Jump to content
Islamic Forum

KenPruitt

Member
  • Content count

    39
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

2 Neutral

About KenPruitt

  • Rank
    Jr. Member
  • Birthday 08/28/1990

Previous Fields

  • Marital Status
    Single
  • Religion
    Other religion

Contact Methods

  • AIM
    gohankp20032000[at]yahoo.com

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Bartlett, Tennessee
  • Interests
    Economics, Psychology, Praxeology, Epistemology, History, video games, any work done on Islam, The Bible (this is a recent interest of mine), the Holy Qur'an (this is also a recent interest of mine), among other things.
  1. I Am Sorry, But....

    By the way, to the question of why I'm not a Muslim, the answer to that question is simple; Islam, despite common belief, is in fact a terrorist religion.
  2. I Am Sorry, But....

    There is so much foolishness here, I don't even know where to start... sure, translations are not going to be word-for-word the same as the original text, but according to that line of argument, nothing should ever be translated from the original language. In your attempt to refute rational thought as "Western" and thus somehow inherently evil, you've thrown away the very tools needed to understand your system... which is why you keep getting killed by me on this nonsense every time you bring it up. Go take a hard look in the mirror kid, because if you're not prepared to base faith on sound, rational reason, you're no better than the pagans the Qur'an derides. At least you partially get it, somewhat. Sure, a translation can be flawed or lacking, but that doesn't mean that the concept of translation has to be thrown out. It simply means that the translator made some mistakes. Thankfully, mistakes in translation are easily remedied.
  3. I Am Sorry, But....

    I'll PM you the literature page where you can find the books. You'll have to individually search out each book, but all of them can be found there. As for understandings of Islam being limited with regards to English translations (or to any translation for that matter), a little thought (and a quote from the Qur'an) shows why this doesn't pan out. Any translation worth the name must accurately reflect the meaning and intention of the original text. The wording may be slightly different from translation to translation, but if it is indeed a translation, then the message and the intent will be there. If the message and/or the intent of the original is lost through translation, then the new text is not a translation at all. If the Yusef Ali English translation of the Qur'an, for instance, doesn't accurately reflect the Word of God as depicted in the Qur'an, for whatever reason, the Muslims are obligated, in the name of Allah, to call for a revision of the text, if not an outright recall of it. But, this has other problems. If the Yusef Ali translation of the Qur'an doesn't accurately represent Islam, then God's word has been falsified; a conclusion which a Muslim, if he believes that his Qur'an is indeed the pure, infallible word of God Almighty, cannot accept, for the Qur'an says quite explicitly that God will protect it from falsification. You might respond that the Qur'an cannot be read in any language other than Arabic; it can only be interpreted. It is a sufficient response to point out the following; if something cannot be read, it cannot be interpreted. Period. If you don't believe me, put on a blindfold, have someone hand you a piece of paper, and try to INTERPRET said piece of paper. If you respond that you cannot interpret it because you cannot read it, then you've seen how silly that argument is. And while there is nothing wrong with learning Arabic so you can read the original Arabic Qur'an, this is hardly necessary. In fact, even the Qur'an tells you the explicit reason why the Qur'an is in Arabic. Surah 41:44 of the Qur'an: "And if We had made it a non-Arabic Qur'an, they would have said, "Why are its verses not explained in detail [in our language]? Is it a foreign [recitation] and an Arab [messenger]?" Say, "It is, for those who believe, a guidance and cure." And those who do not believe - in their ears is deafness, and it is upon them blindness. Those are being called from a distant place." The part in bold is a dead giveaway. The reason the Qur'an was in Arabic is because of the particular prophet (Muhammad), and the particular region in which it was given (the Middle-East, where Arabic is the dominate language, or at least it was back then. I don't know about now.) No where does the Qur'an say that translation falsifies the Qur'an, nor does it say that the Arabic language is perfect (an idea I've heard some Muslims put forth). It says it was revealed in Arabic so that those then hearing it would take heed. It was more of a common-sense thing than anything else.
  4. I Am Sorry, But....

    The majority of these books, if you don't object to reading a PDF, can be found for free from their respective publishers. The very vast majority of the books listed, and more besides, can be found here under the literature tab. www.mises.org
  5. I Am Sorry, But....

    No. I asked because I wanted to see how well you actually understand your material. I'm convinced, until you prove to me otherwise, that you do not understand the Qur'an, and thereby do not understand Islam. I tell you what. Since you (unlike some people here) actually care somewhat, I am going to post the (in?)famous reading list here. This list assumes that the Qur'an and the Bible are already on your bookshelf. Books in bold are of special importance to Muslims. Warning: some of the titles listed may offend you. If it does, I do not care. "The Theory of Money and Credit", "Socialism: An Economic and Sociological Analysis", "Human Action: A Treatise on Economics", "Theory and History: An Interpretation of Social and Economic Evolution" all by Ludwig von Mises. "Man, Economy, and State with Power and Market", "What Has the Government Done to Our Money, and the Case for a 100% Gold Dollar", "Wall-Street, Banks, and American Foreign Policy", "Egalitarianism as a Revolt Against Nature", "The Betrayal of the American Right", "The Mystery of Banking", "An Austrian Perspective on the History of Economic Thought vol. I&II" all by Murray N. Rothbard. "No Treason: The Constitution of No Authority", "The Unconstitutionality of Slavery", all by Lysander Spooner. "Economics in One Lesson", "Time Will Run Back", "The Failure of the 'New Economics'", by Henry Hazlitt "The Bastiat Collection" this is a collection of everything Frederic Bastiat ever wrote, and all of it is important. "Qur'an, Hadith, and Islam" by Dr. Rashad Khalifi. "Islam Without Extremes: The Muslim Case for Liberty" by Mustafa Akyol. "The Criminals of Islam" by Shabbir Ahmed. "Deep Freeze: Iceland's Economic Collapse" by Phillip Bagus and David Howden "Explaining Postmodernism: Skepticism and Socialism from Rousseau to Foucault", "Defending Shylock: Productive Work in Financial Markets", by Stephen R.C. Hicks. "America's Second Crusade" by William Henry Chamberlin "How Diplomats Make War" by Francis Nelson "Back Door to War: The Roosevelt Foreign Policy, 1933-1941" by Charles Callan Tansill. "The God of the Machine" by Isabel Patterson. "Capital and Interest" by Eugen von Bohm-Bawerk. "Principles of Economics" by Carl Menger. "The Theory of Collective Bargaining", "The Theory of Idle Resources", "The Economics of the Color Bar", by W.H. Hutt. "The Theory of Education in the United States" by Albert J. Nock Now, I am going to sit back and wait for the insults, warnings from the admins, and the possible threats of violence for this list.
  6. I Am Sorry, But....

    "You intellectualization is a classic example of the very things you are railing against ... you have been taught well by Western rationalism." Is further proof needed that friendly Western/Islamic relations are impossible at this point? "Off course you will see everything that confronts your entrenched belief system as 'demonstrably false' ... nothing new here ... you follow in the great tradition of the philosophers who do little more than talk to each other about abstract ideas all of which are designed to support their own inflated egos ... they essentially have nothing to offer other a better looking and bigger BIG BROTHER house." And you base this on... what? The fact that I actually tried helping you people? You have reminded me quite forcefully of the reason why I once told myself that I would never waste my time with Muslims ever again. "I am not interested in you inane questions ... I can get any number of those through academia ... and it's all been said before which really makes the whole exercise boring ... so you will have to excuse me ... I have better things to do than to turn tricks for you." And with this, you formally renounced any claim that you had to the title of Muslim. No Muslims would consider direct questions about what the Qur'an says to be inane questions. To consider it such, in any circumstance, is to show not only extreme disrespect to the Qur'an, but it also shows an inflated ego that needs to be put in check. I hate to break this to you kid (not really), but if you can't even handle me (you clearly can't), you might as well just become a stoic, and permanently dismiss yourself from world/religious affairs. You are not equipped for the kind of work you have chosen to undertake. You lack both the knowledge, and the discipline needed to properly learn your craft.
  7. I Am Sorry, But....

    Actually, you personify my frustrations. Every answer you have given is demonstrably false, and if followed, lead you to the same place that you're trying to get away from. 1) How can I justify such a sweeping statement? Look at the response to the media, which hosts these shouting matches, and look at the way people who watch the media conduct themselves. This is easily done by simply going to YouTube, looking up some news clips, and reading the comments. The majority of those comments are from Westerners. 2) It is all about economics, and your cry that the media wants it to be about economics is false. Every time the media deals with the Islamic world, never is it on economics. It is either about the religion of Islam, or asking whether or not the wars are justified. Economic philosophy is never discussed. And as for your claim that this is just shorthand for justifying the inequitable distribution of the word wealth, if I follow, in my head, every possible economic system you could advocate to replace the current systems, you would be right where we are now, if not worse. The only difference between your system and theirs is you call yours Islam (and actually, it isn't Islam at all). It does not matter if one calls it the government instituting the system Islamic, Christian, Buddhist, Jewish, or even Satanic. Capitalism is still Capitalism, Socialism is still Socialism, and Nonsense is still Nonsense, and denying the laws of economics has the same consequences regardless of what you call the system. 3) My Thesis, as you put it, is simply this; the Qur'an may be, as it claims to be, complete, but you are not. You lack the tools needed to understand your own system, and you wonder why the West is knocking hells into you both on the battlefield and in the intellectual sphere. I don't advocate mimicking anyone; you're already doing that, as I've shown already. I tell you what; since you appear to be so confident that you understand your system, I have a little challenge for you in the form of a questionnaire. If you can complete my challenge, and score an 3/5 on this little questionnaire of mine, I'll take back everything I've said and admit I was wrong. I will warn you however; the answers are not obvious. 1) What is a Religious Prohibition, and how does it differ from a standard government prohibition? 2) Does the Qur'an forbid interest lending? 3) What does the Qur'an say about compulsion in religion, and what inferences regarding public policy can be drawn from it? 4) What does the Qur'an say is the best way to spread belief and morality? 5) What does the Qur'an say about theft, and what inferences can be made from it as regards public policy?
  8. I Am Sorry, But....

    Very well, but remember; you asked for this. Do not blame me if this offends you or makes you angry. Since I am Western myself, I'll start with the West. Rational discourse is all but gone in the Western world. The media, particularly in America, is full of incomprehensible shouting matches that they present as "Explosive Interviews". Pick a topic, it doesn't matter. Politics, economics, sports, celebrity gossip, all of it is delivered in the same fashion... unless of course both the interviewer and the interviewee agree. The ability to have discourse within the Western world without it devolving into a disrespectful shouting match is all but gone. Why? Because people have been bombarded with this nonsense for so long, this is how discourse is had now in the West. Only a notable few do not engage in this sort of practice. The West shouts/guns down all opposing opinions, and has absolutely no stake in understanding their opposition. Let me prove this to you undeniably. Let's take the Islamophobes for instance. Common sense tells everyone that if you are going to oppose a doctrine or a group of people, then, if you're going to have any chance at success, you must familiarize yourself with the people and doctrines you oppose. This is common sense. Thus, common sense dictates that every Islamophobe should have a copy of the Qur'an on their bookshelf, and should know it well enough that they can cite, from memory and at any time, passages that support their case. For instance, I can cite, from memory, 4:29 which forbids suicide, and 4:89-90 which disproves the claim that Islam advocates killing apostates. So, common sense dictates that the Islamophobes must be able to do the same thing. Right? This isn't controversial in the least, but every Muslim knows that this just isn't the case. Why? Because, despite the West's insistence in constantly meddling in world affairs, they are incredibly ignorant of said world affairs. Why? Because they don't care. Their opposition isn't Islam at all. The truth of the matter is the source of the anti-Islamic propaganda is the same as the source that said that the German Kaiser was Satan and that America was God (this was actual World War 1 propaganda). What does the Qur'an say about X and Y? Who cares! That completely misses the point. The point is, how can we justify the agenda we're not telling people about? The truth is, all of this is based on one very simple proposition; "To export is to enrich a nation, to import is to impoverish a nation." That is what this is about. It is economics. The Islamophobia is just a cover for the enactment of this principle. The West, as such, has no stake in what the Qur'an actually says or teaches. That is to say; they couldn't care less what the Qur'an says. The Muslims, however, so blinded by this assault on their faith that they completely missed the point, and in their general distrust of non-Muslims, they have instead referred to the poisonous words of self-interested Imams and Mullahs, who not only have a prestige that they quite frankly do not deserve, but are, more often than not, far from qualified to speak on the topics that they generally speak on. How many Islamic scholars have proposed Islam as an alternative to Capitalism or Communism, for instance? Because of this, the Muslims are missing incredibly vital pieces to the puzzle. They don't know the real aims of the West, and as such, they are at a natural disadvantage when they attempt to engage in dialogue. The dialogue, if there are any, proceeds "according to plan", i.e., how the West had wanted them to go. The West wants the debate to be about Islam, not the economic philosophy guiding their actions. They put these "scholars" (that is in quotation for a reason), to argue against Islam, while the poor Muslim, economically illiterate and ignorant of his opposition, is forced to fight back exactly how the West wants him to. The West picked your opponent, decided the terms of the battle, and like a fool you charged in screaming Allahu Akbar without the slightest clue as to what you're actually fighting against. This is why friendly interaction between the Western and Islamic world is impossible. Not only are friendly interactions counter to the West's economic interests, the Muslim will not abandon the religious debate long enough to truly educate themselves on their opponent. But, maybe I am wrong in this characterization of Muslims. Maybe you actually do care. If you really care, and you want a real intellectual weapon to use against these people; a weapon that will cut through their nonsense without fail, then send me a PM on here, and I'll see what I can do to help you out.
  9. Actually, I don't watch the news at all. It's poison. And as for the U.S. Constitution, "No Treason: The Constitution of No Authority" by Lysander Spooner is my response.
  10. I Am Sorry, But....

    ^^^ You've made so many presumptions based on so little, and you wonder why I say that friendly Western/Islamic relations are impossible.
  11. I Am Sorry, But....

    No, I base this on my own experiences with Western culture and my own personal interactions with Muslims. The fact of the matter is, friendly relations between the two is impossible. And in trying to refute me, you actually proved my point for me. Read closely what you all typed, and see if you can spot the problem. If I have to point it out, you won't like it at all.
  12. Don't presume I posted that to ask a question.
  13. Bold underline is mine. Surah 4:29: "O ye who believe! Eat up not your property in vanities: But let there be amongst you Triffic and trade by mutual good-will: NOR KILL (OR DESTROY) YOURSELVES: for Allah hath been to you Most Merciful."
  14. Can We Define "moderate Muslim" ?

    Not only is there no such thing as a moderate Muslim, this is hardly a bad thing.
  15. I Am Sorry, But....

    This entire idea that the Islamic world and the Western world are going to understand each other is silly, nonsensical, and utterly impossible. Both parties have utterly abandoned reason, and thus dialogue is rendered useless.
×