) - its only been in recent years that christians have started rejecting the misogynistic drivel espoused by St Paul as the opinions of a mere mortal - as opposed to the divine word of God.

Did they do this by translating what Paul said into something with a completely different meaning?

Or would that be lying?

Quote:

The point is, scholarly opinions typically move at glacial pace. The vast majority of muslims (and therefore muslim scholars) are from societies that culturally condition them with misogynistic views - which I don't believe is based on a true interpretation of Islamic text.

Do you think the vast majority of Muslim societies are like that because of the Quran.

Quote:

Biblical text is a million times more misogynistic than Islamic text, and for centuries it kept Christians in the dark ages vis the status of women. Yet somehow they managed to (mostly) evolve into the 21st century - at least in the west anyway. If and when Islamic scholarly opinion finally evolves for the better vis women, suddenly your argument (that majority = truth) will be looking pretty weak.

They did not pretend the Bible said something else in order to achieve this. They just dismissed Paul. It's a bit harder for Muslims to dismiss Muhammad, don't you think?

Back to top

« Last Edit: Feb 1^st, 2018 at 8:14am by freediver »

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.

IP Logged

polite_gandalf Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 20027 Canberra Gender:	Re: Gandalf, what the hell? Reply #43 - Feb 1^st, 2018 at 9:51am freediver wrote on Feb 1^st, 2018 at 7:29am: They did not pretend the Bible said something else in order to achieve this. They just dismissed Paul. Yes thats right FD, they don't twist themselves into knots pretending that Paul's misogynistic rantings are really some enlightened nod to modern day feminism.
Back to top	A resident Islam critic who claims to represent western values said: Quote: Outlawing the enemy's uniform - hijab, islamic beard - is not depriving one's own people of their freedoms. IP Logged

Auggie

Gold Member

Offline

The Bull Moose

Posts: 8571

Re: Gandalf, what the hell?
Reply #44 - Feb 1^st, 2018 at 9:58am

polite_gandalf wrote on Feb 1^st, 2018 at 9:51am:

freediver wrote on Feb 1^st, 2018 at 7:29am:

They did not pretend the Bible said something else in order to achieve this. They just dismissed Paul.

Yes thats right FD, they don't twist themselves into knots pretending that Paul's misogynistic rantings are really some enlightened nod to modern day feminism.

As opposed to Muslims who state Islam is a feminist religion and always has been?

Back to top

The Progressive President

IP Logged