Insults, by definition, are irrelevant. They are not about the argument but about the person making them .
Have you got anything else to defend your position on Islam?
I think not.
You won this, dammit.
Have you got anything else to defend your position on Islam?
Nupe. All done. Peace.
Seyyed Hossein Nasr, who is interviewed in the OP video believes that perennial philosophy is a universal knowledge that transcends religions and time. He believed that it’s a way to study religions, especially Islam.
Key ideas of Nasr’s perennialism
- Universal truth
Perennial philosophy is based on the idea that there is a universal truth that’s expressed in different religions.
- Primordial Tradition
The Primordial Tradition is a block of principles that are revealed through traditions and revelations.
- Spiritual realization
Spiritual realization is possible through traditions, which include methods, rites, and symbols.
- Symbolism
The language of perennial philosophy is symbolism.
Nasr’s perspective on religion
Nasr believed that the existence of different religions is not evidence against the Primordial Tradition. He believed that all religions are united by a common substance and source.
Nasr’s work
Nasr is considered a charismatic spokesman for perennialism.
I agree with all the above points, which is what I am arguing for and have for years on this web site.
I was half expecting him to end by saying “So please, neverrr, everr reige quit”
I agree btw
1 Like
5 posts were split to a new topic: The Great Harlot
Tom Holland and Fred Donner have different perspectives on the origins of Islam.
Tom Holland’s perspective
- Holland’s work suggests that there are multiple schools of thought about the origins of Islam.
- One school of thought, the ecumenicist school, views Muhammad as a merchant who preached tolerance and unity.
- The other school of thought, the revisionist school, suggests that there is a lack of information about Muhammad and early Islam.
Fred Donner’s perspective
- Donner’s work suggests that the Islamic religious tradition began in the 7th century in Mecca and Medina.
- Donner’s work also suggests that the Qur’an was produced by this movement in the same region and period.
- Donner’s work suggests that the Islamic religious tradition did not begin as a distinct religion.
Seyyed Hossein Nasr, a philosopher and writer, says that Islam originated from the Prophet Muhammad’s revelation, which restored a fundamental unity. Nasr believes that the word “Islam” means “submission” and “peace”.
Explanation
- Nasr says that Islam is based on the idea that God is one and that Muhammad was his prophet.
- He believes that Islam is a simple religion that differs from Christianity in its structure.
- Nasr says that Islamic art is inspired by the inner meaning of the Quran, rather than the words themselves.
- He believes that Islamic science was created when the spirit of the Quranic revelation combined with the sciences of other civilizations.
- Nasr says that humans are a bridge between the celestial and terrestrial worlds, and that they have attributes that go beyond science.
- He believes that evolutionism is a materialist philosophy that has contributed to the degradation of the sacredness of God’s creation.
The above AI summary is superficial and inconclusive. Several points of harmony are possible between these authors. Holland and Donner are historians. They both point to a dearth of historical evidence for the origin of Islam.
Nasr is a philosopher. The historians are naturalists so the most difficult point of Nasr’s to reconcile may be his anti-evolutionary stance.
I request the following price from you though it’s unlikely you would pay:
-
Please avoid dropping BIG BIG videos. Dissecting one takes at least 4x the video length. Give your opinion primarily. Your synopsis below the video doesn’t really touch the subject matter. Also it places Tom Holland alongside Fred and Syed Hossein Nasr. The latter are academics, Tom Holland has a degree but it’s irrelevant to his publications on Islam.
-
Please study the Qur’an cover to cover using an accessible translation, not a poor one full of brackets. Try Marmaduke Pickthall or Arberry. I am fairly au fait with the Qur’an right now as l’ve been studying it for about 10 months as thanksgiving for a loved one recovering from a major illness. Therefore l’m studying thoroughly, earnestly. I commend you to do the same at least once. It should take about a year each time. Then you’ll watch such videos with a discerning eye.
TO CONTINUE:
INTRODUCTION OF “TIME-GAP” AS THE ROOT CAUSE:
Around 4mins 5s, with “but it’s based on these later sources … we just don’t know in what measure still this a reliable picture” we find the Vacuous Fallacy / Nirvana Fallacy: like Tom Holland, he bases pretty much everything on the fact that the earliest written accounts of the life of the Prophet were not written down until around 150 years after the death of the Prophet, and so we can pose the Primordial Nearly-Islam theory, which is always some variant of:
{ There must have been a Wild Partytime “Islam” With Hammams Featuring Carvings of Rude-Looking Women But Then The Muslims Later Became Strict Strict Strict Misogynist Christian & Jew Haters But There’s Still A Hint Of Oh-So-Tolerant Paganism If We Can Just Coax It Out They’ll Be Humans Like Us Again. }
This can no longer in my mind be a mere error in judgement, it seems a deliberate Argument from Ommission. The things being ommitted are:
1. There were actually a few accounts composed within a few years after the death of the Prophet
2. ALL biographies come from the Sunnah (Sunnah = body of ahadith, oral traditions attributed to the Prophet)
3. The Prophet commanded that the Sunnah must not be written, this was because there was a danger of lies being put in by faceless individuals, it had to be a living tradition with a golden narrative chain, like the blockchain of Bitcoin, being passed from sheikhs to chosen academic descendants. Here is one example of the injunction:
Abu Sa’id Khudri reported that Allah’s Messenger said:
Do not take down anything from me, and he who took down anything from me except the Qur’an, he should efface that and narrate from me, for there is no harm in it and he who attributed any falsehood to me-and Hammam said: I think he also said:" deliberately" -he should in fact find his abode in the Hell-Fire.
Reference : Sahih Muslim 3004
In-book reference : Book 55, Hadith 92
DISMISSING THE PROPHET TO BEGIN WITH:
5 mins 16s: A further fluorescent “skeptic” marker shows: He refuses to even call the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) “the Muslim Prophet Muhammad”. By contrast, if l were to talk of the Mormon church, l’d address their prophets at least as “Mormon Prophet”. I wouldn’t be so evasive. Admittedly, he does slip at 10mins 40s and say “the Prophet Muhammad”.
Then at 6mins 22s, he says Muhammad began “seeing and hearing things”.
10mins 4s: Fred talks of the Barzakh, the vertice between this world and the hereafter, i.e. the world of the Grave, as a clear outsider, making comical hand gestures when addressing it. I know that’s his prerogative but a recurring theme at the start of the lecture is his “cray-cray” hand gestures which belie his scorn for the faith.
30mins 56s: He describes his chronic cough as “Islamic” echoing an earlier remark that his cough dates from the early Islamic period.
VARIOUS LIES TOLD BY FRED JUST IN PREAMBLE:
7mins 12 - He says the Prophet Muhammad began to understand that there weren’t many gods, there was one God called Allah and Allah created the world, as Allah were new and this were a new idea. The pagan Arabs knew of Allah. The Qur’an treats of this several times e.g.:
Qur’an 31:25 If thou shouldst ask them: Who created the heavens and the earth? they would answer: Allah. Say: Praise be to Allah! But most of them know not.
In fact at 8mins 23s, Fred paradoxically acknowledges that “Shirk”, the greatest sin according to Islam, is in associating partners with God, which was the thrust of the message to the polytheists. Not that Allah was new, but that they were associating deities as partners with / intercessors for him.
10mins 24s: Fred clearly states that as an alternative to eternal paradise, others will be sent to hell for eternity. He omits that some people will be permitted to leave Hell and enter Paradise once purged with fire. He absolutely presents it as a pure dichotomy with no third alternative.
10mins 54s: Fred says Meccans engaged in ancestor worship - I’m not aware of this. The only example l’ve read about is Baal worship, which the Prophet explained began when a King died and his son grieved so badly that he set up worship of that deceased king. But from what l can tell, Baal was not worshipped in Makkah.
11mins 14s: This is very bad. Fred claims that the Prophet declared all deceased pagans to be burning in hell and sarcastically then states “anyway he became really unpopular at home” and they “were made to feel increasingly unwelcome, in Mecca” as if Muslims were being snotty with people and they justly got severely persecuted for it. I’ve never read any such thing. I would say this is a lie. We aren’t allowed to pray for the Prophet’s parents, but we probably all secretly do. This is purely because it is for God to judge them, we cannot say this person was pagan but l’m veeeeery certain he / she will be okay. No, it’s none of our business, only God can judge the final destination for anybody, be they Pagan or for that matter, even Muslim.
EVENTUALLY THE “WARLORD PROPHET” TROPE IS POSED, BECAUSE SHRUGS:
12mins 42s: Fred claims the Prophet “came in as the person who was going to run the town” of Madina when he fled Makkah (on the night he was set to be murdered by the way). Then at 13mins 13s Fred claims the Prophet “consolidated his control over the oasis itself, but also over tribal groups that lived in the countryside around” and then eventually “he was able to take over the city of Mecca where he came from” and “absorb Mecca into this new growing … polity that he was constructing in Western Arabia”. Thus he frames the Prophet as a mere warlord, a land grabber (like every other materialist ruler - but this was NOT at all the basis of the Prophet’s mission). He then continues along his set trajectory: Muslims expanded, imposing themselves onto others.
FINALLY WE REACH THE GAP-BEFORE-BIOGRAPHY TROPE, MAKING HIS SKEPTICISM A DEITY-OF-GAPS:
1. Then we get to the real nitty gritty, and it is pure garbage with zero basis. 15mins 40s he dismisses Muslim historians offhandedly, with a giggle. Then goes into his baseless theory, ignoring Muslim historians and historians that give a favourable opinion of the Islamification of the Near East.
He claims that there was a “Believers Movement” which was a primordial Islam.
It begins in earnest at 19mins 28s he claims that the Qur’an addressed Moomins (including saying “Oh you who Believe”) about 1,000 times, rather than Muslims and suggests that the people being addressed were a primordial community called Moomins i.e. Believers, and that is why Muslim Caliphs were called “Amir al Mu’mineen” (Commander of the Faithful, Captain of the Moomins).
HERE IS MY REBUTTAL:
i) The Qur’an is fine calling Muslims “Moomins”. We don’t make much distinction. Moomins = talking to our hearts. Belief is in the heart. Muslim is the grandest expression of our religion, and this term acknowledges the full religion, including the law.
The Moomin is the internalised faith = the Heart = the commonality of ALL good people
The Muslim = The Moomin + The New Outer Law
The Moomin can be:
Nominal sense: Jews, Christians and Sabians who share our Heart = Monotheism (Sufism is a common vehicle of this)
Nominal sense: The Heart of any given Muslim i.e. what the Muslim is, at heart (and Muslim in turn can refer to the Moomins that followed a religious law before Islam - see below).
Definite sense: The reality that a person believes in God - only God can judge this
The Muslim can be:
Nominal sense: Since the time of the Prophet Muhammad’s ministry: the person who has accepted the religion known explicitly as Islam e.g. Qur’an 39:12
Nominal sense: Before the time of the Prophet Muhammad: those who have accepted the religious law of a preceding Law-giving Prophet e.g. Moses (peace be upon him), e.g. Qur’an 4:11, Qur’an 22:78
Definite sense: The reality that a person has submitted to God - only God can judge this
ii) Throughout most of the Qur’an, the religion was not in its final phase, and thus the Law was not complete. Thus the term “Muslim” was probably not deemed the most suitable by God.
iii) When Muslims had taken over lands in which there were substantial Christian, Jewish and Sabaean populations (Jewish and Sabaean populations were scattered, but apparently they were moribund), they wanted to make it clear that they came as siblings in a family tree of Monotheism (this is a standard Qur’anic view too, it is nothing new), hence the umbrella term “Moomins” - to allay fears and also to reflect that the Caliph was ruler of all people and was happy to recognise all people. The ends vindicate the means: the region massively converted to Islam and as the Fred Donner even states at 33mins 42s: there’s no archaeological evidence of a “Destruction Layer” in Near Eastern towns (except maybe signs of a siege at Caesarea) to mark out Muslim conquest. It was a freeing of minds, an Empire of the Mind as one non-Muslim documentary put it.
iv) Caliphs are called Amir al Mu’mineen even now, e.g. in Afghanistan.
v) Fred even admits in the same breath at 20mins 14s that the Qur’an also addresses us as “Muslims”, albeit fewer times (“60 or 70” times he claims).
vi) To put paid to the “Montheist Revival Movement” / “Believers Movement” we need go no further than the Qur’an itself, even, thus we see that Muslims never had an any ambiguous primordial Believers Mashup Movement:
Qur’an 3:19 The true religion with God is Islam. Those who were given the Book were not at variance except after the knowledge came to them, being insolent one to another. And whoso disbelieves in God’s signs. God is swift at the reckoning.
Qur’an 018.004 And to warn those who say: Allah hath chosen a son,
018.005 (A thing) whereof they have no knowledge, nor (had) their fathers, Dreadful is the word that cometh out of their mouths. They speak naught but a lie.
Qur’an 021.017 [CONDEMNING THOSE WHO SAY GOD PLAYS AROUND, implicitly also those who say God took a mistress, and begat a son]
If We had wished to find a pastime, We could have found it in Our presence - if We ever did.
Qur’an 112.003 He begetteth not nor was begotten.
112.004 And there is none comparable unto Him.
2. At 23mins 34s Fred Donner makes a very misleading statement that according to Islam, “SOME of the Peoples (sic) of the Book were among the Believers, or were considered among the Believers, and would attain salvation on the Last Day” and then he says (24mins) this suggests that Islam began as a “Monotheistic Revival Movement that could INCLUDE Christians and Jews IF they were adequately pious”. This is a great lie.
ALL People of the Book were Moomins, and we have ZERO way to judge a person’s piety, we do NOT judge people’s piety, we look to our OWN selves and criticise our OWN selves, we are the best community that ever lived, we are not judgemental. As the Qur’an states:
003.110 Ye are the best community that hath been raised up for mankind. Ye enjoin right conduct and forbid indecency; and ye believe in Allah. And if the People of the Scripture had believed it had been better for them. Some of them are believers; but most of them are evil-livers.
Incidentally, the above Qur’an verse states that some People of the Book are believers, but most are not. This is ONLY for God to judge. It is talking about the condition of the Heart. From any human’s point of view, ALL People of the Book are Moomins, i.e. Believers.
3. At 26mins 10s Fred explains that the Jewish tribes of Medina were considered part of the community according to what is purported to be the Charter of Madina. However, this isn’t some kind of primordial Monotheistic Revival Movement that would include Jews if they proved themselves pious enough, this is just natural practice for a Muslim ruler, to include all Moomins!
4. 27mins 34s: He really runs with it, saying that when Christians and Jews were confronted with Muslim preachers, they saw that “you could become a Believer - JOIN THE MOVEMENT”. As if this “Monotheistic Revival Movement” / “Believers Movement” is now established. What an absolute lie.
5. 29mins 57s: He cites a church in Palestine that has what might be the remains of a Mihrab (Muslim mosque pulpit) on one side, and he explains also that the Ummayad Mosque in Damascus was originally split between Muslims and Christians before all finally converted to Islam. Which instantly explains the first observation. Note by the way that there is no definitive mosque architecture, a mosque could be a square of consecrated ground bordered by stones, even. But this is just a minor detail.
6. 32mins 8s: He states “We don’t know how Muslim ritual evolved exactly … it may be that … that the way Muslim prayer evolved was heavily influenced by the way Christians and Jews prayed in the Late Antique world because certainly Christian prayer in the Late Antique period at least also involved prostrations and, and bowing and so on.”
I have visually seen a Jew praying as Muslims do, by bowing, l think l saw kneeling too, and this certainly is part of Jewish prayer during the High Holidays but the Islamic prayer has it’s own peculiarities, and it wouldn’t bother me if the Prophet Muhammad took inspiration from Jews. No need for a “Monotheistic Revival Movement” / “Believers Movement” though.
EPILOGUE: LYIN’ TO THE END!
41mins 30s: Fred states that Islamic doctrine is not set firmly. This is not true, differences in opinion are a blessing to us but in order to consolidate variations as huge numbers of people began entering the faith across a wide area, Islamic practice organised into around 4 “Mazhabs” or “Schools” / “Mannerisms” and these incorporate all matters in the living practice of the faith. It’s important to note that theologians of the different schools would pray according to the other’s school when they met a different theologian - at least that’s how they used to be (so as not to allow a sect to form).
According to Seyyed Hossein Nasr:
“In the Islamic perspective, the oneness of God has as its consequence not the uniqueness of prophecy, but its multiplicity, since God as the Infinite created a world in which there is multiplicity and this includes, of course, the human order. For Islam, revelation and prophecy are both necessary and universal. Humanity, according to the Quran, was created from a single soul, but then diversified into races and tribes, for, as the Quran states, “He created you [humanity] from a single soul” (39: 6).
The single origin of humanity implies the profound unity within diversity of human nature, and therefore religion based on the message of Divine Oneness could not have been only meant for or available to a segment of humanity. The multiplicity of races, nations, and tribes necessitates the diversity of revelations. Therefore, the Quran asserts on the one hand that “To every people [We have sent] a messenger” (10: 48), and, on the other hand, “For each [people] We have appointed a Divine Law and a way.
Had God willed, He could have made you one community. But that He may try you by that which He hath given you. So vie with one another in good works. Unto God ye will all return, and He will then inform you concerning that wherein ye differed” (5: 48). According to these and other verses, not only is the multiplicity of religions necessary, but it is also a reflection of the richness of the Divine Nature and is willed by God.”
This understanding of Islam is fully consistent with Vedanta and the perennial philosophy. Without such a vision, it’s not possible to see the divine oneness immanent within the so-called clash of civilizations that has dominated the surface of human history.
That is the appeal to Moomins in the sense of People of the Book and perhaps in a wider sense to all who are feeling divine Unity in their hearts.
Here’s an illustration of Muslim / Moomin:
A church may be marrying a different couple each day. Each couple’s ceremony is solemn and the biggest day ever.
The marrage itself is submission to law e.g. civil law plus divine law.
Islam = the marriage ceremony, with all its legal trappngs plus of course the couple.
Moomin = the faithful, the faithfulness of the couple
But also: Muslim = the marriage of the previous day in its own right [= past iterations of the faith e.g. Judaism, Christianity, Sabianism, or some other forgotten prophet]
And also: Moomin = in the deepest most specific sense, God pointing the finger at man and wife separately, and judging them to be faithful, knowing what noboidy else could really know for sure, whether they cheated or not, whether they even cheated with their eyes and thoughts (sure we can look and thnk about other people, but God knows the extent and only God can judge, though as an asides thoughts aren’t punishable but my point is, true Moomin = something only God decides)
Also Moomin = all true lovers everywhere, even those that never heard of the church hall where the weddngs are occurring but would surely get married there if they knew.
So you see, multiple sense of Muslim / Moomin but they are very much interchangeable and very much apprioriate to the same person at times, and to non-Muslim at times and to non-Muslims AND Muslims together, at times,
Also: Moomin entails:
-
All infants everywhere, before adolescence.
-
Spirits (Jinn) that believe in God, though they can like humans also be called Muslim, Jew etc., Muslims always call believing Jinn “Moomins” because the good spirits (Moomins) never speak to us not reveal themselves to us, so we can’t know their religion, so they are just Moomins to us. The bad ones are Shayateen (plural of Shaytaan). These are “devils”.
-
The Islam of the original Makkah stage is perhaps what Fred Fish whatsisname refers to. This is actually a great way of understanding Sufism, the early Makkan surahs of the Qur’an. As l explained somewhere before, that’s one further argument against Tom Holland’s revisionism - we know each Surah as being from Makkah or Madina, so we’ve always known Makkah as Makkah, it was never secretly Jerusalem or Petra LOL! Also Madina (as Fred mentions) was originally called Yathrib and came to be called Medina when the Prophet settled there, i.e. Madinat an Nabi - “City of the Prophet”, i.e. we know where Makkah and Madina are, even if Tom Holland is clueless. Btw there are are according to Wikipedia 21 late Makkan surahs, these will be from when the Prophet moved back to Makkah and thus not “early Sufistic Islam” as such.
I can’t believe l’m actually going to dissect these lies, l don’t have time and will soon have to leave here so anything you say after this will possibly not be replied to:
Exclusive? Islam is the ONLY exoteric religion specifically intended for the entire world including humans and Jinn.
Muslims are by definition Muslims, nobody is allowed to be a Muslim but a Muslim.
Our terrae sanctorum are Madina, Makkah and Jerusalem. There is no reason to visit Makkah and Madina unless a person is Muslim, same as other holy places on earth.
This is not exclusive, there are several exclusive holy places on earth.
Nobody can preach Islam in the Vatican, it’s not a big deal.
Makkah is not the shrine of Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him), it’s the House of God, it is said to be the first house ever built, but others say Abraham (peace be upon him) built it, and Isma’il (peace be upon him) helped him. The nearest thing to the shrine of Muhammad is his grave in his mosque at Madina, a different city. This small space is a tiny portion of paradise or something like that: Abu Huraira (may God be pleased with him) narrated that the Prophet said, “Between my grave and pulpit lies one of the gardens of Paradise; my pulpit lies above my pool.”
Every religion has pilgrimages as far as l’m aware. Of course when l research, l will find some religions that do not have pilgrimages. They will be exceptions.
You l assume do not go on pilgrimages, nor fast, nor pray as part of your daily life by physically piurifying yourself and making physical movements e.g. bending a stff neck in humility. Maybe try these things, sir.
The Prophet was born in 570 CE and sadly left us in 632 CE.
His surname was not Mustaf. His first wife was not Kadida, She was Lady Khadja (may Allah be pleased with her).
His full title was Muhammad ibn 'Abdullah though, because his father was 'Abdullah. His mother was Lady Aminah. May Allah be pleased with both of his parents!
We are not allowed to pray for the Prophet’s parents, but we are allowed to pray for Lady Maryam (may Allah be pleased with her). I’m certain we all pray for our Prophet’s parents anyway.
The Qur’an had always existed in scattered parchments, writings on large animal “blade” type bones, etc. as well as in the hearts of Believers. Qur’an means “recitation” and that is what primarily was - not a mushaf (physical book). It will always be in the original Arabic. Just before the world ends, it will disappear. I think this may be a time after Jesus (peace be upon him) has returned, ruled, and died.
Islam has no symbol. The closest thing we have is the signet seal of the Prophet Muhammad which has been copied by evildoers who seek to turn people against our faith, of whom you are one by the way.
The crescent and moon was taken from multiple sources:
- Primarily it was a symbol of the invading pagan Turks who were historically invited over to fight for the Christians against the Christian Serbs and other Slavs and northern barbarians.
- It was also the symbol of Constantinople, which eventually came to be known by the Greek term “Eistan pol” or “In the city”, which was Turkefied to “Istanbul”.
- It is also on the coat of arms of many cities and states, including Christian cities.
- I believe it is / was used by the British Royal Navy and is still the coat of arms of Portsmouth (and the symbol of its football club), an English city that is very closely connected to the Royal Navy.
- The star and crescent is not actually a depiction of the moon, the star is too close to the crescent in most depictions. You need to research what it is.
It is non-sequitur that it is a Satanic occult teaching. It is not Satanic. We are the best community that ever lived, we enjoin good and resist evil. We repudiate Satan at least 17 times a day if not more. You do not.
It is not of the occult. Allah can change people’s faces and you yourselves believe Jesus’s face was once transformed during the transfiguration.
Moreoever, the Substitution of Christ is also thought to have been taught in Gnostic gospels, but that doesn’t matter to us and it has been taught by orientalist professors who are liars, albeit of a different variety to yourself.
You have given God Almighty the body parts and the need, to go to the toilet.
You lterally worship _________ _______ .
This is mediocrity enshrined.
Nobody takes you seriously, l’m just wrapping up loose ends by replying to you, sir.
My religion forbids me to mock other religions and to answer in a better way than you speak. My religion thus makes me better than you who make it your daily life to calumnise Islam and / or pacify Judaism. You self-defeat and your “Talmdic curse” is a lie. You peddle lies and blasphemies. I wish you’d stop and improve your own self, sir.
Here’s one of many quotes from the Qur’an which smash the brain out of your falsehood:
“And of His portents are the night and the day and the sun and the moon. Do not prostrate to the sun or the moon; but prostrate to Allah Who created them, if it is in truth Him Whom ye worship.”
I have no idea which Encyclopaedia you have read but surely nobody would write a big book and fill it with schoolboy errors such as you peddle.
The Prophet Muhammad lived a life of fear, suffering, betrayal, and hope, and ultimately victory from Allah. I would not wish that difficult life on anybody.
Introducing monotheism to Pagan HQ (Makkah was the pagan financial centre for all of Arabia Felix) was like trying to set up a sweet shop in the egg incubation area of the Alien movie.
Yet you suggest Islam was in cahoots with paganism? Please, sir: do not peddle lies.
“The rationalist and agnostic methods of higher criticism applied by certain Western scholars to the text of the Quran, which was not compiled over a long period of time like the Old and the New Testaments, is as painful and as much a blasphemy to Muslims as it would be to believing Christians if some Muslim archeologists claimed to have discovered some physical remains of Christ and were using DNA analysis to determine whether he was born miraculously or was the son of Joseph.”
Seyyed Hossein Nasr
This, I think, comes close to the crux of your problem with the critical/historical approach of this thread.
Hello, before l saw your message l was debating with myself whether to put you on ignore even though we were on relatively friendly terms because the fact is, you are not here to debate anything as explained below (for anyone else reading).
I have no idea why you are saying l have a problem with this thread and that my only argument is an emotional plea that you are hurting me with blasphemy.
Clearly the recurring problem is your uncritical acceptance of anything contrary to the Islamic view of Islam.
Your view is a radical view. Moreover your attitude is radical and is the fallacy of Invincible Ignorance as follows:
Invincible ignorance (argument by pigheadedness) – where a person simply refuses to believe the argument, ignoring any evidence given.
Also, because your full focus is on ambiguity:
Argument from ignorance (appeal to ignorance, argumentum ad ignorantiam) – assuming that a claim is true because it has not been or cannot be proven false, or vice versa.
I have repeatedly invited you to a succinct formal debate, even offering to bring it down to just two rounds - but you have ignored it.
This is your pattern: ignorance.
I do not have a problem with the subject matter. My problems are clearly as follows, and you’d be a fool not to notice:
- Your posting of big big videos wherever you tread (tbh you’re not the worst offender) without any commentary that puts it in your own words. This undermines discussion.
- Your repeating of negative assertions undermining my faith and Abrahamic faiths in general, without integrating feedback. Repating negative assertions without integrating feedback is trolling.
- Cluster B personality types repeatedly calling my faith (and thus the founder of my faith and myself and my loved ones etc. etc.) “antichrist” and “Satanic”. This undermines debate.
As can be seen, l have responded fairly always, with a comprehensive rebuttal. Your lack of counterarg illustrates Qur’an 21:18:
Nay, We hurl the Truth against falsehood, and it knocks out its brain, and behold, falsehood doth perish! Ah! woe be to you for the (false) things ye ascribe (to Us).
Peace!
Felix seeing as we’re levelling on a personal basis now l do get the impression that, as you keep saying you were once full on Christian, perhaps you got disappointed that you were not rewarded by God and now you’re blowing raspberries at him and telling him ner ner you don’t exist / your religion is derp.
I would tender that God often rewards the Believer with a degree of suffering not seen in well-to-do men of the world. It doesn’t mean your bow-tie hobnob chomping stuffy father-figure orientalist professors were right. But maybe you were just being put on a journey of discovery. I do hope that you get the rewards you, perhaps, expected now, or even better, in the hereafter. Bye bye.
How you got that impression, I can only guess. But, you have been quick to slander people on ILP, so why would I be an exception?
Is “ Then fight and slay the pagans (idolaters)wherever you find them and see them and besiege them and lie in wait for them in each and every ambush.” an accurate translation of the Koran chapter 9: verse5? It was cited by Khalid, Sheikh, Mohammed as justification for the 911 attacks on America. Did he misinterpret the Koran? If so, how?
1 Like
I am responding as you are trying to undermine my religion by attacking me personally. You write this quick vicious dig at me with zero relevance to the topic and nothing constructive in it, whilst (for the second time, first time being my BeingMuslim ID hiatus) waiting a while and knowing l’m away (my ID clearly states “On hiatus from here, too busy IRL - have fun! Peace.”). I am fasting right now, and l am trying to devote myself to things not to do with this world.
I fail to see what any of this has to do with my rebuttal of yet another long video posing a radical theory that Islam was completed after the death of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) - here
I posted the rebuttal formally and respectfully and l invited you to study Islam’s primary texts so that you may better discern what is said of it.
In response, you ignored everything l had written, which took hours to formulate as l had to trawl through your video (which you failed to adequately put into your own words, you’re happy just throwing stuff out there), here, and here
Instead, your reply insisted that l have an absolute insoluble problem with academia, as it implied l made no academic rebuttal, and thus it accused me of Invicible Ignorance:
Also in a previous thread here.
and thus the implication is that you need not answer my rebuttal
… just as you need not formulate a case against Islam in your own words, you’d rather sling a video
… and you clearly don’t see the need to study Islam in its own terms first, before uncritically accepting revisionist theories against it.
It is actually yourself that once again exhibits Invincible Igorance - you have not taken me on academically. Islam was completed by the time of the Prophet’s Farewell Sermon.
This is supplemental to the myriad other mistakes you / your espoused revisionist theories have made in their writing off Islam as something invented by men generation after generation, which l have meticulously catalogued in my replies.
You typically ignore my replies (here and in the Yahwist revisionism thread) at least in that you don’t counter them, you just re-assert what you already wrote, e.g. l post a theory that deviations from monotheism are already catered for in the monotheist narrative that people lose their religion when they become enamoured by the material world. Your response is ever: restate that some artefact has been found showing a stringy wiry deity with stringy wiry wives / daughters etc. But l already countered that.
You are thereforre trolling, i.e. making repeated negative assertions without integrating feedback.
Having seen you give at least 2 upvotes to people making personal attacks against me, l can honestly say your attitude has taken an even worse turn, by accusing me of a propensity toward slandering others:
And to top it off, you use the terrorism slur on me, quoting a partial Qur’an verse which people who hate Islam, and want to undermine it any which way, will always give a partial version of. And you try to call me to account for BIn Laden. Of course, when l respond to rebuke people projecting this dreadful sliur against me, you then broadcast to the world (once l’m away for long enough) that you find me to be “quick to slander”.
I can definitely say you are a liar (because you relentlessly push revisionist theories about Islam and other Abrahamic whilst ignoring their rebuttals), and a slanderer (buy projecting the slur of terrorism on me, and wilfully misquoting the Qur’an). You have no hope of ever liking Islam or past iterations of monotheistic faiths. Your core aim here to spread lies about these faiths. It seems you have even become enamoured to Sufism? Kindly do not associate with this beloved institution.
If you want to discuss Qur’an 9:5 (009.005 Then, when the sacred months have passed, slay the idolaters wherever ye find them, and take them (captive), and besiege them, and prepare for them each ambush. But if they repent and establish worship and pay the poor-due, then leave their way free. Lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.) then do so on an independent topic and quote the verse in its entirety, as l have just done.
May Allah judge between us, peace be upon you.