Overall Rating and Opinion of The No-Nonsense Guide to Islam

Discuss the April 2015 philosophy book of the month, "The No-Nonsense Guide to Islam" by Ziauddin Sardar

How do you rate The No-Nonsense Guide to Islam?

1 star - poor, recommend against reading it
1
33%
2 stars - fair, okay
1
33%
3 stars - good, recommend it
1
33%
4 stars - excellent, amazing
0
No votes
 
Total votes : 3

Overall Rating and Opinion of The No-Nonsense Guide to Islam

Post Number:#1  Postby Scott » April 1st, 2015, 5:49 pm

Was is your rating and overall opinion of the April 2015 philosophy book of the month, "The No-Nonsense Guide to Islam" by Ziauddin Sardar?

Do you recommend the book to others? Why or why not? What do you like most about the book? What do you like least?
Online Philosophy Club - Please tell me how to improve this website!

Check it out: Abortion - Not as diametrically divisive as often thought?
User avatar
Scott
Site Admin
 
Posts: 4197 (View: All / In topic)

Joined: January 20th, 2007, 6:24 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Diogenes the Cynic

Overall Rating and Opinion of The No-Nonsense Guide to Islam



Become a member for less ads

Already a member? Login
 

Re: Overall Rating and Opinion of The No-Nonsense Guide to I

Post Number:#2  Postby Lucylu » April 6th, 2015, 3:29 pm

Hi Scott

Maybe it might be more conducive to conversation to suggest lectures or articles rather than whole books, as it can be difficult to afford a new book each month and manage to read a whole book, in addition to ongoing reading, within the time line. If the book is expensive, new or more intellectual it can take quite a few weeks before a reservation at the library arrives.

If it was a lecture or article which is available for free online or somehow downloadable for free from this forum, that might make more people engaged with what you're trying to do.

: )
"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts". -Bertrand Russell
User avatar
Lucylu
Moderator
 
Posts: 676 (View: All / In topic)

Joined: October 1st, 2013, 2:32 pm

Re: Overall Rating and Opinion of The No-Nonsense Guide to I

Post Number:#3  Postby Belinda » April 7th, 2015, 7:15 pm

This book is not a page turner because even although just a short guide to Islam it is packed full of information. We all, Muslims included, should read up on Islam, its history from the original revelation to Muhammad to the travesties of Islam as political regimes.

Although the book is not a popular entertainment it is short and well written and is unlikely to annoy any reader. There are the hallmarks of a scholarly little book in the index and bibliography so readers can be assured that they are not wasting their time and energy.

Even the most careful reader will remain puzzled by those special difficulties encountered by Islamic scholars trying to match Muhammad's biography with bits of Koranic text. The authors stress the immediate and pressing need to open discussions among Muslims about how Islam might be relevant to the present day without distortion of its treasure of wisdom and tradition.
Socialist
Belinda
Contributor
 
Posts: 13760 (View: All / In topic)

Joined: July 10th, 2008, 7:02 pm
Location: UK

Re: Overall Rating and Opinion of The No-Nonsense Guide to I

Post Number:#4  Postby Spectrum » April 13th, 2015, 12:03 am

I don't have a copy of the book but only read a portion from google-book.

When a book about Islam is written by Muslims, one naturally can expect confirmation, emotional and psychological biasness, and cherry-pickings.
For example, they quoted 5:28 as if Islam is pacifist;
5:28. Even if thou stretch out thy hand against me to kill me, I shall not stretch out my hand against thee to kill thee, lo! I Fear Allah, the Lord of the Worlds.

Here is the related context:
27. But recite unto them with truth the tale of the two sons of Adam, how they offered each a sacrifice, and it was accepted from the one of them and it was not accepted from the other. (The one) said: I will surely kill thee. (The other) answered: Allah accepteth only from those who ward off (Evil).
28. Even if thou stretch out thy hand against me to kill me, I shall not stretch out my hand against thee to kill thee, lo! I Fear Allah, the Lord of the Worlds.
29. Lo! I would rather thou shouldst bear the punishment of the sin against me and thine own sin and become one of the owners of the Fire. That is the reward of Evil doers.
30. But (the other's) mind imposed on him the killing of his brother, so he Slew him and became one of the Losers.




In context, this has nothing with the full ethos of violent Islam. 5:28 is spoken by one of the brother in the story of Cain and Abel.

To have a proper balance view one should read about Islam from non-Muslims and better still to read the Quran and its related texts directly supported by the understanding of its ethos and all other related matters from different fields of knowledge.

In contrast to many other authors, the authors did recognize the good and terrible evils committed by various Muslims in their belief of Islam and thus acknowledge Islam and Muslim need various degrees of reform. The fact is Islam cannot be reformed by fallible humans.

From the little I read of the book, what I gathered is the authors naturally tend to put a very bias positive spin to a very fundamental belief that is partially very malignantly evil.

Note the first chapter of the Quran;
1. In the name of Allah, the Beneficent, the Merciful
2. Praise be to Allah, Lord of the Worlds,
3. The Beneficent, the Merciful.
4. Owner of the Day of Judgment,
5. Thee (alone) We worship; Thee alone We ask for help.
6. Show us the Straight Path,
7. The path of those whom Thou hast favoured; Not (the path) of those who earn Thine anger nor of those who astray.


Note verse 7 of chapter 1 of the Quran with additional remark and this translation [Hilali-Khan] is authorized by the Saudi government;
7. The Way of those on whom You have bestowed Your Grace, not (the way) of those who earned Your Anger (such as the Jews), nor of those who went astray (such as the Christians).
http://www.noblequran.com/translation/

In the first chapter Islam is already creating subliminal animosity between themselves and non-Muslims. Non-Muslim are deemed to be a threat to Muslims' passage to heaven implied in (verse 4). This is followed by 1000+ of other verses condemning non-believers.
The Hilali-Khan clearly earmarked Jews and Christians as enemies and threats to their salvation to eternal life. This is the reasons why some Muslims are killing Jews and Christians for no other reasons other than based on this verse 7 and other 100s of verses in the Quran condoning antagonism toward Jews and Christians.

Note chapter 1 of the Quran is repeated many times by Muslims in their daily prayers and elsewhere. This developed the subliminal brainwashing of antagonism by many Muslims against non-Muslims. This is why some Muslims has no hesitation in killing and oppressing non-Muslims.
Not-a-theist. Religion is a critical necessity for humanity now, but not the FUTURE.
Spectrum
 
Posts: 4371 (View: All / In topic)

Joined: December 21st, 2010, 1:25 am
Favorite Philosopher: Eclectic -Various

Re: Overall Rating and Opinion of The No-Nonsense Guide to I

Post Number:#5  Postby Belinda » April 13th, 2015, 4:54 am

Spectrum, I prefer to separate the prophets' original intentions from political necessity, and more often than not political distortions and concoctions of some religion's ethics.

I prefer to do so because a sociological perspective on history has explanatory power which is lacking from literal readings of sacred texts and from historiography that lacks insight into every person's and every society's need for meaning.

Religion ,moral systems, and political necessities are causally linked and the causal links are worth investigating. I don't condemn Muhammad ,Quran , and Islamic expansionism from nothing but literal reading of Quran with no reference to changing historical circumstances. Most of all I, even if were to do so, I'd say that the ethics of Muhammad are sound and apply to values we need today despitethe violence that Muhammad used (rather sparingly by comparison with the alternative, and according to the tenets of utilitarianism)
Socialist
Belinda
Contributor
 
Posts: 13760 (View: All / In topic)

Joined: July 10th, 2008, 7:02 pm
Location: UK

Re: Overall Rating and Opinion of The No-Nonsense Guide to I

Post Number:#6  Postby Spectrum » April 14th, 2015, 1:09 am

Belinda wrote:Spectrum, I prefer to separate the prophets' original intentions from political necessity, and more often than not political distortions and concoctions of some religion's ethics.

Muhammad did not have an original intention nor mission like for example the Buddha who set out to find the solution to deal with mankind's primordial and eternal sufferings.

1. Firstly, God does not exist.
2. Muhammad's claim as messenger of God is definitely a fake.
3. Muhammad's vision and experience of 'angel Gabriel' arose from mental illness, temporal epilepsy or the likes. Research on such experiences extensive and well-documented.
4. Muhammad started mildly with his divinity claim by insulting the existing religions who lived peacefully amongst themselves.
5. Because of rejections and counter insults, matters got worse and Muhammad resorted to extreme violence to get his way. This is typical of cult leaders, not Reverend Jim Jones who started with respect from the community and became a monster later.

There was no distinct original intention from Muhammad.
Muhammad started off with the Torah and the New Testament. In this case we should fall back on the more net-positive New Testament and forget about Muhammad's Quran which contain potential malignant evil and nothing significantly positive.

I prefer to do so because a sociological perspective on history has explanatory power which is lacking from literal readings of sacred texts and from historiography that lacks insight into every person's and every society's need for meaning.

Net wise and effectively there is nothing significant positive from Islam and its conquest. As for the contribution from some Muslims to human knowledge, it would have been done by others in time as there were already many other established civilization before Islam came into the picture.

Religion ,moral systems, and political necessities are causally linked and the causal links are worth investigating. I don't condemn Muhammad ,Quran, and Islamic expansionism from nothing but literal reading of Quran with no reference to changing historical circumstances. Most of all I, even if were to do so, I'd say that the ethics of Muhammad are sound and apply to values we need today despite the violence that Muhammad used (rather sparingly by comparison with the alternative, and according to the tenets of utilitarianism)

There is nothing special about Islamic ethics which is not available from general ethics.
The significant problem with Islamic ethics is it come in a set which is immutable [god's command] and include elements of injustice, intolerance, and barbaric punishments. I wonder what has happened to your wisdom quotient that mad you bowed so low as to be such an apologist for Islamic ethics.

I suggest you read the Quran, the history of Muhammad and Islam in serious detail before you propose any conclusive remarks on Islam.

I had been reading the Quran and other Islamic texts over the years. Recently I have put in time to study every of the 6237 verses [Pickthall] in depth and serious details within the whole context of Islam.

Here is on rough categorization of the 6237 verses;
1. Foundation of Islam 507 verses 8%
2. Echatology 901 14%
3. Doxology 502 8%
4. War related 616 8%
5. Legal and social 588 9%
6. on other Prophets of old 1853 30%
7. On other Religions 1270 20%

At present I am in the process of doing more refined categorization of the 6237 verses.

The mentioned of the prior prophets are most in reference to abuses by Jews and Christians, thus in very negative light culmination in hatred for them as a threat to Islam. The reference to other religions and non-believers also culminate in hatred.

Together with the war related verses, the negative [degrees of evil] related verses total 58% of the Quran's 6237 verses. Providing for a 10% margin for error due to estimation, the number is still very significant. This is a serious factor that is contributing to the terrible evils committed by SOME Muslims and thus need detail study and analysis.

As for the foundation, there are no significant elements and the whole lot can be summed up in the sahaha;
"There is no god but God, Muhammad is the messenger of God"

The gist is if one do not accept Muhammad as the messenger of God, then one will be destined to hell fire and be killed whenever the opportunity arises. For a Muslim to be saved, s/he has to accept Muhammad as the messenger of God and comply fully with whatever is dictated in the Quran.

Since Islam is in the news that involved fatalities and threat to humanity almost everyday, I suggest you do a serious study on Islam and provide credible counters to the points I raised above.
Not-a-theist. Religion is a critical necessity for humanity now, but not the FUTURE.
Spectrum
 
Posts: 4371 (View: All / In topic)

Joined: December 21st, 2010, 1:25 am
Favorite Philosopher: Eclectic -Various

Re: Overall Rating and Opinion of The No-Nonsense Guide to I

Post Number:#7  Postby Belinda » April 14th, 2015, 5:55 am

Any diagnosis of Muhammad's mental condition or imputed brain lesion is neither here nor there when we are considering the effects of Muhammad's life and work. To confuse the message with the messenger is an error. It's an error if only for the practical reason that many scientific heroes, artists, worthy politicans and prophets had mental pathologies and let's praise them for their work and not dismiss them because they were black skinned, or had a fit, or had a history of clinical depression!

Spectrum mentions the Buddha as a prophet with a universal, not a tribal, vision of ethics. I can add that Jesus, too, had a vision of ethics which was universally applicable although Jesus himself was less orientated towards humanity than towards Judaism and Apocalypse. Neither of those examples of great prophets invalidates the ethical vision of Muhammad even although Muhammad's vision is inextricable from the politics and actual geography etc of his time and place. It is an accident of history that Buddha was purely spiritual whereas Muhammad was down- to- earth political and business- like as was the norm for nearly everybody at those times.

There was an identifiable time in the human past when religion in Europe became separable in thought and in practice from politics and the rest of mundane life. Religion until the sixteenth century in Europe was so interspersed with herding the goats , giving birth , serving the social superior , protecting one's tribe, and demanding service from the peasants, that there was no question in early societies of questioning whether or not religion was right or wrong. It was deeply functional . Despite this status quo Muhammad had the insight to introduce his remake of Judaism to stop a lot of the suffering experienced by the Arabs. To quibble that Muhammad used violence and Buddha did not is irrelevant to any discussion about the rights or wrongs of Islam. Islam took root in a backward Arabia, flourished, expanded, and Muhammad offered wisdom suited to present day purposes, but only if M's wisdom is filtered through present day norms.

I note that Spectrum's critique of Islam presumes two basic facts, one, that all theistic beliefs are bad, and two , that the Quran as read literally is bound to mislead into error and savagery.

I agree with both basics. I am mostly concerned that Muslims might modernise their accustomed approach to their sacred texts, and two, that infidels might appreciate Muhammad's vision together with the socio- historical medium of Muhammad's time and place, and from those studies salvage universalistic ethics as exemplified by all world class religions.
Socialist
Belinda
Contributor
 
Posts: 13760 (View: All / In topic)

Joined: July 10th, 2008, 7:02 pm
Location: UK

Re: Overall Rating and Opinion of The No-Nonsense Guide to I

Post Number:#8  Postby Spectrum » April 14th, 2015, 6:59 am

Belinda wrote:Any diagnosis of Muhammad's mental condition or imputed brain lesion is neither here nor there when we are considering the effects of Muhammad's life and work. To confuse the message with the messenger is an error. It's an error if only for the practical reason that many scientific heroes, artists, worthy politicans and prophets had mental pathologies and let's praise them for their work and not dismiss them because they were black skinned, or had a fit, or had a history of clinical depression!

People with mental conditions do produce very good positive work [John Nash] for humanity but at the same time some produced very evil work [e.g. Hitler, Jim Jones, Unabomber, Stalin, David Koresh etc.] while there are some who produced a mixed bag of good and evil.
In Muhammad's case, his net effects from the past to present was net-negative [verifiable to actual evil events by Muslims influenced by the words of Muhammad] and potentially a threat to humanity in the future.
Btw, I have already presented a hypothesis the evils committed by some Muslims is influenced by appx. 50% of verses from the Quran. Since the Quran is supposed to be immutable, how can you countered that these verses will not continue to influence some Muslims to continue to commit evil. Note the current evidence is obvious but some how you prefer to be blind to them. Are you saying that Muslims should pretend not to see and read them?

Spectrum mentions the Buddha as a prophet with a universal, not a tribal, vision of ethics. I can add that Jesus, too, had a vision of ethics which was universally applicable although Jesus himself was less orientated towards humanity than towards Judaism and Apocalypse. Neither of those examples of great prophets invalidates the ethical vision of Muhammad even although Muhammad's vision is inextricable from the politics and actual geography etc. of his time and place. It is an accident of history that Buddha was purely spiritual whereas Muhammad was down- to- earth political and business- like as was the norm for nearly everybody at those times.

Yes, Jesus did contribute but if I were to rate them in terms of positive potential to humanity it would be relatively Buddha = 80%, Jesus = 50%, Muhammad = 25%. Muhammad did nothing new except plagiarize the NT and OT with some changes that became worse than the NT.

There was an identifiable time in the human past when religion in Europe became separable in thought and in practice from politics and the rest of mundane life. Religion until the sixteenth century in Europe was so interspersed with herding the goats , giving birth , serving the social superior , protecting one's tribe, and demanding service from the peasants, that there was no question in early societies of questioning whether or not religion was right or wrong. It was deeply functional . Despite this status quo Muhammad had the insight to introduce his remake of Judaism to stop a lot of the suffering experienced by the Arabs. To quibble that Muhammad used violence and Buddha did not is irrelevant to any discussion about the rights or wrongs of Islam. Islam took root in a backward Arabia, flourished, expanded, and Muhammad offered wisdom suited to present day purposes, but only if M's wisdom is filtered through present day norms.

Note 1000 years before Islam, Buddhism was already a standalone field of knowledge. The mixture of religion with politics and others in the Middle-East was a bad and unfortunate mistake that became a curse for humanity to the present.
As humanity progressed to 2015 it is more imperative for religion to be separated from politics and other secular matters, yet Islam is still stuck in primitive mode now and most Muslims intend to keep it in the status quo because their holy texts said so.

Note I stated, there is no way for M's wisdom [if any good ones at all] to be filtered through present day norms as Islam must be practiced as the whole set as dictated in the immutable Quran plus other associated texts. One cannot be a good Muslim with half measure Quran.

1.2 billion Muslims who are natural good humans will ignore the evil element but there are say 20%, i.e. 300 millions Muslims who are bent on complying with the Quran literally. As you should be aware it takes only a few 100s, 1000s or 10,000s to create so much havoc and evil around the world as it is happening at present. The future is a greater threat to humanity as and when WMDs are easily accessible.

I suggest again you read up in detail the Quran to support your counter points else they are very wishy-washy. You had the idea that just because Islam is categorized as a 'religion' it must be peaceful. Such conclusions cannot be justified within a philosophy forum.
Not-a-theist. Religion is a critical necessity for humanity now, but not the FUTURE.
Spectrum
 
Posts: 4371 (View: All / In topic)

Joined: December 21st, 2010, 1:25 am
Favorite Philosopher: Eclectic -Various

Re: Overall Rating and Opinion of The No-Nonsense Guide to I

Post Number:#9  Postby Wayne92587 » April 15th, 2015, 5:59 pm

Scott, some of the response are negative, imply that Mohammad was a Fraud.

Why haven't you posted my response that not critical of Mohammad but of Fundamentalist Islam, Isis. What's Up.

Am I entitled to a response.

Hermes Trismegistus. Lord or the Ring of Salomon, Keeper of the Holey Grail--->0

Ye, Amen, RA!

-- April 15th, 2015, 3:05 pm --

Mohammad’s warning to Islam.

Do not allow men with dirty, unclean, hands to touch, to become familiar with to interpret Islamic Law Sharia.

Like Plato, Mohammad felt that the written word was to easily perverted, never committed his thoughts to the written word; the Jew and the Christian having distorted the Nature of the One True God, Allah.

The God of the Jews being a God of Vengeance.

Islam has done what Mohammad had warned Islam not to do, perverted the Nature of the True God, the God of Compassion.

The False Prophets of Islam now interpreting Allah, the God of Compassion, to be a God of Vengeance.

Islam, beware the Beast dwells among you.

Men with a perverted, distorted, sense of Manliness, Machismo, male chauvinistic Pigs have been allowed to interpret Islamic Law, Sharia, being sick in the head, sic, sic, sic.

-- April 15th, 2015, 7:14 pm --

Spectrum #6

" the Buddha set out to find the solution to deal with mankind's primordial and eternal sufferings."

Wayne wrote; Buddha set out to rid man of his Guilefulness, the cause of Mankind's Greatest Suffering, mankind's primordial and eternal suffering brought about by Man speaking with a forked tongue; the Duality of Mankind, he and she being Duplicitous; Eve being the single source of Knowledge gleaned, garnered, picked, from a single source, Knowledge having a Dual Quality, Absolutely Bad Knowledge mistaken to be Absolutely Good Knowledge, the Knowledge of Good and Evil.
Wayne92587
 
Posts: 1396 (View: All / In topic)

Joined: January 27th, 2012, 9:32 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Hermese Trismegistus

Re: Overall Rating and Opinion of The No-Nonsense Guide to I

Post Number:#10  Postby Spectrum » April 15th, 2015, 11:40 pm

Wayne92587 wrote:Scott, some of the response are negative, imply that Mohammad was a Fraud.


I did state the following;

1. Firstly, God does not exist.
2. Muhammad's claim as messenger of God is definitely a fake.


Logically and rationally the above is true. Since God does not exist, then, a claim of being a 'messenger of God' is definitely false.

Historians are also disputing whether a historical Muhammad exist or not.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nwo5xpO390k

Like Plato, Mohammad felt that the written word was to easily perverted, never committed his thoughts to the written word; the Jew and the Christian having distorted the Nature of the One True God, Allah.


It is claimed that Muhammad was illiterate and thus could not write. Muhammad should have known oral transmission is worse than written transmission. If God is so powerful he should have given Muhammad the ability to read and write so that Muhammad can put in writing what he heard from God then sign on every page of it to ensure its authenticity.

So what we ended up with is Islam based on a Quran that is;
1. Compiled from writings from various scribes
2. who transcribe from what is remembered via poetry
3. transmitted over generations
4. from the first person who heard directly from Muhammad.

Note from process 1 to 4 there is so much room for corruption either intentional or unintentional.
Therefore the credibility of the Quran as presented today is questionable.

Are you saying no one should put the Quran in writing and that to be a Muslim one should only listen to the Quran in poetry form as originally recited by Muhammad? If so, this would be ridiculous as why can't be transcribe what is remembered to words when we can do it now?

Islam has done what Mohammad had warned Islam not to do, perverted the Nature of the True God, the God of Compassion.
The False Prophets of Islam now interpreting Allah, the God of Compassion, to be a God of Vengeance.
Islam, beware the Beast dwells among you.
Men with a perverted, distorted, sense of Manliness, Machismo, male chauvinistic Pigs have been allowed to interpret Islamic Law, Sharia, being sick in the head, sic, sic, sic.

Islam essentially is what is presented in the Quran (6236 verses). However as I claimed above, the credibility of the Quran is questionable. I have read all the 6236 verses many times and analyzed them in details within various contexts and perspectives.

Allah as presented in the Quran is only compassionate to Muslims and those who bowed in submission to Allah, otherwise no empathy nor compassion is extended to non-believers especially the Jews, Christians and idolaters. More that 50% of the verses in the Quran are directed negatively at Jews, Christians and idolaters in various degrees (from mild denouncements to serious threats of violence). Allah [as portrayed by Muhammad ] overall is indeed a God of vengeance.

If you read the Quran in chronological order, the typical chapter 2 -The Cow is the chapter that represent the Muhammad's martial turn and therein contain the abrogation verse 2:106, i.e.
2:106. Such of Our revelations as We abrogate or cause to be forgotten, we bring (in place) one better or the like thereof. Knowest thou not that Allah is Able to do all things?
As such the later verses abrogate whatever earlier milder verses.

The typical chapter 9 is the penultimate chapter in chronological order and it contain the violence verses like;
9:29. Fight against such of those who have been given the Scripture as believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, and forbid not that which Allah hath forbidden by His messenger, and follow not the religion of truth, until they pay the tribute readily, being brought low. [into submission]

Since this chapter is the 2nd last chapter in chronological order, its commands override whatever is in the milder Mecca verses. And since this chapter that has violence elements are placed in the early part of the modern Quran, they have great influence on SOME Muslims to commit violence with the literal sanction of God.

The Sharia Laws are derived from the Hadiths and Sunnah and other secondary texts. The Quran is already questionable and unreliable and the Hadiths are prepared by overzealous theologians [sick in the head as you said] ending with corrupt interpretations of the Quran as Laws. The Sharia at its extreme is degrading to basic human dignity.

Not sure if you have read the Quran. I suggest you get hold it in totality and grasp the whole set of the 6236 verses [not many] in the Quran and classified them in relevant categories [e.g. good verses, evil verses, condemnation of non-believers, intolerances, injustice, violence and cruelty, threat of hell, judgment day, non-believers doomed] and analyzed them in detail, contexts & objectively.

Btw, if you are interested in a copy of Quran [Pickthall] in Excel to do your own classification and sortings, PM me an email, I will attach a copy.

In addition, one has to study the Quran and Muhammad in other contexts and perspective, e.g. psychologically, historically, socially, neuroscience, neurocognitive science, philosophically, etc.

Ask yourself, why did Muhammad condemned the Jews and Christians as corrupting the scriptures given to them? M also condemned the Pharaohs for rejecting the prophets of the OT.
The reason for this is more psychological than anything else as philosophically God does not exist. This is typical with cult leaders over the ages always claiming their latest revelations are better than the older ones. In fact, M's Quran is much more worst than Christ's NT and this is evident by the real existing violence and evils committed by SOME Muslims.
Not-a-theist. Religion is a critical necessity for humanity now, but not the FUTURE.
Spectrum
 
Posts: 4371 (View: All / In topic)

Joined: December 21st, 2010, 1:25 am
Favorite Philosopher: Eclectic -Various

Re: Overall Rating and Opinion of The No-Nonsense Guide to I

Post Number:#11  Postby Wayne92587 » April 16th, 2015, 12:32 pm

Spectrum, you know to much about Islam born of a perverted interpretation for me to argue with you.

I am an Infidel and have no need, desire, nor the time to waste studying the Quran.

Spectrum wrote;

"Allah as presented in the Quran is only compassionate to Muslims and those who bowed in submission to Allah."

Wayne wrote;

In order to bow to the Allah, you must bow to the Nature, the Spirit, the Way, the definition of Allah; Allah being a compassionate God.

That is the way that I see it; Allah as presented in the written word of the Quran has been Blasphemed by Fundamentalist Islam.

I just say that the Quran is nothing more than a perverted interpretation.

Jesus, now known to be the Loving God, says Love your Enemy.

Compassion like respect is an innate.

Respectful, Compassion, love, if conditional is not Real.

The Idea of Agape, Universal, True Love, is that it is Unconditional.

Allah being the Compassionate God, the Compassion of Allah is not Conditional.

Agape, Universal True Love, Compassion, respect, being the cause of the existence of your very Soul.

"Are you saying no one should put the Quran in writing and that to be a Muslim one should only listen to the Quran in poetry form as originally recited by Muhammad? If so, this would be ridiculous as why can't be transcribe what is remembered to words when we can do it now?"

Wayne wrote;

No I am not saying that.

Are you interpreting what I said as being something that I did not say. I refuse to let you put words in my mouth.

I know, am saying, this because language is base upon metaphors and as such is just so much Babbel.

I do not actually think that you are trying to put words in my mouth; I am simply giving an example how easily the written word is perverted.

From Wikipedia; Unwritten doctrines. " The most fundamental metaphysical teaching of Plato, which he disclosed only orally, and some say only to his most trusted fellows, and which he may have kept secret from the public.

The importance of the unwritten doctrines does not seem to have been seriously questioned before the 19th century.

Plato criticizes the written transmission of knowledge as faulty, favoring instead the spoken word "he who has knowledge of the just and the good and beautiful ... will not, when in earnest, write them in ink, sowing them through a pen with words, which cannot defend themselves by argument and cannot teach the truth effectually.

Every serious man in dealing serious subjects carefully avoids writing; there does not exist, nor will there ever exist, any treatise of mine dealing therewith. "Such secrecy is necessary in order not "to expose them to unseemly and degrading treatment"

Wayne wrote; Fundamentally speaking Man has a perverted sense of Manliness as defined by Machismo, a Male Chauvinistic Pig.

Machismo; the Male Chauvinistic Pigs of Islam having a strong or exaggerated sense of traditional masculinity placing great value on physical courage, virility, domination of women, and aggressiveness. 2. An exaggerated interest or devotion to something, often accompanied by a sense of superiority.


Islam essentially is what is interpreted as being that which is presented in the Quran; Islamic Law Sharia as presented by the male Chauvinistic Pigs of Islam.

Islamic Law, Sharia is derived from a perverted, distorted, interpretation, is Blasphemy spoken of by, as written in the Hadiths and Sunnah and other secondary texts.

The reason the fundamentalist Male is down on compassion because he is not free to show emotions, Great Joy, is because showing compassion, love, respect, emotions is to be Woman Like.
Wayne92587
 
Posts: 1396 (View: All / In topic)

Joined: January 27th, 2012, 9:32 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Hermese Trismegistus

Re: Overall Rating and Opinion of The No-Nonsense Guide to I

Post Number:#12  Postby Belinda » April 16th, 2015, 4:00 pm

A very short timeline of Islam.

--------------------------------------------- Prophet Muhammad born in Mecca, an Arabian city important for trading, 569 years after the birth of Christ.

Death of Muhammad 632 years after the birth of Christ. Prophet Muhammad did not read or write and so the revelation he received from God was spoken during his lifetime, in Arabic.

Prophet Muhammad has never been worshipped as if he were God, but is entirely human.

By the age of 24 Muhammad was running a trading business and had a reputation for honesty.

Muhammad married a wealthy woman trader called Khadijah in the year 595.

She bore 7 children to Mumammad. The 4 daughters survived to adulthood.

Before Muhammad's Islam the people of Mecca had numerous gods.

Muhammad had his first vision of the angel Gabriel who told him the first part of the Quran (Koran).

Muhammad told his wife that he was worried by the vision. Khadijah consoled him.

Muhammad found the idea of being a prophet very unsettling.

He had no choice but to a prophet and tell the people of Mecca what Gabriel had said. But he had followers.

The followers were the first Muslims, who were persecuted by the traditional people of Mecca.

Muhammad was so worried that he advised his followers to seek refuge with some Christians in Abyssinia(Africa).

The head of the Christians there protected the Muslim refugees.

Life was very hard for the oppressed Muslims who remained in Mecca. Khadijah died in 619.

Muhammad married again 11 times and many of his wives were widows under his protection.

One of these protected widows was a Jew and another was a Christian.

622 A.D. Muhammad and the Muslims left Mecca and went to live and work in a small place called Medina.

The time in Medina was when Muslims with Muhammad as their leader had a new way of life and a religion, Islam.

There was a new Muslim calendar.

Medina was where two important trade caravan routes were and the Meccans felt their interests threatened.

Over about one month there were actual battles and Muhammad fought in three of them.

The Muslims of Medina invaded Mecca. Many Meccans liked the leadership of Muhammad and became Muslims


The Quran was compiled between 650-652.

After Muhammad died Muslims were led by caliphs. *************************************

Between 632 A.D. and 800 A.D a huge Muslim empire grew all around the Mediterranean , and into India and Africa
Socialist
Belinda
Contributor
 
Posts: 13760 (View: All / In topic)

Joined: July 10th, 2008, 7:02 pm
Location: UK

Re: Overall Rating and Opinion of The No-Nonsense Guide to I

Post Number:#13  Postby Spectrum » April 16th, 2015, 10:08 pm

Wayne92587 wrote:Spectrum, you know to[o] much about 'Islam born of a perverted interpretation' for me to argue with you.
..
I just say that the Quran is nothing more than a perverted interpretation.

I first thought you were saying my interpretation of the Quran was perverted. Based on the above, I presume you are not saying that.

I would not say the Quran was born of a perverted interpretation.
What Muhammad did was he leveraged on the existing Torah and NT then, claimed the Jews and Christians corrupted their holy texts, and then he added on his martial elements (Medina texts) to complete the Quran. The latter is responsible for all the terrible violence and evils that SOME Muslims has committed to date and will be a serious threat to humanity in the future.

I am an Infidel and have no need, desire, nor the time to waste studying the Quran.

Islam is inspiring a significant SOME to commit terrible evils around the world. To find out the reason for these Islam related evils and to critique the Quran one has to be intellectual fair to understand [not necessary agree with] it in detail. It is detestable and unappealing for me to read the Quran but I have to master it to ensure my views on its are credible.

Wayne wrote;
In order to bow to the Allah, you must bow to the Nature, the Spirit, the Way, the definition of Allah; Allah being a compassionate God.

Jesus, now known to be the Loving God, says Love your Enemy.

I think you should not used the term 'Allah' [Muhammad's created god] to represent and thus pollute the Christian God of the NT.

-- Thu Apr 16, 2015 9:48 pm --

Belinda wrote:A very short timeline of Islam.
---------------------------------------------
Prophet Muhammad born in Mecca, an Arabian city important for trading, 569 years after the birth of Christ.
...

In relation to philosophy in a philosophy forum, your presentation do not contribute to any fair intellectual justice in reconciliation with the terrible violence and evils committed by SOME Muslims of the past, present and future. Seemingly your presentation implicitly condone the continuing evils committed by Muslims [some] by avoiding the critical issues.

One should not simply accept what is claimed by psychological biased information by Muslims and apologists but take note of the following possibilities;
1. Muhammad was an orphan and he married an older widow. There are possible signs of insecurity here.

2. Muhammad has visions and was very disturbed by it. He consoled by his widow and told he was the new messiah as foretold by some holy texts.
There are extensive research on those with mental illness having visions and spiritual hallucinations, some claimed to be god, claimed to be god's messenger, claimed to be a messiah, etc. All such modern cases are threated and cure via psychiatry.
As such there is a very strong possibility Muhammad had such mental hallucinations [albeit not incapacitating ones].

3. In the Quran there is a great proportion attributable to the Torah and Gospel and it is very likely that Muhammad [who had spiritual inclinations]would have heard of these stories from Christians and Jews.

4. The cultish path followed by Muhammad is almost exactly the same as that of Jim Jones. At first Jones was mild, and when pressured to prove himself turned violent in killing a US senator and 900+ followers.

5. The tit for tat that was went on between Muhammad and the Meccan/Quraishy was started by Muhammad's hallucinating he was a messenger of God. As you should be aware, one's religious faith is a VERY sensitive issue. The Jews, Christians and idol worshippers were very offended when Muhammad insulted their beliefs. When Muhammad kept insulting their beliefs despite their warning, they have to retaliate. Muhammad won in the end but that was based on brute violence.

6. The other consideration is Muhammad and Islam was invented by some regime to unite its empire.

I suggest you qualify your presentation with the above possibilities.

Btw, are you interested in a copy of the Quran [Pickthall translation] in EXCEL format [you are familiar with this software?] which can facilitate sorting and analysis easily.
Not-a-theist. Religion is a critical necessity for humanity now, but not the FUTURE.
Spectrum
 
Posts: 4371 (View: All / In topic)

Joined: December 21st, 2010, 1:25 am
Favorite Philosopher: Eclectic -Various

Re: Overall Rating and Opinion of The No-Nonsense Guide to I

Post Number:#14  Postby Belinda » April 17th, 2015, 3:37 am

Reply to Spectrum's objection regarding historicity of Muhammad. ______________________________________________________________

I never thought to question the historicity of the information in our little source book. The following extract from our revered internet 'Circle of Knowledge' partly answers the question of Muhammad's historicity. The material that precedes the material quoted is about how much of what is assumed to be historically true about Muhammad comes from the Quran and the Sirah, both suspect as biased.

This little warts and all guide to Islam does not purport to take a stance on the historicity of Muhammad, but explains Muhammad from the point of view of educated and well informed Muslims. It is anthropological rather than historical, and neither of the authors is a professional historian.

On Sunday, April 12 Spectrum wrote:

When a book about Islam is written by Muslims, one naturally can expect confirmation, emotional and psychological biasness, and cherry-pickings. For example, they quoted 5:28 as if Islam is pacifist; 5:28. Even if thou stretch out thy hand against me to kill me, I shall not stretch out my hand against thee to kill thee, lo! I Fear Allah, the Lord of the Worlds.


True. I think that important religions which are relevant to people today contain messages about pure goodness interspersed with historically verifiable instances of violence.(With the exception of Buddhism**) This is what life is like, unfortunately. Violence is inseparable from the civilising process which started , one may claim, with the agrarian revolution when there was fighting over surplus produce , the land that it was grown on, and the slave labourers that grew it. Religions often legitimated the structural and outward violence. At the same time, religions for all their two-facedness carried the persistent messages of pure goodness. The above ethic from Islam accords with pure goodness. We have no duty to discard the message because religion the message bearer is two-faced.

(**regarding Buddhism , Buddhism be adapted to politics without twisting it beyond all recognition. Buddha had to quite deliberately relegate the need for government to a king.)


Historian Michael Cook takes the view that evidence independent of Islamic tradition "precludes any doubts as to whether Muhammad was a real person" and clearly shows that he became the central figure of a new religion in the decades following his death. He reports, though, that this evidence conflicts with the Islamic view in some aspects, associating Muhammad with Palestine rather than Inner Arabia, complicating the question of his sole authorship or transmission of the Qur'an, and suggesting that there were Jews as well as Arabs among his followers.[40] For Patricia Crone, a single Greek text written at around the time of Muhammad's death provides "irrefutable proof" that he was a historical figure. There is also, she says, "exceptionally good" evidence that Muhammad was an Arab political leader and prophet. She says we can be "reasonably sure" in attributing all or most of the Qur'an to him. She takes a view that Muhammad's traditional association with the Arabian Peninsula may be "doctrinally inspired", and is put in doubt by the Qur'an itself, which describes agricultural activity that could not have taken place there, as well as making a reference to the site of Sodom which appears to place Muhammad's community close to the Dead Sea.[41]

In their 2003 book Crossroads to Islam, Yehuda D. Nevo and Judith Koren advanced a thesis, based on an extensive examination of archaeological evidence from the early Islamic period, that Muhammad may never have existed, with monotheistic Islam only coming into existence some time after he is supposed to have lived. This has been described as "plausible or at least arguable" and employing a "very rigorous historical methodology" by David Cook of Rice University, but has also been compared to Holocaust denial by historian Colin Wells, who suggests that the authors deal with some of the evidence illogically.[42][43]



______________________________________________________

Spectrum's objection about Islamic historical violence should be submitted to an inspection of how violence is part of the structure of civilisation. There cannot be civilising process unaccompanied by violence. There is more to the study of violence than drawing up a ledger of comparative violence among and between Muslims, Jews, polytheists, and Christians.

On 12 April Spectrum wrote:

When a book about Islam is written by Muslims, one naturally can expect confirmation, emotional and psychological biasness, and cherry-pickings. For example, they quoted 5:28 as if Islam is pacifist; 5:28. Even if thou stretch out thy hand against me to kill me, I shall not stretch out my hand against thee to kill thee, lo! I Fear Allah, the Lord of the Worlds.


Although religion is two faced and mutates to serve current political needs it also carries the message that crosses cultures and serves pure goodness. There is no duty on us to abandon texts such as the above simply because religion is itself riddled with dishonesty. It is a duty on us to sort what is good from what is bad and worthship the good.
Socialist
Belinda
Contributor
 
Posts: 13760 (View: All / In topic)

Joined: July 10th, 2008, 7:02 pm
Location: UK

Re: Overall Rating and Opinion of The No-Nonsense Guide to I

Post Number:#15  Postby Wayne92587 » April 17th, 2015, 1:39 pm

Islamic Law, Sharia, as interpreted can not be associated with Muhammad's intent for Islam. Period.

Islamic Law, Sharia, as currently interpreted by Fundamentalist Islam, Isis, is an Abomination.

The greatest cause of all suffering, atrocities, horror result from having been born of the Moral Law of the Jewish, the Christian, the Church, the self-ish Righteousness, the moral Law of Fundamentalist Islam, Isis, Islamic Law, Sharia.

What do you think the United States would be like if "ruled" by the fundamental, moral law of the Church Law, the a Law born of Self-ish Righteousness of the Pharaoh, the Pharisees, the moral law of Fundamentalist Islam, of ISIS, Islamic Law, Sharia, the self-ish righteousness of the Grand Poobah.

Moral Law "by any title" is an abomination, a dismal failure in it attempt to bring the chaos to order.

Would that I could, I would destroy Moral Law.

Moral Law Self-Righteousness is not meant to be Universal, One's Morality to be determined by each Individual.

I say that Islam needs to separate Church and State, meaning to put Morality governed by the State to rest, in the grave, to death.

The origin of Islam is unimportant, it is how Islam relates to the World today that is important.

The Fundamental Islamic Male is sick in the head, sic,sic,sic, is pig headed, currently carrying the Mark, the number, the Name, Identity of the Beast, Man Beast being a Male Chauvinistic Pig.

"Sorry", but none can convince me that the currant interpretation of Islamic Law, Sharia, as having been born of the Islam, Allah, the God of Compassion.
Wayne92587
 
Posts: 1396 (View: All / In topic)

Joined: January 27th, 2012, 9:32 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Hermese Trismegistus

Next

Return to Discuss "The No-Nonsense Guide to Islam" by Ziauddin Sardar

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

Philosophy Trophies

Most Active Members
by posts made in lasts 30 days

Avatar Member Name Recent Posts
Greta 162
Fooloso4 116
Renee 107
Ormond 97
Felix 90

Last updated January 6, 2017, 6:28 pm EST

Most Active Book of the Month Participants
by book of the month posts

Avatar Member Name BOTM Posts
Scott 147
Spectrum 23
Belinda 23
whitetrshsoldier 20
Josefina1110 19
Last updated January 6, 2017, 6:28 pm EST