Author Topic: Is Salafism/Wahabbism the most authentic Islam?  (Read 3115 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline JamesR

  • Virginal Chicano Blood
  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,640
  • 1951-2015 Memory Eternal Uncle Roy--40 Days of Mourning.
  • Faith: Misotheistic Eastern Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church *of* America
Re: Is Salafism/Wahabbism the most authentic Islam?
« Reply #90 on: January 27, 2015, 07:17:17 PM »
Unfortunately child brides were rather common back then (as they are in many parts of the world today.) Including in ancient Israel. Including a famous saint we know about, who we might not want to call a potential child molester whose molestation was only averted by divine intervention.

Who?

My own patron St. Augustine.

His mother St. Monica almost procured a 12 year old bride for him to replace his whore, but for whatever reason, they never followed through.
...Or it's just possible he's a mouthy young man on an internet forum.
In the infinite wisdom of God, James can be all three.

Offline xOrthodox4Christx

  • Partisan Pro-Chalcedonian Fanatic
  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 5,631
  • #FeelTheBern
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: OCA
Re: Is Salafism/Wahabbism the most authentic Islam?
« Reply #91 on: January 27, 2015, 07:31:35 PM »
Unfortunately child brides were rather common back then (as they are in many parts of the world today.) Including in ancient Israel. Including a famous saint we know about, who we might not want to call a potential child molester whose molestation was only averted by divine intervention.

Who?
he's talking about Joseph and Mary. Mor. See most scholars put Mary's age between 12 and 15 now Joseph and Mary were engaged before she was with child. Now see Joseph being in 50''s had a choice have  her stoned to death put her away silently or continue the marriage. We know how the story goes from there.

Joseph didn't marry... Mary, for the sake of having sexual relations. It was a contract to protect the Theotokos and her Child. St. Joseph and Mary became engaged only to provide a safe environment for the Christ child.
really then why was Joseph going to put marry away silently invoking God to visit him in a dream to tell him not to do this and Mary was telling truth. Plus protestant believe Jesus had brothers and sisters I well know orthodoxy teaching on the theotokos just pointing that out to them

The bolded is obvious, because he knew what his community would think about it, the same things you are suggesting.
Not everything I type or have typed in the past is reflective of the teaching of the Orthodox Church, or may not reflect my contemporary views on a subject. (5/30/2015)

I am scaling back posting because the crack in my computer screen makes it harder and harder to type.

Offline JamesR

  • Virginal Chicano Blood
  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,640
  • 1951-2015 Memory Eternal Uncle Roy--40 Days of Mourning.
  • Faith: Misotheistic Eastern Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church *of* America
Re: Is Salafism/Wahabbism the most authentic Islam?
« Reply #92 on: January 27, 2015, 07:51:21 PM »
Unfortunately child brides were rather common back then (as they are in many parts of the world today.) Including in ancient Israel. Including a famous saint we know about, who we might not want to call a potential child molester whose molestation was only averted by divine intervention.

Who?
he's talking about Joseph and Mary. Mor. See most scholars put Mary's age between 12 and 15 now Joseph and Mary were engaged before she was with child. Now see Joseph being in 50''s had a choice have  her stoned to death put her away silently or continue the marriage. We know how the story goes from there.

According to the Protoevangelium of St. James, she was 16 when this all happened--which is a lot different from the 6-9 age of Aisha. While that's still a pretty huge taboo in modern western society, it's no longer pedophilia since a 15-16 year old is (usually) sexually matured. I mean, I have my vices, and yet despite my well known infatuation with a 15 year old, I wouldn't consider myself a pedophile. That's also not to mention that according to the same account, St. Joseph only married her because God Himself commanded him to, and that he objected to it precisely on the grounds that he thought the age difference was too much. With that in mind, I don't think he had any intention of having sexual relations with her, and even if he did, I think sexual relations with a 15-16 year old is better than a 6-9 year old child.

EDIT: As for the stoning thing, I thought the Romans prohibited the Jews from executing someone unless they sought Roman approval? Hence why they needed to seek Pontus Pilate's permission when they wanted to kill Christ. In fact, wasn't that apocryphal story about the woman caught in adultery an attempt by the Jews to get Christ to violate the Roman law by executing someone without their permission?
« Last Edit: January 27, 2015, 07:53:09 PM by JamesR »
...Or it's just possible he's a mouthy young man on an internet forum.
In the infinite wisdom of God, James can be all three.

Offline Minnesotan

  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,024
  • From the Land of 10,000 Lakes
Re: Is Salafism/Wahabbism the most authentic Islam?
« Reply #93 on: January 27, 2015, 08:37:18 PM »
Unfortunately child brides were rather common back then (as they are in many parts of the world today.) Including in ancient Israel. Including a famous saint we know about, who we might not want to call a potential child molester whose molestation was only averted by divine intervention.

Who?
he's talking about Joseph and Mary. Mor. See most scholars put Mary's age between 12 and 15 now Joseph and Mary were engaged before she was with child. Now see Joseph being in 50''s had a choice have  her stoned to death put her away silently or continue the marriage. We know how the story goes from there.

According to the Protoevangelium of St. James, she was 16 when this all happened--which is a lot different from the 6-9 age of Aisha. While that's still a pretty huge taboo in modern western society, it's no longer pedophilia since a 15-16 year old is (usually) sexually matured. I mean, I have my vices, and yet despite my well known infatuation with a 15 year old, I wouldn't consider myself a pedophile. That's also not to mention that according to the same account, St. Joseph only married her because God Himself commanded him to, and that he objected to it precisely on the grounds that he thought the age difference was too much. With that in mind, I don't think he had any intention of having sexual relations with her, and even if he did, I think sexual relations with a 15-16 year old is better than a 6-9 year old child.

EDIT: As for the stoning thing, I thought the Romans prohibited the Jews from executing someone unless they sought Roman approval? Hence why they needed to seek Pontus Pilate's permission when they wanted to kill Christ. In fact, wasn't that apocryphal story about the woman caught in adultery an attempt by the Jews to get Christ to violate the Roman law by executing someone without their permission?

What makes you think it was apocryphal?
« Last Edit: January 27, 2015, 08:37:29 PM by Minnesotan »
I'm not going to be posting as much on OC.Net as before. I might stop in once in a while though. But I've come to realize that real life is more important.

Offline JamesR

  • Virginal Chicano Blood
  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,640
  • 1951-2015 Memory Eternal Uncle Roy--40 Days of Mourning.
  • Faith: Misotheistic Eastern Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church *of* America
Re: Is Salafism/Wahabbism the most authentic Islam?
« Reply #94 on: January 27, 2015, 08:45:00 PM »
Unfortunately child brides were rather common back then (as they are in many parts of the world today.) Including in ancient Israel. Including a famous saint we know about, who we might not want to call a potential child molester whose molestation was only averted by divine intervention.

Who?
he's talking about Joseph and Mary. Mor. See most scholars put Mary's age between 12 and 15 now Joseph and Mary were engaged before she was with child. Now see Joseph being in 50''s had a choice have  her stoned to death put her away silently or continue the marriage. We know how the story goes from there.

According to the Protoevangelium of St. James, she was 16 when this all happened--which is a lot different from the 6-9 age of Aisha. While that's still a pretty huge taboo in modern western society, it's no longer pedophilia since a 15-16 year old is (usually) sexually matured. I mean, I have my vices, and yet despite my well known infatuation with a 15 year old, I wouldn't consider myself a pedophile. That's also not to mention that according to the same account, St. Joseph only married her because God Himself commanded him to, and that he objected to it precisely on the grounds that he thought the age difference was too much. With that in mind, I don't think he had any intention of having sexual relations with her, and even if he did, I think sexual relations with a 15-16 year old is better than a 6-9 year old child.

EDIT: As for the stoning thing, I thought the Romans prohibited the Jews from executing someone unless they sought Roman approval? Hence why they needed to seek Pontus Pilate's permission when they wanted to kill Christ. In fact, wasn't that apocryphal story about the woman caught in adultery an attempt by the Jews to get Christ to violate the Roman law by executing someone without their permission?

What makes you think it was apocryphal?

Like the Johannine Comma, it doesn't appear in the earliest biblical texts and all of the fathers--including St. John Chrysostom whose homilies covered everything in the Bible--are silent on the story, suggesting that not only was it a much later addition to the Bible, but that it wasn't even a widely-believed oral story about the life of Jesus, otherwise the fathers would have been familiar with it.
...Or it's just possible he's a mouthy young man on an internet forum.
In the infinite wisdom of God, James can be all three.

Offline NicholasMyra

  • Avowed denominationalist
  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,560
  • Nepsis or Sepsis™
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Antiochian+Greek
Re: Is Salafism/Wahabbism the most authentic Islam?
« Reply #95 on: January 27, 2015, 10:26:29 PM »
It was a contract to protect the Theotokos and her Child. St. Joseph and Mary became engaged only to provide a safe environment for the Christ child.
Are you referring to the betrothal or the marriage? I don't remember St. Joseph knowing about the incarnation before the betrothal. Is that one of the fun things in the Protoevangelium? ::)

Setting aside the Protoevangelium's fun,  we could just go with the St. Monica example James mentioned. We would want to say it's wrong, and yet a saint did it because she was a woman of her times (which doesn't excuse the wrong). You may disagree, but I think that by doing so you will probably imply horrors.

I haven't made any claims about it except the claims that historians would make about it. History doesn't lie.
Are you saying that Neil Degrasse Tyson is a historian? That he represents history accurately? That he isn't mistaken?

Because all those things are obviously false.

By posting that video, you meant to endorse what NDT said about Al-Ghazali. What NDT said is patently false, and was either a lie, or an irresponsible failure to perform even the most basic fact-checking. You made claims about what Al-Ghazali said without knowing or caring anything about what Al-Ghazali said.

So the question remains: Why was it so important for you to argue such a thing about Al-Ghazali? So important that you would spend the time digging up some easily-debunkable claim about him from a non-historian? Why not just say, "I don't know anything about Al-Ghazali"? See, there's a reason why this characterization of Islamic thinkers is important to you. It fits into something for you, something you are not willing to easily abandon, and I want to know what that thing is.
« Last Edit: January 27, 2015, 10:27:21 PM by NicholasMyra »
Πάντα μὲν καθαρὰ τοῖς καθαροῖς
Τοῖς δὲ μεμιασμένοις καὶ ἀπίστοις οὐδὲν καθαρόν

http://hyperdoxherman.tumblr.com/

Offline xOrthodox4Christx

  • Partisan Pro-Chalcedonian Fanatic
  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 5,631
  • #FeelTheBern
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: OCA
Re: Is Salafism/Wahabbism the most authentic Islam?
« Reply #96 on: January 27, 2015, 10:46:29 PM »
It was a contract to protect the Theotokos and her Child. St. Joseph and Mary became engaged only to provide a safe environment for the Christ child.
Are you referring to the betrothal or the marriage? I don't remember St. Joseph knowing about the incarnation before the betrothal. Is that one of the fun things in the Protoevangelium? ::)

Setting aside the Protoevangelium's fun,  we could just go with the St. Monica example James mentioned. We would want to say it's wrong, and yet a saint did it because she was a woman of her times (which doesn't excuse the wrong). You may disagree, but I think that by doing so you will probably imply horrors.

I haven't made any claims about it except the claims that historians would make about it. History doesn't lie.
Are you saying that Neil Degrasse Tyson is a historian? That he represents history accurately? That he isn't mistaken?

Because all those things are obviously false.

By posting that video, you meant to endorse what NDT said about Al-Ghazali. What NDT said is patently false, and was either a lie, or an irresponsible failure to perform even the most basic fact-checking. You made claims about what Al-Ghazali said without knowing or caring anything about what Al-Ghazali said.

So the question remains: Why was it so important for you to argue such a thing about Al-Ghazali? So important that you would spend the time digging up some easily-debunkable claim about him from a non-historian? Why not just say, "I don't know anything about Al-Ghazali"? See, there's a reason why this characterization of Islamic thinkers is important to you. It fits into something for you, something you are not willing to easily abandon, and I want to know what that thing is.

I never mentioned anything about al-Ghazali, you did. I only posted NDT because it was related to al-Ghazali, I never said it expressed my view.
Not everything I type or have typed in the past is reflective of the teaching of the Orthodox Church, or may not reflect my contemporary views on a subject. (5/30/2015)

I am scaling back posting because the crack in my computer screen makes it harder and harder to type.

Offline NicholasMyra

  • Avowed denominationalist
  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,560
  • Nepsis or Sepsis™
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Antiochian+Greek
Re: Is Salafism/Wahabbism the most authentic Islam?
« Reply #97 on: January 28, 2015, 12:17:03 AM »
I only posted NDT because it was related to al-Ghazali, I never said it expressed my view.
::)
Πάντα μὲν καθαρὰ τοῖς καθαροῖς
Τοῖς δὲ μεμιασμένοις καὶ ἀπίστοις οὐδὲν καθαρόν

http://hyperdoxherman.tumblr.com/

Offline john_mo

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 893
Re: Is Salafism/Wahabbism the most authentic Islam?
« Reply #98 on: January 29, 2015, 08:00:09 AM »
Also, how much slaving, warring, child-molesting did Paul do?
Unfortunately child brides were rather common back then (as they are in many parts of the world today.) Including in ancient Israel. Including a famous saint we know about, who we might not want to call a potential child molester whose molestation was only averted by divine intervention. Or we could; but we have to be consistent. One can be a Muslim and believe that child brides and warfare are wrong (perhaps use a "concession to the times" argument just like we do for OT stuff) just as one can be a Jew and believe that warfare is wrong, that zionism is wrong. You may not find that consistent according to your reading of their religions, but it's do-able, and has often been done.

I don't know if you realize it, but you continue to throw standard pro-islam defenses at me, all of which just don't follow.  For example, you brought up Paul and how we must imitate him.  I then ask how much slaving, warring and child-molesting Paul did (in comparison to Mohammad).  You ignore the slaving and the warring part and focus on the "St. Joseph married Marry when she was young" defense.   By now others have already pointed out that Joseph didn't have intercourse with Mary, so point refuted.  I would like to add that Mary would have only been about 14 years old.  Muhammad had sex with a 9-year-old.  The age difference is huge.  One is a teenager, the other is a child.

Because their scriptures and the Quran tell them to do it…
That doesn't mean they don't try to understand why.

Um… okay, granted.  The point remains that they must follow the Quran, and the example of Muhammad.  Thus what the former says and what the latter did is important to the religion.  Also, their religion has obedience as the bottom line.  

How on earth am I doing that?
By the questions you ask, and do not ask. By the words you use, and do not use, of course.

Then tell me what is wrong with my methodology.  You keep saying how question begging it is, but haven't told me which question it begs.  Again, here is my argument:
1) Muslims are required to follow the Quran and imitate the example of Muhammad (whom they believe to be sinless and the perfect example).
2) The Quran instructs wife-beating and Muhammad was a child molester, a slaver, and was a warlord, and a bully of other faiths, etc. etc.
3) Therefore it is permissible, (if not required) for Muslims to do the things described in premise 2.
Now explain to me why this criteria is wrong.  It is entirely falsifiable.  If you won't engage with this argument, then I think it's best if we end this.

Irrelevant.  I could answer yes or no, and it wouldn’t change the pickle that Islam is in.  Again, it's Islam compared to Islam.
This is an artificial restriction we won't abide by in this thread.

And who is "we"? Sorry, but I started this thread and it was clear we are comparing Islam with Islam.  Bringing in how bad Zionists can be (or whatever else) is a red-herring.

Unclear what you point is here.  

If a Muslim today were to strive to literally copy Muhammad's life, then due to the reflective process, motivation, etc. involved, his life would be further from Muhammad's life than a Muslim who works a desk job and eats pork rinds.

Nicolas, with all due respect, what the heck are you talking about?! This makes me think you have only a vague concept of Islam. According to you, a Muslim who strives to imitate the deeds and character of Muhammad would be a worse Muslim than the ones who disobey the Quran and disregard the example of Muhammad?    Either you give me Surahs or Hadith to back this up, or I will have to dismiss it as nonsense.  Islam means submission.  It's not some new-age reflective self-help book.  

This understanding of Islam is so backwards, that either you drop it entirely, or there is no point dialoging with you.
« Last Edit: January 29, 2015, 08:08:27 AM by john_mo »
Love is not blind; that is the last thing that it is. Love is bound; and the more it is bound the less it is blind.

—G.K. Chesterton

Offline jewish voice

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 881
  • Faith: Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Still dont know yet
Re: Is Salafism/Wahabbism the most authentic Islam?
« Reply #99 on: January 29, 2015, 11:12:46 AM »
Also, how much slaving, warring, child-molesting did Paul do?
Unfortunately child brides were rather common back then (as they are in many parts of the world today.) Including in ancient Israel. Including a famous saint we know about, who we might not want to call a potential child molester whose molestation was only averted by divine intervention. Or we could; but we have to be consistent. One can be a Muslim and believe that child brides and warfare are wrong (perhaps use a "concession to the times" argument just like we do for OT stuff) just as one can be a Jew and believe that warfare is wrong, that zionism is wrong. You may not find that consistent according to your reading of their religions, but it's do-able, and has often been done.

I don't know if you realize it, but you continue to throw standard pro-islam defenses at me, all of which just don't follow.  For example, you brought up Paul and how we must imitate him.  I then ask how much slaving, warring and child-molesting Paul did (in comparison to Mohammad).  You ignore the slaving and the warring part and focus on the "St. Joseph married Marry when she was young" defense.   By now others have already pointed out that Joseph didn't have intercourse with Mary, so point refuted.  I would like to add that Mary would have only been about 14 years old.  Muhammad had sex with a 9-year-old.  The age difference is huge.  One is a teenager, the other is a child.

Because their scriptures and the Quran tell them to do it…
That doesn't mean they don't try to understand why.

Um… okay, granted.  The point remains that they must follow the Quran, and the example of Muhammad.  Thus what the former says and what the latter did is important to the religion.  Also, their religion has obedience as the bottom line.  

How on earth am I doing that?
By the questions you ask, and do not ask. By the words you use, and do not use, of course.

Then tell me what is wrong with my methodology.  You keep saying how question begging it is, but haven't told me which question it begs.  Again, here is my argument:
1) Muslims are required to follow the Quran and imitate the example of Muhammad (whom they believe to be sinless and the perfect example).
2) The Quran instructs wife-beating and Muhammad was a child molester, a slaver, and was a warlord, and a bully of other faiths, etc. etc.
3) Therefore it is permissible, (if not required) for Muslims to do the things described in premise 2.
Now explain to me why this criteria is wrong.  It is entirely falsifiable.  If you won't engage with this argument, then I think it's best if we end this.

Irrelevant.  I could answer yes or no, and it wouldn’t change the pickle that Islam is in.  Again, it's Islam compared to Islam.
This is an artificial restriction we won't abide by in this thread.

And who is "we"? Sorry, but I started this thread and it was clear we are comparing Islam with Islam.  Bringing in how bad Zionists can be (or whatever else) is a red-herring.

Unclear what you point is here.  

If a Muslim today were to strive to literally copy Muhammad's life, then due to the reflective process, motivation, etc. involved, his life would be further from Muhammad's life than a Muslim who works a desk job and eats pork rinds.

Nicolas, with all due respect, what the heck are you talking about?! This makes me think you have only a vague concept of Islam. According to you, a Muslim who strives to imitate the deeds and character of Muhammad would be a worse Muslim than the ones who disobey the Quran and disregard the example of Muhammad?    Either you give me Surahs or Hadith to back this up, or I will have to dismiss it as nonsense.  Islam means submission.  It's not some new-age reflective self-help book.  

This understanding of Islam is so backwards, that either you drop it entirely, or there is no point dialoging with you.
just so you know God/ Jesus never banned slavery. Jesus said you must obey your master in good cheer. So that point is mute. As for Waring um Jesus never did away with that either hence the battle before judgement day. Blood to be up to bridal of a horse. Horses go 16 to 18 hands high sure is a lot of blood Jesus is going to spill yo. I'm guessing mosse and muhammad will look like amateurs.

Offline Pravoslavac

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 642
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Serbian Orthodox Church
Re: Is Salafism/Wahabbism the most authentic Islam?
« Reply #100 on: January 29, 2015, 11:32:51 AM »
Forgive me if there have been too many Islam threads as of late, but I couldn't find one that dealt with this topic directly.
  
For those who don't know, Wahabbism is  basically the derogatory for Salafism, which is itself a school of Islam where extremist Islamic ideology comes from.  At its heart, it shuns the type of Islam that lead to the Islamic Golden Age, preferring instead to get back to the no-frills roots of Islam; No western education. No philosophizing, just try to live your life as the first Muslim's did; lots of prayer, lots of violence.  

I've noticed in the news that almost no one has been trying to differentiate between the Islamic ideologies.  All we here of are "moderates" and "extremists".  I have heard a small handful of talking heads say that the problem is with Salafists.  Elephant in the room: it appears that the Salafists are doing just what they claim to do; live life like Mohammed and the early Caliphate did.  At least moreso than the "moderates".

I've been doing my own research into the matter.  At the moment I would say that Mohammed's life was that of an extremist.  Not as bad as ISIS or Boko, but far far away from the Islam of the "just like us" Muslims that we all know and love.

I hope I'm wrong in this, but would be curious to get more input.  I would particularly welcome any insight from those who have studied Islam.


There are a lot wehabbists near town where my grandma lives in Bosnia. Half of them are natives, other half came from Arabia, they are creepy, when some crises show up, they will slaughter us, and they make sure they get help from US/NATO, just like in 1990s.
You pushed away the severe storm!
You made us believe comrade Kim Jong Il!
We are unable to live without you
Our country is unable to survive without you!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yne-IsHzne4

Offline john_mo

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 893
Re: Is Salafism/Wahabbism the most authentic Islam?
« Reply #101 on: January 29, 2015, 01:05:45 PM »
Also, how much slaving, warring, child-molesting did Paul do?
Unfortunately child brides were rather common back then (as they are in many parts of the world today.) Including in ancient Israel. Including a famous saint we know about, who we might not want to call a potential child molester whose molestation was only averted by divine intervention. Or we could; but we have to be consistent. One can be a Muslim and believe that child brides and warfare are wrong (perhaps use a "concession to the times" argument just like we do for OT stuff) just as one can be a Jew and believe that warfare is wrong, that zionism is wrong. You may not find that consistent according to your reading of their religions, but it's do-able, and has often been done.

I don't know if you realize it, but you continue to throw standard pro-islam defenses at me, all of which just don't follow.  For example, you brought up Paul and how we must imitate him.  I then ask how much slaving, warring and child-molesting Paul did (in comparison to Mohammad).  You ignore the slaving and the warring part and focus on the "St. Joseph married Marry when she was young" defense.   By now others have already pointed out that Joseph didn't have intercourse with Mary, so point refuted.  I would like to add that Mary would have only been about 14 years old.  Muhammad had sex with a 9-year-old.  The age difference is huge.  One is a teenager, the other is a child.

Because their scriptures and the Quran tell them to do it…
That doesn't mean they don't try to understand why.

Um… okay, granted.  The point remains that they must follow the Quran, and the example of Muhammad.  Thus what the former says and what the latter did is important to the religion.  Also, their religion has obedience as the bottom line.  

How on earth am I doing that?
By the questions you ask, and do not ask. By the words you use, and do not use, of course.

Then tell me what is wrong with my methodology.  You keep saying how question begging it is, but haven't told me which question it begs.  Again, here is my argument:
1) Muslims are required to follow the Quran and imitate the example of Muhammad (whom they believe to be sinless and the perfect example).
2) The Quran instructs wife-beating and Muhammad was a child molester, a slaver, and was a warlord, and a bully of other faiths, etc. etc.
3) Therefore it is permissible, (if not required) for Muslims to do the things described in premise 2.
Now explain to me why this criteria is wrong.  It is entirely falsifiable.  If you won't engage with this argument, then I think it's best if we end this.

Irrelevant.  I could answer yes or no, and it wouldn’t change the pickle that Islam is in.  Again, it's Islam compared to Islam.
This is an artificial restriction we won't abide by in this thread.

And who is "we"? Sorry, but I started this thread and it was clear we are comparing Islam with Islam.  Bringing in how bad Zionists can be (or whatever else) is a red-herring.

Unclear what you point is here.  

If a Muslim today were to strive to literally copy Muhammad's life, then due to the reflective process, motivation, etc. involved, his life would be further from Muhammad's life than a Muslim who works a desk job and eats pork rinds.

Nicolas, with all due respect, what the heck are you talking about?! This makes me think you have only a vague concept of Islam. According to you, a Muslim who strives to imitate the deeds and character of Muhammad would be a worse Muslim than the ones who disobey the Quran and disregard the example of Muhammad?    Either you give me Surahs or Hadith to back this up, or I will have to dismiss it as nonsense.  Islam means submission.  It's not some new-age reflective self-help book.  

This understanding of Islam is so backwards, that either you drop it entirely, or there is no point dialoging with you.
just so you know God/ Jesus never banned slavery. Jesus said you must obey your master in good cheer. So that point is mute. As for Waring um Jesus never did away with that either hence the battle before judgement day. Blood to be up to bridal of a horse. Horses go 16 to 18 hands high sure is a lot of blood Jesus is going to spill yo. I'm guessing mosse and muhammad will look like amateurs.

I'm sure others can point out what's wrong with this post.  As for me, I am getting tired of yelling from the rooftops, that this thread is about Islam compared to Islam and not Islam compared to anything under the sun that isn't Islam!! 
Love is not blind; that is the last thing that it is. Love is bound; and the more it is bound the less it is blind.

—G.K. Chesterton

Offline orthonorm

  • Hoplitarches
  • *************
  • Posts: 17,304
Re: Is Salafism/Wahabbism the most authentic Islam?
« Reply #102 on: January 29, 2015, 07:30:44 PM »
Also, how much slaving, warring, child-molesting did Paul do?
Unfortunately child brides were rather common back then (as they are in many parts of the world today.) Including in ancient Israel. Including a famous saint we know about, who we might not want to call a potential child molester whose molestation was only averted by divine intervention. Or we could; but we have to be consistent. One can be a Muslim and believe that child brides and warfare are wrong (perhaps use a "concession to the times" argument just like we do for OT stuff) just as one can be a Jew and believe that warfare is wrong, that zionism is wrong. You may not find that consistent according to your reading of their religions, but it's do-able, and has often been done.

I don't know if you realize it, but you continue to throw standard pro-islam defenses at me, all of which just don't follow.  For example, you brought up Paul and how we must imitate him.  I then ask how much slaving, warring and child-molesting Paul did (in comparison to Mohammad).  You ignore the slaving and the warring part and focus on the "St. Joseph married Marry when she was young" defense.   By now others have already pointed out that Joseph didn't have intercourse with Mary, so point refuted.  I would like to add that Mary would have only been about 14 years old.  Muhammad had sex with a 9-year-old.  The age difference is huge.  One is a teenager, the other is a child.

Because their scriptures and the Quran tell them to do it…
That doesn't mean they don't try to understand why.

Um… okay, granted.  The point remains that they must follow the Quran, and the example of Muhammad.  Thus what the former says and what the latter did is important to the religion.  Also, their religion has obedience as the bottom line.  

How on earth am I doing that?
By the questions you ask, and do not ask. By the words you use, and do not use, of course.

Then tell me what is wrong with my methodology.  You keep saying how question begging it is, but haven't told me which question it begs.  Again, here is my argument:
1) Muslims are required to follow the Quran and imitate the example of Muhammad (whom they believe to be sinless and the perfect example).
2) The Quran instructs wife-beating and Muhammad was a child molester, a slaver, and was a warlord, and a bully of other faiths, etc. etc.
3) Therefore it is permissible, (if not required) for Muslims to do the things described in premise 2.
Now explain to me why this criteria is wrong.  It is entirely falsifiable.  If you won't engage with this argument, then I think it's best if we end this.

Irrelevant.  I could answer yes or no, and it wouldn’t change the pickle that Islam is in.  Again, it's Islam compared to Islam.
This is an artificial restriction we won't abide by in this thread.

And who is "we"? Sorry, but I started this thread and it was clear we are comparing Islam with Islam.  Bringing in how bad Zionists can be (or whatever else) is a red-herring.

Unclear what you point is here.  

If a Muslim today were to strive to literally copy Muhammad's life, then due to the reflective process, motivation, etc. involved, his life would be further from Muhammad's life than a Muslim who works a desk job and eats pork rinds.

Nicolas, with all due respect, what the heck are you talking about?! This makes me think you have only a vague concept of Islam. According to you, a Muslim who strives to imitate the deeds and character of Muhammad would be a worse Muslim than the ones who disobey the Quran and disregard the example of Muhammad?    Either you give me Surahs or Hadith to back this up, or I will have to dismiss it as nonsense.  Islam means submission.  It's not some new-age reflective self-help book.  

This understanding of Islam is so backwards, that either you drop it entirely, or there is no point dialoging with you.
just so you know God/ Jesus never banned slavery. Jesus said you must obey your master in good cheer. So that point is mute. As for Waring um Jesus never did away with that either hence the battle before judgement day. Blood to be up to bridal of a horse. Horses go 16 to 18 hands high sure is a lot of blood Jesus is going to spill yo. I'm guessing mosse and muhammad will look like amateurs.

I'm sure others can point out what's wrong with this post.  As for me, I am getting tired of yelling from the rooftops, that this thread is about Islam compared to Islam and not Islam compared to anything under the sun that isn't Islam!! 

Again you fail to understand your most radical mistake, you assume Islam is some totality in isolation. You are actually suffering under the same misunderstanding of some of the Muslims you likely dislike.

Islam is no totality. Allah is not without partners.

Really, if you don't believe that, then you just might have more in common with those Muslims than you think.
If you have PMed me, the mods have taken my ability to PM away. Please see my email if you wish to contact me during my time of trial.

Offline Volnutt

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,145
  • Faith: Spiritually homeless
Re: Is Salafism/Wahabbism the most authentic Islam?
« Reply #103 on: January 29, 2015, 09:21:15 PM »
Are you referring to the betrothal or the marriage? I don't remember St. Joseph knowing about the incarnation before the betrothal. Is that one of the fun things in the Protoevangelium? ::)



http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0847.htm

Quote
And the priest said to Joseph, You have been chosen by lot to take into your keeping the virgin of the Lord. But Joseph refused, saying: I have children, and I am an old man, and she is a young girl. I am afraid lest I become a laughing-stock to the sons of Israel. And the priest said to Joseph: Fear the Lord your God, and remember what the Lord did to Dathan, and Abiram, and Korah; how the earth opened, and they were swallowed up on account of their contradiction. And now fear, O Joseph, lest the same things happen in your house. And Joseph was afraid, and took her into his keeping. And Joseph said to Mary: Behold, I have received you from the temple of the Lord; and now I leave you in my house, and go away to build my buildings, and I shall come to you. The Lord will protect you.

Kind of ambiguous.


I'm not too hard on Santa Monica, personally. She didn't know any better and it's not like the kid would have been used and discarded like a child prostitute. Age of consent laws are an (important) modern protective measure against predation and exploitation, not an ordinance from God.

Offline john_mo

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 893
Re: Is Salafism/Wahabbism the most authentic Islam?
« Reply #104 on: February 01, 2015, 05:02:01 PM »
Also, how much slaving, warring, child-molesting did Paul do?
Unfortunately child brides were rather common back then (as they are in many parts of the world today.) Including in ancient Israel. Including a famous saint we know about, who we might not want to call a potential child molester whose molestation was only averted by divine intervention. Or we could; but we have to be consistent. One can be a Muslim and believe that child brides and warfare are wrong (perhaps use a "concession to the times" argument just like we do for OT stuff) just as one can be a Jew and believe that warfare is wrong, that zionism is wrong. You may not find that consistent according to your reading of their religions, but it's do-able, and has often been done.

I don't know if you realize it, but you continue to throw standard pro-islam defenses at me, all of which just don't follow.  For example, you brought up Paul and how we must imitate him.  I then ask how much slaving, warring and child-molesting Paul did (in comparison to Mohammad).  You ignore the slaving and the warring part and focus on the "St. Joseph married Marry when she was young" defense.   By now others have already pointed out that Joseph didn't have intercourse with Mary, so point refuted.  I would like to add that Mary would have only been about 14 years old.  Muhammad had sex with a 9-year-old.  The age difference is huge.  One is a teenager, the other is a child.

Because their scriptures and the Quran tell them to do it…
That doesn't mean they don't try to understand why.

Um… okay, granted.  The point remains that they must follow the Quran, and the example of Muhammad.  Thus what the former says and what the latter did is important to the religion.  Also, their religion has obedience as the bottom line.  

How on earth am I doing that?
By the questions you ask, and do not ask. By the words you use, and do not use, of course.

Then tell me what is wrong with my methodology.  You keep saying how question begging it is, but haven't told me which question it begs.  Again, here is my argument:
1) Muslims are required to follow the Quran and imitate the example of Muhammad (whom they believe to be sinless and the perfect example).
2) The Quran instructs wife-beating and Muhammad was a child molester, a slaver, and was a warlord, and a bully of other faiths, etc. etc.
3) Therefore it is permissible, (if not required) for Muslims to do the things described in premise 2.
Now explain to me why this criteria is wrong.  It is entirely falsifiable.  If you won't engage with this argument, then I think it's best if we end this.

Irrelevant.  I could answer yes or no, and it wouldn’t change the pickle that Islam is in.  Again, it's Islam compared to Islam.
This is an artificial restriction we won't abide by in this thread.

And who is "we"? Sorry, but I started this thread and it was clear we are comparing Islam with Islam.  Bringing in how bad Zionists can be (or whatever else) is a red-herring.

Unclear what you point is here.  

If a Muslim today were to strive to literally copy Muhammad's life, then due to the reflective process, motivation, etc. involved, his life would be further from Muhammad's life than a Muslim who works a desk job and eats pork rinds.

Nicolas, with all due respect, what the heck are you talking about?! This makes me think you have only a vague concept of Islam. According to you, a Muslim who strives to imitate the deeds and character of Muhammad would be a worse Muslim than the ones who disobey the Quran and disregard the example of Muhammad?    Either you give me Surahs or Hadith to back this up, or I will have to dismiss it as nonsense.  Islam means submission.  It's not some new-age reflective self-help book.  

This understanding of Islam is so backwards, that either you drop it entirely, or there is no point dialoging with you.
just so you know God/ Jesus never banned slavery. Jesus said you must obey your master in good cheer. So that point is mute. As for Waring um Jesus never did away with that either hence the battle before judgement day. Blood to be up to bridal of a horse. Horses go 16 to 18 hands high sure is a lot of blood Jesus is going to spill yo. I'm guessing mosse and muhammad will look like amateurs.

I'm sure others can point out what's wrong with this post.  As for me, I am getting tired of yelling from the rooftops, that this thread is about Islam compared to Islam and not Islam compared to anything under the sun that isn't Islam!! 

Again you fail to understand your most radical mistake, you assume Islam is some totality in isolation. You are actually suffering under the same misunderstanding of some of the Muslims you likely dislike.

Islam is no totality. Allah is not without partners.

Really, if you don't believe that, then you just might have more in common with those Muslims than you think.

Thanks, I think I see now what you meant when you said I was question begging.  Still, you are mistaken.  Me saying "compare Islam to Islam" was just to differentiate between all the forced Islam vs Christianity/Judaism comparisons.  Really it's comparing any form of Islam to the first form of Islam.

In the meantime I have posted my criteria, which is rather explicit:

1) Muslims are required to follow the Quran and imitate the example of Muhammad (whom they believe to be sinless and the perfect example).

2) The Quran instructs wife-beating and Muhammad was a child molester, a slaver, and was a warlord, and a bully of other faiths, etc. etc.

3) Therefore it is permissible, (if not required) for Muslims to do the things described in premise 2.

Now explain to me why this criteria is wrong.  It is entirely falsifiable.  If you won't engage with this argument, then I think it's best if we end this.

^ is where I've been trying to steer the discussion, but so far no one has really challenged it.
Love is not blind; that is the last thing that it is. Love is bound; and the more it is bound the less it is blind.

—G.K. Chesterton