So I just discovered this about Islam

[jmdrake]

This is what you said:

Applying this logic to Muslims is the fallacy ad hominem circumstantial. It is a logical fallacy, therefore any conclusion based on a perceived bias is not a rational conclusion.

Seriously Muwahid, you're not helping your case. It's not an attack on Muslims to suggest that anyone, Muslim, Christian, or otherwise, has a motive to slant history his own way. You are making the circular reasoning fallacy. I should accept Islam as being true because Muslims say it's true. To be fair some Christians do the same thing. (The Bible is true because the Bible says it's true and/or some ancient Christian historians say it's true.) That's great for other Christians. Not so great for skeptics.

I can also see that you're desperately trying to sway the conversation in another direction because you failed to construct a naturalistic substantiated theory to how the Qur'an was made with all the facts we know about it.

Actually the burden of proof is on you Muwahid. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. And your claim is ridiculously extraordinary.

As for you trying to prove Jews lived in Mecca, I didn't say there were none. Waraqa bin Naufal could be considered a Messianic Jew, but there were no major Jewish tribes. The source doesn't say Jews lived in Mecca, it says Mecca encountered Jews due to it's trading routes, which is also true. None of this correlates to Muhammad being in contact with Jewish/Christian scholar(s) for decades to learn the Abrahamic scriptures. (all done in total secret). (this makes it more complex because the people involved with teaching Muhammad would need to have nefarious intent as well, it's not as simple as just finding a scriptural scholar to teach you).

Okay:

1) You're just lying now. One of the sources I quoted said there was a Jewish cemetery in Mecca. People don't have cemeteries in places that they just "pass through".

2) Let's say Jews simply passed through in the course of trade. That's enough for Mohammed to have heard the stories of Abraham.

3) I'm glad you've admitted that Waraqa was a messianic Jew, meaning he knew both of Abraham and of Jesus. He could have taught Mohammed the stories.

4) Considering that Mohammed first worked for Khadija as a trader, he very well could have gone to Medina. In fact it's known that he went to Syria which at the time had both a Jewish and a Christian community.

From a Muslim source.

http://www.al-islam.org/restatement...r-razwy/marriage-muhammad-mustafa-and-khadija
When Muhammad was 25 years old, his uncle and guardian, Abu Talib, suggested to Khadija, with his tacit understanding, that she appoint him as her agent in one of her caravans, which was ready to leave for Syria just then.

5) In fact, according to the same Muslim source, Mohammed lived in a Syrian monastery at one point as a child.

http://www.al-islam.org/life-muhammad-prophet-sayyid-saeed-akhtar-rizvi/early-years
Abu Talib had succeeded 'Abdul-Muttalib in Siqayah and Rifadah and was an active participant in the trade caravans. When Muhammad (s.a.w.a.) was 12 years old, Abu Talib bade farewell to his family to go to Syria. Muhammad (s.a.w.a.) clung to him and cried. Abu Talib was so moved that he took the child with him. When the caravan reached Busra in Syria they, as usual, stayed near the monastery of a monk, Buhayra.

6) You're claim that Mohammed's exposure to Judaism and Christianity doesn't matter unless there was "nefarious intent" on the part of the Jews and Christians is beyond stupid. Why would it require them to have nefarious intent to share their stories with him? Now if he later claimed to be given those stories by Gabriel, when he actually heard them from other humans, that would be nefarious intent on HIS part! Really, you have engaged in ad hominem against the Jews and Christians Mohammed clearly met (including one you just admitted he met) before he had his "revelations."

7) The other ad hominem is your insistence that my limited knowledge of Islam matters. It doesn't. Again, the burden of proof is on you. For your initial claim, that the stories of Abraham and Christ must have come from a supernatural source, is false. I don't have to use any source at this point but you to show it is false. Mohammed was exposed to people that knew those stories prior to his "revelation". Maybe they never told him anything of their beliefs, maybe they did. The smart money is on the theory that they did.

 

[jmdrake]

Let me explain...

- A whimsical, spur of the moment thread is made.
- Thread turns into some boring religious debate between an apparent Muslim and an apparent Christian.
- Seizing the opportunity, he plays off the high intelligence/cunning/playful mischievous of the crow hinting that this was the plan all along.
- he then posts a pic of The Morrigan- the Goddess of war and death to insinuate that she sent her crows to whip up a religious forum war.

How could you not get that?

LOL. Well played.

 

[Muwahid]

Lol jmdrake, funny meme's wont save you now. You've insinuated that we can ignore (or not take seriously) what's found in Muslim compiled hadiths, because Muslims may want to slant history. Here is a page explaining ad hominem circumstantial http://www.logicallyfallacious.com/index.php/logical-fallacies/11-ad-hominem-circumstantial

Because it appears you think ad hominem just means an insult, and that's really classified as ad hominem abusive (not circumstantial) in logic.

I'm also not using circular logic. I'm citing Muslim sources, that Khadijah wasn't a Christian. If that's circular logic in your mind you've really got some soul searching to do.

I can explain logical fallacies to you further if you're still confused.

Actually the burden of proof is on you Muwahid. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. And your claim is ridiculously extraordinary.

I've given my reasoning based on accepted facts from not just Muslims but orientalists and historians.
- Muhammad was not literate
- Muhammad was not known to be a poet
- Muhammad was not known to be a linguist
- Muhammad is not known to have had any formal theological training
- Muhammad was not known to be a magician

You can look through even western scholars and find none of them make extraordinary claims like he had some catholic wife who taught him everything, or Waraqa taught him everything... there's no proof for it, and there's only proof to the contrary.

Your job is to construct a naturalistic theory substantiated by accepted historical facts to say it's logical to assume he could have done it on his own. I'm asking you to construct an inductive argument against mine. Mine has been cited, mine is based on accepted historical facts. I've yet to see a single citation from you that even mattered.

~

Now for your seven points

1 - How am I lying? What were the large Jewish tribes named in Mecca then? We know the tribes Muhammad interacted with. The Jewish tribes were Yethribi. A cemetery is not indicative of a vibrant Jewish community in Mecca.

2 - Muhammad ص had scholarly knowledge of the prophets and messengers. There's about two dozen prophets and messengers mentioned in the Qur'an, but we can also find very lengthy hadiths giving more detailed stories of the prophets. This isn't something you learn when a Jew stays in the oasis for a couple days, and again no records of him ever doing this either.

3 - Everyone knows Waraqa was an Ebionite. But Waraqa died right after Muhammad became a prophet, and he was old and blind during this time. So 15 years later when Qur'an is still being revealed who is telling Muhammad? Waraqa's ghost?

4 - So while Muhammad was on the clock he spent all that time learning from Jewish scholars? Lol. Besides many of the Jews hated Muhammad ص in Medina, especially when he came back after the Hijrah, we saw no accusations of learning from them.

5 - Billah 3layk what's your definition of living in a monastery? Is that some kind of a joke? and he was TWELVE your own source says. Do you even know the story of Baheera the monk? It doesn't work in your favor. Baheera was a Nestorian Christian, who upon seeing Muhammad as a child proclaimed him to be the next prophet of God.

6 - Nefarious intent because anyone feeding him such information, would see he has created a new religion, which would make the complicit in the act. He could have only really learned in Mecca, where he lived all of his life, and where Islam was revealed for a decade. So someone in Mecca (a biblical scholar) would have had to had taught him, and watched him reveal his new religion.

7 - So you don't need knowledge of Islam to debate Islam?

You keep saying burden of proof was on me. But i've already made my case, and you've tried several times to posit theories against it, all were based on ahistorical events (i.e., Khadijah apparently was a Christian nun! Unbeknownst to... everyone else in the world)

When you realized you didn't have any sources to prove your point (because they don't exist) you start saying my hadiths are not independent sources, and the burden of proof is on me, well why jmdrake did you even attempt to posit theories against mine, if the burden of proof was on me?

Your argument is collapsing in on itself.

 

[jmdrake]

Lol jmdrake, funny meme's wont save you now. You've insinuated that we can ignore (or not take seriously) what's found in Muslim compiled hadiths, because Muslims may want to slant history. Here is a page explaining ad hominem circumstantial http://www.logicallyfallacious.com/index.php/logical-fallacies/11-ad-hominem-circumstantial

I see that you didn't even read your own link. Or maybe English isn't your strong point. I'll cut and paste the relevant part for you.

Person 1 is claiming Y.
Person 1 has a vested interest in Y being true.
Therefore, Y is false.

Here is where your logic and reason breaks down. I didn't say that the hadiths were necessarily false. I said the weren't independent. Let's put what you linked to in the form of what I actually said.

Person 1 is claiming Y.
Person 1 has a vested interest in Y being true.
Therefore, Y has not been independently verified.

Now let's take the other example and turn it around to your fallacy. Here is your example.

Salesman: This car gets better than average gas mileage and is one of the most reliable cars according to Consumer Reports.

Will: I doubt it—you obviously just want to sell me that car.

Now here is how you are using it.

Salesman: This car gets better than average gas mileage and is one of the most reliable cars according to Consumer our INTERNAL Reports.

Will: You obviously just want to sell me that car. Do you have any independent reports like Consumer reports?

Salesman: You dare question my integrity? That is an ad hominem! You can't say that this car isn't a good car just because I said it was a good car!

Will: I didn't say that. I said that your information isn't independently verified.

Salesman: How dare you question the integrity of our internal car inspection staff! Infidel!

Will: SMH!

Because it appears you think ad hominem just means an insult, and that's really classified as ad hominem abusive (not circumstantial) in logic.

No. I know ad hominem means attack the source. I haven't attacked the source in a way that is not relevant to the discussion. I have not done that. I've pointed out that the source is not independent. And it's not.

I'm also not using circular logic. I'm citing Muslim sources, that Khadijah wasn't a Christian. If that's circular logic in your mind you've really got some soul searching to do.

A) Yes you are using circular logic.
B) I'm not still talking about whether or not Khadijah was Christian. I don't care. The ultimate point, that has now been proven to anyone with a lick of sense, is that Mohammed was exposed to the stories of Abraham and Christ before he had a single "revelation."

I can explain logical fallacies to you further if you're still confused.

I'm not confused. You are.

I've given my reasoning based on accepted facts from not just Muslims but orientalists and historians.
- Muhammad was not literate
- Muhammad was not known to be a poet
- Muhammad was not known to be a linguist
- Muhammad is not known to have had any formal theological training
- Muhammad was not known to be a magician

- Mohammed knew about Christianity and Judaism before any revelations.
- Mohammed had literate companions.
- Mohammed had multilingual companions.
- These companions "compiled" (or wrote) the Koran.

You can look through even western scholars and find none of them make extraordinary claims like he had some catholic wife who taught him everything, or Waraqa taught him everything... there's no proof for it, and there's only proof to the contrary.

Oh I'm sure Waraqa didn't teach him the Arabic mythology (jinns) that got blended into the Koran because that's not Christian or Jewish in origin. That doesn't mean someone else couldn't have taught him that.

Your job is to construct a naturalistic theory substantiated by accepted historical facts to say it's logical to assume he could have done it on his own.

Like the fact that Waraqa knew about Jesus and Abraham? Like the fact that the Koran is was translated to multiple languages means nothing since you already admitted his companions are the ones that wrote it all down anyway? You think his companions were incapable of writing down anything but Arabic without Mohammed's help? Like the fact that Mohammed spent time in a Catholic monastery when he was 12?

I'm asking you to construct an inductive argument against mine. Mine has been cited, mine is based on accepted historical facts. I've yet to see a single citation from you that even mattered.

And you have no independent citations. That said, what you do cite proves my point.

Now for your seven points

1 - How am I lying? What were the large Jewish tribes named in Mecca then? We know the tribes Muhammad interacted with. The Jewish tribes were Yethribi. A cemetery is not indicative of a vibrant Jewish community in Mecca.

This is a lie on top of a lie. I made not claims about how large the Jewish community was or how vibrant. I simply said that Jews lived in Mecca. According to the source that you accepted:

His home town was Mecca which was located on a route that linked Yemen in the south of the Arab peninsula to Egypt and Damascus in the North. The Jews had lived in this region for centuries, some say even before the destruction of the first Temple others say after the destruction of the second Temple.

Let's say for argument's sake that there were a mere 10 Jews living in Mecca with Mohammed before his "revelations". Considering the fact that Mohammed worked for Khadijah as a merchant, and Jews have a long history of being merchants, he most likely had contact with them.

2 - Muhammad ص had scholarly knowledge of the prophets and messengers. There's about two dozen prophets and messengers mentioned in the Qur'an, but we can also find very lengthy hadiths giving more detailed stories of the prophets. This isn't something you learn when a Jew stays in the oasis for a couple days, and again no records of him ever doing this either.

Except we've already established that Jews were living in Mecca. Furthermore who knows what exposure his companions had with Jews.

3 - Everyone knows Waraqa was an Ebionite. But Waraqa died right after Muhammad became a prophet, and he was old and blind during this time. So 15 years later when Qur'an is still being revealed who is telling Muhammad? Waraqa's ghost?

And Waraqa never taught anything to Khadija? Doubt it.

4 - So while Muhammad was on the clock he spent all that time learning from Jewish scholars? Lol. Besides many of the Jews hated Muhammad ص in Medina, especially when he came back after the Hijrah, we saw no accusations of learning from them.

They hated him in Medina before his "revelations" or after them? And who said anything about when he was "on the clock"? There are 24 hours in a day. Even if Mohammed put in a good 16 hours there was still plenty of time for learning if he cared about learning. Are you suggesting that he was lazy?

5 - Billah 3layk what's your definition of living in a monastery? Is that some kind of a joke? and he was TWELVE your own source says. Do you even know the story of Baheera the monk? It doesn't work in your favor. Baheera was a Nestorian Christian, who upon seeing Muhammad as a child proclaimed him to be the next prophet of God.

A) What difference does my definition of living in a monastery mean? An Islamic source said he lived in a monastery.
B) Some 12 year old children are quite smart. He's a 12 year old boy who memorized the Koran. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YOgWL-qZRlQ He must be a prophet.

6 - Nefarious intent because anyone feeding him such information, would see he has created a new religion, which would make the complicit in the act. He could have only really learned in Mecca, where he lived all of his life, and where Islam was revealed for a decade. So someone in Mecca (a biblical scholar) would have had to had taught him, and watched him reveal his new religion.

Nope. It's not nefarious to feed someone information. You're assuming, without evidence, that someone who might have taught him about Christianity and Judaism wanted him to start a new religion. They might have just thought he was intellectually curious and/or wanted to become a Christian. Really, this is about the silliest argument you have made yet.

7 - So you don't need knowledge of Islam to debate Islam?

Nope. It's called "research". I'm sure at the end of the day you'll still believe what you believe. That's fine. Convince a fool against his will he'll have the same opinion still. But I know now for myself with a certainty that Mohammed at the very least had access to the knowledge of Christianity and Judaism before having a single "revelation."

 

[jmdrake]

Not a fan of Christopher Hitchens. But posting the supposed "supernatural attributes" of the Koran cause no problem for skeptics.

 

[Muwahid]

I'm listening to Hitchens, and It's even hard for me to grasp what he's saying as he butchers the Arabic names he's trying to pronounce :o

His claim about the Qur'an is false either way, the number of Hafiz was not "alarmingly" small, but they did want a way to pass down the Qur'an just in case. I already discussed the two stages of compiling the Qur'an, one under Abu Bakr, and the next under Uthman, and I've explained the reasons why. Hitchen's like most others, does not bring up the different harfs of the Qur'an.

What's more regarding variations in the Qur'an, are what is called qira2aat ('readings') in which pronunciations (which sometimes translates into slightly different spellings of the same words in the Arabic script) are different, but deemed acceptable. So today for example we have hafs and warsh styles of writing/reading the Qur'an.

These two facts, harfs, and qiraa2at explain any variances in the codices, and they are all valid according to Islamic teachings.

As for the hadith issue, he is just factually incorrect. The 600,000 was largely due to repeated transmissions of saheeh hadiths, but many different isnads (which only affirms their credibility).

This means you might have dozens of the same hadith, from different isnads to one narrator (Like Abu Hurayrah) because Abu Hurayrah had students, who then had students, who then had students, and then Bukhari began collecting, and he would have dozens of the same hadith from dozens of different scholars, who transcribed it from their teacher.

This website (one of the few scholarly website that deals with apologetics) will explain it in better detail: http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Hadith/bukhari.html

If you have any concerns with what's written there, please bring it up.

 

[Influenza]

And you thought of that quip all by your lonesome? So tell me this. Do you believe God wrote the Koran or Satan? Because according to Muwhahid those are your only choices. Didn't take you for a Muslim but I guess you're going for your 21 virgins? Or are you just being a dumbass for the sake of it?

lol, I'm not going to respond to you because you are literally fucking retarded

 

[Christian Liberty]

Heavy and unnecessary taxes are forbidden in Islam, the Quraysh used to levy a heavy tax on caravans which passed through Mecca, there was no need for the tax besides greed, so Islam abolished it.

On the flipside as citizens, there's something like an implicit contract we've all signed to abide by the law,

Oh, come on, social contract theory? PuhLease!

There's still no such thing as a "social contract" and taxes are still theft

and can only turn against it forcefully when it starts to becomes impossible to change rationally and it affects our livelihoods greatly. Not sure about your second point maybe!

I agree on the reluctance to use violent force. But how exactly Christians (or Muslims, though I can't answer that question for you at all due to lack of knowledge) should respond to being systematically stolen from is a separate question from acknowledging that it happens.

You've got me racking my brain on this one. Islam, even in the example I gave Kevin allows for the lesser of two evils, meaning something that's typically sinful is permissible given the right intentions. I wouldn't call it utilitarian, because that ideology infers good comes from utility alone, this is more lesser-of-two-evils.

Why choose either evil?

It's a tough question because it's hard to imagine a realistic scenario. Perhaps a driver fell asleep at the wheel, and is barrelling towards a group of school children, do you think quickly and create a barrier to protect the school children knowing it will mean a head on collision for the sleeping driver? My interpretation would be it's the lesser of two evils to create that barrier. Disagree?

I don't really see that as a good example. A driver who is sleeping at the wheel and is spiraling toward schoolchildren may not be a malicious murderer (he probably isn't) but he is still about to commit manslaughter. Despite not realizing it, he is violating the rights of said schoolchildren. Its OK to stop him, whatever that entails.

A better example would be, an out of control train is moving toward five people who are tied to a train track. There is no way to stop the train in time, but you can pull a lever which will cause the track to switch and hit only one innocent who is tied to the track. Do you pull it? I would say that if you do (despite obvious mitigating factors) would still be an act of murder.

The main problem is how this question is framed however. The insinuation Islam allows Muslims to lie non-Muslims is false, the religion of the oppressing party does not matter, its a matter of coercion. Many have come to the conclusion Muslims are allowed to lie while proselytizing in order to attain new converts which is false.

If we're going to look at this on a philosophical level then it's a valid doctrinal question, I agree.

We have to remember that God is omnibenevolent, God allowing one lie under coercion is an aspect of this, if you remain firm, as many of the martyrs had-- there is extra reward for you.

But why should you lie under coercion? Shouldn't we be living for the next life rather than this one? Mind you, its a separate question if you want to ask whether a believer CAN lie (and I would say that it is in fact possible) but that doesn't mean they should.

And you thought of that quip all by your lonesome? So tell me this. Do you believe God wrote the Koran or Satan? Because according to Muwhahid those are your only choices. Didn't take you for a Muslim but I guess you're going for your 21 virgins? Or are you just being a dumbass for the sake of it?

Why can't I say Muhammad wrote the Qu'ran?

 

[Muwahid]

Oh, come on, social contract theory? PuhLease!

There's still no such thing as a "social contract" and taxes are still theft

I've been reading Rousseau lately :o Don't hold it against me.

I agree on the reluctance to use violent force. But how exactly Christians (or Muslims, though I can't answer that question for you at all due to lack of knowledge) should respond to being systematically stolen from is a separate question from acknowledging that it happens.

If you believe in absolute morality, and turning the other cheek... could you ever do anything? And for Christians, what Paul said about authority and even taxes. How would libertarian leaning Christians interpret Paul's words?

Romans:

This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God’s servants, who give their full time to governing. 7 Give to everyone what you owe them: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor.

Why choose either evil?

I believe mitigating as much harm as possible is a noble act. See I'm not sure how Christians rationalize the law of God, but for Muslims we are allowed to for example use a drug that will intoxicate is if it's for a medical purpose. The general principle is it's haram, but because of the context, we're allowed.

I don't really see that as a good example. A driver who is sleeping at the wheel and is spiraling toward schoolchildren may not be a malicious murderer (he probably isn't) but he is still about to commit manslaughter. Despite not realizing it, he is violating the rights of said schoolchildren. Its OK to stop him, whatever that entails.

A better example would be, an out of control train is moving toward five people who are tied to a train track. There is no way to stop the train in time, but you can pull a lever which will cause the track to switch and hit only one innocent who is tied to the track. Do you pull it? I would say that if you do (despite obvious mitigating factors) would still be an act of murder.

Hmm, are you not complicit if you see harm being done, but do nothing to stop it?

But why should you lie under coercion? Shouldn't we be living for the next life rather than this one? Mind you, its a separate question if you want to ask whether a believer CAN lie (and I would say that it is in fact possible) but that doesn't mean they should.

The ones who do choose the next life, and become sacrificed are the highest of believers. But God knows our affinity to cling to life, he made us like this, and therefore is forgiving when we opt for this.

There are other cases too... if you're leading an army into battle, but want to die for God to be a martyr and charge the enemy carelessly hoping to die for God... you may have just lost the battle for your people, your people may then be taken captive, abused, tortured, raped, etc. So in some cases it may be preferable in the eyes of God that your actions always consider your fellow man, and sometimes lying to keep yourself alive may result in a net benefit for mankind.

 

[Christian Liberty]

I've been reading Rousseau lately :o Don't hold it against me.

lol! I won't hold it against you Most people, including most Christians, seem to believe in social contract theory for some reason, but I don't really understand it.

Are there any Muslim anarcho-capitalists, and are Muslims allowed to be anarcho-capitalists? Mind you, I know that's going to be a complicated question, but I'm curious what your take on it is.

If you believe in absolute morality, and turning the other cheek... could you ever do anything?

I'd say yes, because turning the other cheek is primarily dealing with insults rather than acts of lethal violence. Although, Jesus also says that those who live by the sword will die by it. I'd be VERY careful in reaching for the sword, and would resort to peaceful methods first.

And for Christians, what Paul said about authority and even taxes. How would libertarian leaning Christians interpret Paul's words?

Romans:

I tried doing a quick search for erowe1's posts on this topic, but I wasn't able to find them easily. I'll keep looking. If you can find those, those are probably the best answers.

Speaking for libertarian Christians in general, interpretations I have heard include:

1. That this is discussing an ideal government, not demanding obedience to wicked and unjust governments (I dislike this interpretation because it requires allowing for some State and some taxation as legitimate)

2. That this is a command to obey the State even though it is unjust (unless it commands you to sin)

3. That this is pragmatic advice regarding dealing with an oppressive situation, rather than an absolute moral command (I lean toward this interpretation. I think erowe1 does to, but I could be misremembering. Either way he is probably right.)

4. That this passage is really talking about church authorities, rather than the government (I don't know how the sword in Romans 13:4 works with this interpretation. I just learned about it from someone in an email. I will probably know the answer soon.)




One interpretation that I don't really think any libertarian, even a minarchist one, could take is that this passage is talking about what governments "normally" or "typically" do, but many non-libertarian Christians would take an interpretation like that as well. I'll be honest, I see Romans 13 as tricky and difficult to interpret for a lot of different reasons. In my opinion interpretation #3 is the best one, though I held to a variation of #1 until very recently, and I've gone back and forth between them.

I believe mitigating as much harm as possible is a noble act. See I'm not sure how Christians rationalize the law of God, but for Muslims we are allowed to for example use a drug that will intoxicate is if it's for a medical purpose. The general principle is it's haram, but because of the context, we're allowed.

I don't see that as immoral either. The goal isn't to get drunk/high, it is to heal your body.

Hmm, are you not complicit if you see harm being done, but do nothing to stop it?

I'd say that doing nothing is the only moral option where the alternative is to do evil. I get very frustrated with Christians who disagree with me on that point, and it leads to rationalizing foreign policy interventionism where they think more lives will be saved. It doesn't matter that they are actually wrong, the point is that humans even think they have the right to decide. Its disgusting.

The ones who do choose the next life, and become sacrificed are the highest of believers. But God knows our affinity to cling to life, he made us like this, and therefore is forgiving when we opt for this.

There are other cases too... if you're leading an army into battle, but want to die for God to be a martyr and charge the enemy carelessly hoping to die for God... you may have just lost the battle for your people, your people may then be taken captive, abused, tortured, raped, etc. So in some cases it may be preferable in the eyes of God that your actions always consider your fellow man, and sometimes lying to keep yourself alive may result in a net benefit for mankind.

Fair enough. As a theological issue, I'm still not convinced, but I think the majority of Christians would agree with you. I'm still working through it.

 

[Muwahid]

lol! I won't hold it against you Most people, including most Christians, seem to believe in social contract theory for some reason, but I don't really understand it.

Are there any Muslim anarcho-capitalists, and are Muslims allowed to be anarcho-capitalists? Mind you, I know that's going to be a complicated question, but I'm curious what your take on it is.

As a general philosophy I'd say no, because Muslims are commanded to follow their ameer (leader) on certain orders. It's what we call fardh 'ayn (personal obligations; i.e., not really enforced by the state), so if the ameer came and rallied the Muslims to defend the state because of an imminent threat, it becomes fardh ayn to join the battle.

I tried doing a quick search for erowe1's posts on this topic, but I wasn't able to find them easily. I'll keep looking. If you can find those, those are probably the best answers.

Speaking for libertarian Christians in general, interpretations I have heard include:

1. That this is discussing an ideal government, not demanding obedience to wicked and unjust governments (I dislike this interpretation because it requires allowing for some State and some taxation as legitimate)

2. That this is a command to obey the State even though it is unjust (unless it commands you to sin)

3. That this is pragmatic advice regarding dealing with an oppressive situation, rather than an absolute moral command (I lean toward this interpretation. I think erowe1 does to, but I could be misremembering. Either way he is probably right.)

4. That this passage is really talking about church authorities, rather than the government (I don't know how the sword in Romans 13:4 works with this interpretation. I just learned about it from someone in an email. I will probably know the answer soon.)

One interpretation that I don't really think any libertarian, even a minarchist one, could take is that this passage is talking about what governments "normally" or "typically" do, but many non-libertarian Christians would take an interpretation like that as well. I'll be honest, I see Romans 13 as tricky and difficult to interpret for a lot of different reasons. In my opinion interpretation #3 is the best one, though I held to a variation of #1 until very recently, and I've gone back and forth between them.

It's actually a confusing set of verses, I would have imagined the third interpretation to be correct due to the persecution of Christians at this time (i.e., don't rebel, co-exist) but Paul starts by suggesting the current authority is an authority established by God and rebelling is is rebelling against God (Romans 13:1-2).

The Church authority seems more likely due to that it's been established by God, but then you've pointed out issues with that interpretation.

Do you believe Christianity to support/promote anarcho-capitalism? Even libertarianism is a stark difference to what Paul is suggesting.

I'd say that doing nothing is the only moral option where the alternative is to do evil. I get very frustrated with Christians who disagree with me on that point, and it leads to rationalizing foreign policy interventionism where they think more lives will be saved. It doesn't matter that they are actually wrong, the point is that humans even think they have the right to decide. Its disgusting.

Fair point on interventionism, but don't you feel there's a difference between personal interventionism, and government interventionism. The idea of the train, is personal intervention, you're not forcing others to be put in harms way intervening for others, and I think that's the philosophic difference. In my opinion if you don't like a regime across the country and think they're murdering their people and you want to join the revolution against that regime, as a personal choice, I think that's fine.

I suppose our difference of opinion comes from the "rigidity" in Gods laws, where I see them as general principles, where you see as it set in stone. The reason I can rationalize otherwise I think is because of intentions behind certain actions-- and this is going back to the omniscience and omnibenevolence of all mighty God.

 

[jmdrake]

lol, I'm not going to respond to you because you are literally fucking retarded

Right. You have proven your point by insults. That makes you a super genius. Let me know when you grow up and you're ready to roll with the big boys okay?

 

[jmdrake]

Why can't I say Muhammad wrote the Qu'ran?

That's a question fro Muwhahid. But I'm guessing it's because the Hadiths say you can't. You must first become a Muslim before you can decide you don't believe Islam.

 

[Muwahid]

That's a question fro Muwhahid. But I'm guessing it's because the Hadiths say you can't. You must first become a Muslim before you can decide you don't believe Islam.

Strawman argument.

Post more Hitchens please, maybe he will educate us again.

 

[jmdrake]

Strawman argument.

Post more Hitchens please, maybe he will educate us again.

How so? I don't consider the Hadiths to be an independent source and for that you claim I can't have a discussion about Islam. Anyway we've already established that Mohammed had the possibility of exposure to Christianity and Judaism prior to any revelations.

 

[Muwahid]

How so? I don't consider the Hadiths to be an independent source and for that you claim I can't have a discussion about Islam. Anyway we've already established that Mohammed had the possibility of exposure to Christianity and Judaism prior to any revelations.

No I didn't say any of that. I said you should probably have a background in Islam before trying to posit theories against mine so we can avoid some of your more ridiculous arguments, like Khadijah being a Catholic nun.

Also what you're suggesting is no different that say if 100 years ago a person infrequently encountered motor cars when they would pass through his small town, he would someday with no other exposure than that, be able to build, or fix motor cars with ease-- knowing all the mechanics of the engine, the transmission, the electrical components, etc.

Obviously that's impossible, it would take years of training, and experience to do this.

This is what I'm attempting to establish, find me from scholarly sources where Muhammad ص could have been trained in the Abrahamic scriptures.

And I'm going easy on you too because then I can again ask about the multiple dialects of the Qur'an, and the poetry and rhythm of the Quran, and the miracles attributed to Muhammad ص when he was not known to be a magician.

This is my point, not "believe muh hadeeths guise!", as you so eloquently put it.

 

[jmdrake]

No I didn't say any of that. I said you should probably have a background in Islam before trying to posit theories against mine so we can avoid some of your more ridiculous arguments, like Khadijah being a Catholic nun.

Okay. We're done with that one. Her relative was a messianic Jew which mean she probably had knowledge of Judaism and Christianity. The gist of the point still stands based on your own admission. And Mohammed spent time as a child (older than the age of his last wife when he consummated their marriage) in a Catholic monastery. The gist of the point still stands.

Also what you're suggesting is no different that say if 100 years ago a person infrequently encountered motor cars when they would pass through his small town, he would someday with no other exposure than that, be able to build, or fix motor cars with ease-- knowing all the mechanics of the engine, the transmission, the electrical components, etc.

Except we don't know how "infrequent" that was. We know Jews lived in Mecca. We know Khadija was familiar with Christianity and Judaism, whether she was one or not. We know he spent time as a child in a Catholic monastery. You want to trivial that and say it doesn't matter without any rhyme or reason for your argument.

Obviously that's impossible, it would take years of training, and experience to do this.

Did you watch the 12 year old who had memorized the Koran? And of course none of this even takes into consideration what Mohammed's companions brought to the table. Your argument assumes they must have been totally ignorant except for their ability to read and write.

This is what I'm attempting to establish, find me from scholarly sources where Muhammad ص could have been trained in the Abrahamic scriptures.

I already have. Go spend have your 12 year old son spend a year in a Catholic monastery and see how much he learns. And again, it could have been longer than a year. It could have been less. I dunno. You haven't given any source limiting the amount of time. You just want to say "It wasn't that long" without any rhyme or reason.

And I'm going easy on you too because then I can again ask about the multiple dialects of the Qur'an, and the poetry and rhythm of the Quran, and the miracles attributed to Muhammad ص when he was not known to be a magician.

I already covered that. I find it laughable that you even think the "multiple dialects" to be of any importance. It's called having multilingual followers. If someone who knew English and Spanish followed me around and memorized my words in English, it would be trivial for him to recount them in Spanish. The poetry could have easily been brought in when the Koran was compiled. Or Mohammed could have had rap skills. Eminem must be a prophet. And the miracles? Are you freaking kidding me? That only means something to someone that actually believes in Islam! Like I said. You're argument is basically circular reasoning. Joseph Smith claimed to have been visited by an angel and had "miracles" surrounding him as well. Maybe it's true. Maybe it isn't. His miracle stories mean a lot to Mormons. Not so much to anyone else.
This is my point, not "believe muh hadeeths guise!", as you so eloquently put it.[/QUOTE]

 

[Muwahid]

Your arguments are so bad jmdrake, because you are uneducated on Islam. You honestly think Muhammad ص spent a year in a monastery with Bahira? Have you even read the story between Muhammad ص and Bahira? Let me gues... no you haven't.

Bahira invited Muhammad ص and his uncle to eat, and then made the connection that Muhammad ص was a prophet due to a description found in one of his books, then he turned them back for fear the Jews might see the same attributes, and try to harm him.

From Tabari, we can read this... قال: صدقت، ارجع به إلى بلدك، واحذر عليه يهود؛ فوالله لئن رأوه وعرفوا منه ما عرفت، ليبغنه شرًا. فإنه كائن له شأن عظيم. فأسرع به إلى بلده. فخرج به عمه سريعًا حتى أقدمه مكة (He [Bahira] said, return him to your land and guard him from the Jews, for By God, if they see him and recognize in him what I have recognized, they will harm him, great things lie ahead for him, so quickly take him back to his land. So his uncle quickly took him back to Mecca)

And let me reiterate again, they were passing through a town with a Caravan, were invited to eat, Muhammad ص was recognized as a prophet, and they left. How on God's green earth you've turned that into Muhammad ص living in a monastery for a year.. I mean it's mind boggling.

Just beyond this point, when you start bringing up companions being multilingual, and teaching him... this is my point. He would need a committee to create this new religion, and with every new necessary person, the less likely it is to be successful, because this would have to be done in total secret.

 

[Influenza]

Right. You have proven your point by insults. That makes you a super genius. Let me know when you grow up and you're ready to roll with the big boys okay?

You have posted nothing of value in this thread that would indicate to me that if I were to have a discussion with you, I would in fact be "rolling with the big boys." All I've seen so far is you arrogantly posting falsities and coming to illogical conclusions. Let me know when you are educated enough to actually post a sensible argument. I'm not sure why Muwahid is even putting up with you, but I envy his wherewithal

 

[jmdrake]

Your arguments are so bad jmdrake, because you are uneducated on Islam. You honestly think Muhammad ص spent a year in a monastery with Bahira? Have you even read the story between Muhammad ص and Bahira? Let me gues... no you haven't.

I said could be more, could be less. Is your reading comprehension that bad? Here's what we've got. He spent time in a monastery. His wife's relative was a messianic Jew. There were Jews living in Mecca. He didn't spend all of his time in Mecca. Anyone halfway independent observer can see that Mohammed had access to teachings about Judaism and Christianity. This isn't a contest to see how well I know Islam. I could care less. It's a question to see if you can back up your claim that it would have been impossible for Mohammed to learn about Christianity or Judaism without it being "revealed" to him. So far you've been proven wrong on that point. He could have learned about them from his wife Khadija. He could have learned from the monk he visited at age 12. He could have learned from Jews living in Mecca. He could have learned during his travels as a merchant. Sorry, but your "God or Satan" choice is just stupid.

Just beyond this point, when you start bringing up companions being multilingual, and teaching him... this is my point. He would need a committee to create this new religion, and with every new necessary person, the less likely it is to be successful, because this would have to be done in total secret.

Ummmmm......what does that have to do with his companions being multilingual? What does that have to do with the fact that if his companions were multilingual (some of them had to be in order to recite the Koran later in another language) then the fact that the Koran was written down in multiple languages is irrelevant?

Really, your point was the multiple dialects of the Koran. That point is easily dismissed by the fact that some of his companions were multilingual. If you are trying to make the point that Mohammed was given the gift of tongues you will need to do better. But somehow you've shifted gears to some "committee" point that you weren't making in the previous post. Odd.