Jump to content
Islamic Forum
Sign in to follow this  
Ron Shirt

A Problem With The Quran/islam

Recommended Posts

Well, this is like asking if I can show that life on earth is a creation. It has obviously come into being in some way and this is what is effectively, 'creation', meaning to 'bring into being' or having been brought into being. So even if 'nature' can be said to have brought life on earth into being, then one can equally well say that 'nature' is an artifact of a great whole, i.e. God. There is nothing that might lead anyone to believe that God is anything other than 'natural', anyway. The fact that he might appear as being 'supernatural' is merely an atifact of the present unknowability of His absolute Essence. If we were to have this conversation in a few thouseand years time, it is completely possible that God and Science will be totally reconciled with one another.

 

If it simply means "To bring into being", then what would've brought any gods "into being"?

 

You could say that God is eternal, but then why the need for an eternal God? Why not cut out one step and say that the universe is eternal?

 

What's to say that the universe won't compress back into a singularity, and then bgin to expand with another big bang, and repeat itself over and over forever?

 

That would be an entirely naturalistic universe, it would have no need for an eternal creator and it's just as - if not more - likely than a creator.

 

You have absolutely no justification in saying that the likelyhood of God existing is on a par with you having three arms, by the way.

 

You're right, they're not on par - I can explain how me having three arms might be possible, through gene mutation. It would, of course, still remain highly unlikely, but can you explain how a god could be possible?

 

Me having three pairs of arms, although highly unlikely, is far more possible than a god.

 

All you're doing is replacing one unknown with another unknown, it explains nothing, just puts a human face on things that you don't know so you can feel like you do know. So the unknown doesn't seem to scary or confusing. Claiming to know that there's a creator, who created the universe, and did everything to create us, etc, prevents you from actually being able to "examine the mysteries", because why would you examine something if you already believe you have the answers?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PropellerAds
"The same is true for non-Muslims who take verses, twist them out of recognition to make them appear against science, and use them to fool gullible non-Muslims. It really does happen, believe it or not."

 

Can you show some examples of this please?

 

That the Qur'an says the Earth is flat.

That the Qur'an says stars fall out of the sky because they are thrown at the devils.

That the Qur'an says the sun sets in a muddy spring.

 

And so on, and so forth.

 

Salam.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If it simply means "To bring into being", then what would've brought any gods "into being"?

 

You could say that God is eternal, but then why the need for an eternal God? Why not cut out one step and say that the universe is eternal?

 

What's to say that the universe won't compress back into a singularity, and then bgin to expand with another big bang, and repeat itself over and over forever?

 

That would be an entirely naturalistic universe, it would have no need for an eternal creator and it's just as - if not more - likely than a creator.

You're right, they're not on par - I can explain how me having three arms might be possible, through gene mutation. It would, of course, still remain highly unlikely, but can you explain how a god could be possible?

 

Me having three pairs of arms, although highly unlikely, is far more possible than a god.

 

All you're doing is replacing one unknown with another unknown, it explains nothing, just puts a human face on things that you don't know so you can feel like you do know. So the unknown doesn't seem to scary or confusing. Claiming to know that there's a creator, who created the universe, and did everything to create us, etc, prevents you from actually being able to "examine the mysteries", because why would you examine something if you already believe you have the answers?

 

 

Well these are indeed the seemingly unanswerable questions aren't they. Religions claim to have the answers, hence their popularity.

 

Who can answer why there is a 'need for God'? As a guiding force? An active principle which/who indicates that we need to follow Him/It? The Universe may well repeat, certainly nature can be observed to. Eternity, infinity, everlastingness, all these things are not answerable by our rational minds: hence the concept, notion or being of God.

I understand that scientists are currently postulating that there are at least eleven different realities, so what hope do we poor mortals have of understanding what all this means?

 

I'm not trying to convince you of anything, merely to open your mind a little. By the way I personally don't feel it necessary to put a human face on what may be a guiding force or principle. But it's understandable why people have done so.

 

Perhaps you are assuming that because my profile says 'Muslim' that I claim to 'have the answers'. I'm actually not 'claiming' anything much at all.

 

regards,

 

ron

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"I understand that scientists are currently postulating that there are at least eleven different realities, so what hope do we poor mortals have of understanding what all this means?"

 

We may never know.

 

But then again, we may find out, but only if we accept that we don't know.

 

You believe there is a creator that created everything, correct? Just to clarify, that's all that I'm addressing here, not Muslims or Christians or Jews or Hindus, or any other religion independently, but all theistic religions.

 

If you believe that the origin of the universe is that it was created by a creator, then what need is there to even try to "understand what all this means"?

 

If you believe you know already, and you're wrong, then you have no reason to try and find out the correct answers. Or to even find out whether or not you are wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"I understand that scientists are currently postulating that there are at least eleven different realities, so what hope do we poor mortals have of understanding what all this means?"

 

We may never know.

 

But then again, we may find out, but only if we accept that we don't know.

 

You believe there is a creator that created everything, correct? Just to clarify, that's all that I'm addressing here, not Muslims or Christians or Jews or Hindus, or any other religion independently, but all theistic religions.

 

If you believe that the origin of the universe is that it was created by a creator, then what need is there to even try to "understand what all this means"?

 

If you believe you know already, and you're wrong, then you have no reason to try and find out the correct answers. Or to even find out whether or not you are wrong.

 

Hi. No, I don't really know if the Universe was created by what we might call a creator. Although I tend to think that you yourself, having fallen probably early prey to the influence of the idea of an anthropomorphic God, are reproducing in an alientated form the concept of this in your arguments. To employ a psychological explanation, that is.

I personally have an inkling of a power or a force, gathered through my own persoanl experience(s) but have no particular grudge or gripe against what I have encountered in terms of Koranic based teachings. It's simply a matter of interpretation, so far as I can see. The beliefs and opinions of Muslims in general, in the main, actually have no bearing at all on my own life.

Concrete explanations require concrete methods and concrete concepts, which are necessarily required, in order to 'make sense of all of this'. And I don't really think that we know enough, at this moment in time to provide these.

I don't believe that anyone in my lifetime will be able to prove that 'I am wrong'. Even if it should later be proved that I am right.

 

ron

 

ron

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pardon me if the points made in the following video have already been mentioned, but it's largely relevant

 

youtube (dot) com (dot) watch?v=YotBtibsuh0

 

religion erodes science. plain and simple.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello,

 

If Einstein had followed the Quran, his mind would have been closed and therefore he wouldn't have been able to come up with either his general or his special theory of relativity. The same applies to Sir Isaac Newton and countless other scientists.
We wouldn't know that for certain as most of those people are dead :sl:.

 

It appears to me that Muslims do not really embrace science
There are aspects of science that are illogical and in direct contradiction of Quran and in this yes most muslims would reject that portion. However a lot of things in science are also in perfect harmony with Quranic teachings and in this case muslims readily accept it.

 

and, at best, are only capable of attempting to illustrate that the Quran has already predicted/illustrated what modern science has proved.
Your statements highlight a deep and somewhat hateful bias towards the modern religion. I would advice you to read up on all the contribution early muslims made to the fields of math, philosophy, poetry, architecture, astronomy and warfare.

 

Thanks,

Hasib

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There are aspects of science that are illogical and in direct contradiction of Quran and in this yes most muslims would reject that portion. However a lot of things in science are also in perfect harmony with Quranic teachings and in this case muslims readily accept it.

 

 

The thing is, they're not illogical, it's the Islamic contradiction of science that's illogical.

 

Science is entirely 100% evidence based. Science collects the evidence and draws logical conclusions from it.

 

When it comes to a showdown between the beliefs of a primitive nomadic people and evidence and reasoned logic based science... I'm afraid it's science that comes out on top - always.

 

Simply because it backs up its statements with evidence and insists than every statement be backed up with evidence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The thing is, they're not illogical, it's the Islamic contradiction of science that's illogical.

 

Science is entirely 100% evidence based. Science collects the evidence and draws logical conclusions from it.

 

When it comes to a showdown between the beliefs of a primitive nomadic people and evidence and reasoned logic based science... I'm afraid it's science that comes out on top - always.

 

Simply because it backs up its statements with evidence and insists than every statement be backed up with evidence.

 

You say: "a primitive Nomadic people". Well they weren't primitive at the time, were they? Or do you think that early Muslims (who I presume you are referring to) were more primitive than their peers of 600ad. Western scientists were on a par with Arabic scientists at that time I beleive.

 

It's just what's happened between then and the present day, that Muslim scientists seemed to have lagged behind.

 

ron

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You say: "a primitive Nomadic people". Well they weren't primitive at the time, were they? Or do you think that early Muslims (who I presume you are referring to) were more primitive than their peers of 600ad. Western scientists were on a par with Arabic scientists at that time I beleive.

 

It's just what's happened between then and the present day, that Muslim scientists seemed to have lagged behind.

 

ron

 

Not so much primitive compared to Western science, infact, I'd probably go as far as to say they were ahead, and more advanced back then.

 

Unfortunately, they haven't progressed much since then - if at all.

 

I'd say they were at the stage we were at around 1000AD, I mean, in many Islamic theocracies, it's still a crime to suggest anything that contradicts te Quran, which echos the Church's rule 1000~1500 years ago, over here.

 

Perfect example - Galileo, when he suggested a helio-centric solar system.

 

Now, we have freedom of and from religion, freedom of expression, freedom of thought and separation of church and state, which opens up a massive highway for advancement. Scientific progression isn't hindered or held back by primitive superstition (Well, in some cases it is - take stem cell research, religion stil gets in the way of that, but it's mostly unhindered.). Islamic theocracies are still stuck in the Dark Ages, they don't enjoy the advancement and progression that the West has built for itself since the Rennaissance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Basically, the biggest step towards gaining scientific knowledge is to cut out religion. Over here, we cast off Christianity, allowing for new ideas and hypothesies that would otherwise not be allowed and supressed by the church. These ideas spread and snowball and get refined and allow for advancement, whereas many Islamic countries are still clinging on to primitive superstition, hoping it will provide answers.

 

Just look how far we've come in 500 years - compared to the 6000 odd that religion's dominated for.

 

Islamic theocracies will never advance, or make any interesting and world-changing discoveries until they accept the discoveries that we've already made and free themselves from the shackles of religion. It really is a huge ball and chain preventing them from moving forward. Until then they don't have any hope of catching up with us - and as such, will remain primitive and lag behind further and further.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Basically, the biggest step towards gaining scientific knowledge is to cut out religion. Over here, we cast off Christianity
Here I see your basis for bringing this up and its understandable you are comparing your knowledge and understanding of Christianity and apply that to Islam. Am I right?

 

Well the thing is first of all Christianity in its current form has been altered from the original texts present at the time of Jesus so Muslims do not believe in those anyway. Secondly the Church in those days was instrumental in keeping thoughts and ideas that differed from its central belief away from the general public. They kept them in darkness and ignorance and only a handful of powerful clerics ruled at the time. I give you one of the many examples of the discovery that the Earth wasn't the center of the universe but that it revolved around the sun discovered by.. was it Kepler? Anyway this is a whole another topic by itself.

 

whereas many Islamic countries are still clinging on to primitive superstition, hoping it will provide answers.
The thing is modern day so called "Islamic countries" are really pathetic former shells of themselves. The reasons are myriad; one of which is they have lost most Islamic teachings and the rulers are inept puppets of foreign governments (another topic).

 

It really is a huge ball and chain preventing them from moving forward. Until then they don't have any hope of catching up with us - and as such, will remain primitive and lag behind further and further.
Islamic countries have fallen into decay due to a myriad of reasons as stated earlier. I would caution you saying its not the religion itself but how stupid clerics and leaders interpret and rule the people. The religion is fine. Its we the people are totally messed up and sad but we are not a good representation of the religion. If you want to see how beautiful the religion is please read the Quran and its English translation and also visit your local Masjid as I'm sure they will help you understand.

 

Hasib

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Not so much primitive compared to Western science, infact, I'd probably go as far as to say they were ahead, and more advanced back then.

 

Unfortunately, they haven't progressed much since then - if at all.

 

I'd say they were at the stage we were at around 1000AD, I mean, in many Islamic theocracies, it's still a crime to suggest anything that contradicts te Quran, which echos the Church's rule 1000~1500 years ago, over here.

 

Perfect example - Galileo, when he suggested a helio-centric solar system.

 

Now, we have freedom of and from religion, freedom of expression, freedom of thought and separation of church and state, which opens up a massive highway for advancement. Scientific progression isn't hindered or held back by primitive superstition (Well, in some cases it is - take stem cell research, religion stil gets in the way of that, but it's mostly unhindered.). Islamic theocracies are still stuck in the Dark Ages, they don't enjoy the advancement and progression that the West has built for itself since the Rennaissance.

 

 

Tell that to Iran which is considered one of the leading countries of scientific advancement and research. By the way, it's an Islamic theocracy. The Quran asks a person to educate themselves, to read, etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tell that to Iran which is considered one of the leading countries of scientific advancement and research. By the way, it's an Islamic theocracy. The Quran asks a person to educate themselves, to read, etc.

 

 

You mean one of the leading countries in the Muslim world, I take it?

 

ron

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Here I see your basis for bringing this up and its understandable you are comparing your knowledge and understanding of Christianity and apply that to Islam. Am I right?

 

No, you're not. The particulars of Christianity are irrelivent, what I'm getting at is that Christianity itself hindered scientific advancement until the Rennaisence, when empirical evidence was allowed to trump ancient superstition.

 

That has yet to happen in the Islamic world. The fact that Islamic theocracies still exist is a testament to this.

 

Well the thing is first of all Christianity in its current form has been altered from the original texts present at the time of Jesus so Muslims do not believe in those anyway. Secondly the Church in those days was instrumental in keeping thoughts and ideas that differed from its central belief away from the general public. They kept them in darkness and ignorance and only a handful of powerful clerics ruled at the time. I give you one of the many examples of the discovery that the Earth wasn't the center of the universe but that it revolved around the sun discovered by.. was it Kepler? Anyway this is a whole another topic by itself.

 

Go to Saudi Arabia and suggest to everyone that the universe has an entirely naturalistic cause, and had no need for Allah. See if that thought isn't kept "away from the general public" because it contradicts the cultural belief.

 

Keep on suggesting it, to everyone you meet.

 

I'd give it a week before you were either hung or stoned to death.

 

Do that, and if, by some pure luck, you're still alive at the end of it, tell me that Islamic theocracies don't surpress "thoughts and ideas that (that) differ from its central belief.".

 

The thing is modern day so called "Islamic countries" are really pathetic former shells of themselves. The reasons are myriad; one of which is they have lost most Islamic teachings and the rulers are inept puppets of foreign governments (another topic).

 

Islamic countries have fallen into decay due to a myriad of reasons as stated earlier. I would caution you saying its not the religion itself but how stupid clerics and leaders interpret and rule the people. The religion is fine. Its we the people are totally messed up and sad but we are not a good representation of the religion. If you want to see how beautiful the religion is please read the Quran and its English translation and also visit your local Masjid as I'm sure they will help you understand.

 

Hasib

 

This is all basically the "no true scotsman" fallacy. You're saying that the countiries that are Islamic aren't really Islamic, because they disagree with your interpretation of what Islam is. The fact is, these countries are no more or less Islamic than you are. They follow the same teachings, believe in the same god and believe the same book - it's just their interpretation of that book differs from yours. I'm sure if they heared your interpretation, they'd say exactly the same thing about you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tell that to Iran which is considered one of the leading countries of scientific advancement and research. By the way, it's an Islamic theocracy. The Quran asks a person to educate themselves, to read, etc.

 

 

Iran have made a few discoveries in the field of nuclear fission. Probably hoping to be allowed to build up their own nuclear weapon arsenal.

 

Meanwhile, in Europe, we're playing with MASSIVE particle accelerators and experimenting with nuclear fusion.

 

Iran can have fission, because by the time we're done with fusion generators, fission will seem archaic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This is all basically the "no true scotsman" fallacy. You're saying that the countiries that are Islamic aren't really Islamic, because they disagree with your interpretation of what Islam is. The fact is, these countries are no more or less Islamic than you are. They follow the same teachings, believe in the same god and believe the same book - it's just their interpretation of that book differs from yours. I'm sure if they heared your interpretation, they'd say exactly the same thing about you.

 

You're not qualified to call it a fallacy. The reason being that you seem to think the Qur'an is a book open to interpretation, when the laws of Shari'ah have been strictly outlined by scholars as early as the first century of Islam, who themselves followed the teachings of the companion of the prophet, who themselves were taught the laws by the prophet himself. They are the ones that the Muslims as a whole rely on for understanding. But most leaders of Muslim governments do not. The reason being that it does not serve their interests to do so.

 

A lot of the things Muslim leaders do is ignorant and would have gotten them overthrown had they attempted to rule at the advent of Islam. Things like punishing an adultress, but allowing the adulterer to walk away without consequences. Or neglectful distribution of wealth, when one of the greatest duties upon a leader is to take care of his people. Or allowing non-Muslim armies to build military bases in their countries, from which the non-Muslims intend to attack other Muslims.

 

The rulings for such situations are mentioned in the Qur'an and Sunnah. But when you have a country like Saudi Arabia being ruled by a kings and their heirs, while the scholars have no say in the government's affairs, then there's a clear division between the leaders and Islam.

 

Prophet Muhammad said: “Allah will not retract this knowledge [of Islam] by withdrawing it from people’s hearts, but He will retract knowledge by retracting the scholars, until, when He has left no scholar, people will take ignorant leaders, who will be asked, and will pronounce verdicts without knowledge, thus going astray and leading others astray.†[bukhari, Muslim]

 

Salam.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The thing is, that's your interprettion.

 

Go to Saudi Arabia and ask people if they're Muslim. Ask them if they follow the teachings of Muhammed.

 

It's all very well saying "They're wrong, I'm right!", but the fact is, their interpretation is no less valid than yours.

 

Unless you're suggeasting that these countries aren't Islamic, simply because they don't follow your particular brand of Islam?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
what I'm getting at is that Christianity itself hindered scientific advancement until the Rennaisence, when empirical evidence was allowed to trump ancient superstition.
I totally understand your statement and I agree somewhat but I was making the point that the reason Christianity hindered scientific advancement is because it was ruled by people and clergymen who were afraid to lose power from the Church.

 

Go to Saudi Arabia and suggest to everyone that the universe has an entirely naturalistic cause, and had no need for Allah. See if that thought isn't kept "away from the general public" because it contradicts the cultural belief.
But here is the point that I wouldn't do that and its not because I'm afraid but its because we do believe in a supernatural being call HIM whatever you wish to.. we refer HIM by Allah or God.

 

You're saying that the countiries that are Islamic aren't really Islamic, because they disagree with your interpretation of what Islam is.
No its not just my interpretation of the text but it's how it is. People with varying agendas are ruling the countries and that is the core issue. In Saudi Arabia for example since you brought it up.. they strongly dislike foreign democracy ideas and any other political ideas that differ from their version of monarchy. Why?-- they have their reasons and I'm not supporting that but point is.. this stuff is not in the religion of Islam anywhere. This is man made and they are enforcing this. Goes back to the point I made about people are a poor example.

 

They follow the same teachings, believe in the same god and believe the same book
It could also be lip service. Saying There is no God but Allah and Knowing There is no God but Allah are two different things. As I said earlier so called Islamic countries have fallen into decay thanks to all the rulers, the extremists ideologists and all those crazy people who make your nightly news! Its sad really.

 

There is also much ignorance in so called Islamic countries you know? Just because one reads a few lines from the holy texts doesn't make them experts. They have to read more things like hadith, study sunnah and get degrees just like ##, MS, PhD before they can interpret the rules of the book. But unfortunately people read something and they interpret that according to their knowledge and understanding and they are then passed into law. I hope you see my point.

 

Hasib

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Unless you're suggeasting that these countries aren't Islamic, simply because they don't follow your particular brand of Islam?
Look I'll tell you something-- "Islamic countries" have fallen into decay because of several reasons including inept stupid rulers who are too afraid to lose power and they are willing to kill their own people to do that-- no where in the holy texts is that mentioned. This is man made and they are doing it. In many gulf states as you might be following the uprisings the ruling families have hired western protection agencies along with other undeclared support to help them suppress the demonstrators. This is again man made and arises from a fear of losing their power and wealth.

 

In Islam there are very clear guidelines listed for leadership but nobody follows that. People pick and choose what they want to follow and then enforce that. Do not blame the religion. Its the greed corrupted rulers. So yes hardly any so called Islamic country is really Islamic in nature. They might have muslim-ish sounding names and on the outside might look religious but there is nothing inside.

 

Hasib

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It could also be lip service. Saying There is no God but Allah and Knowing There is no God but Allah are two different things. As I said earlier so called Islamic countries have fallen into decay thanks to all the rulers, the extremists ideologists and all those crazy people who make your nightly news! Its sad really.

 

There is also much ignorance in so called Islamic countries you know? Just because one reads a few lines from the holy texts doesn't make them experts. They have to read more things like hadith, study sunnah and get degrees just like ##, MS, PhD before they can interpret the rules of the book. But unfortunately people read something and they interpret that according to their knowledge and understanding and they are then passed into law. I hope you see my point.

 

Hasib

 

So refreshing to read a post from a Muslim without a dictatorial attitude, or an axe to grind!

Knowing that there is no God but Allah is not an easy path. Knowledge is never easy, however, it seems ..

 

There is so much ignorance everywhere in the world. It's especially sad to see it manifested by those who should know better.

 

ron

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The thing is, that's your interprettion.

 

You're oversimplifying things. Saudi Arabia is ruled by a royal family. None of their leaders are knowledgeable religious leaders who not only lead the political affairs of the Islamic State, but the religious ones as well (including leading prayer). Prophet Muhammad was this way. So was Abu Bakr As-Siddiq. So was Umar Bin Khattab. So was Uthman Bin Affan. So was Ali Ibn Abu Talib. So was Mu'awiyyah Bin Abu Sufyan. So were all of the early leaders of the Islamic world.

 

The scholars -- the knowledgeable people of Saudi Arabia -- are not the leaders of the country. The title of leadership is not passed down based on qualifications of religious status, but on lineage. This tradition itself has no roots in Islam. Those with religious knowledge do not rule the country. Especially when the country itself was founded with the help of western countries.

 

It's all very well saying "They're wrong, I'm right!", but the fact is, their interpretation is no less valid than yours.

 

When did I say I'm right? I'm saying that the Salaf (early predecessors of Islam, including the companions of the prophet) are right. And that the mainstream scholars who follow their knowledge are right.

 

If Saudi Arabia is an Islamic State, then it's one that has never existed at the advent of Islam. So ask yourself this: Who decides what Islam really is? Those who are following it now? Or those who established it to begin with?

 

Salam.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You're oversimplifying things. Saudi Arabia is ruled by a royal family. None of their leaders are knowledgeable religious leaders who not only lead the political affairs of the Islamic State, but the religious ones as well (including leading prayer). Prophet Muhammad was this way. So was Abu Bakr As-Siddiq. So was Umar Bin Khattab. So was Uthman Bin Affan. So was Ali Ibn Abu Talib. So was Mu'awiyyah Bin Abu Sufyan. So were all of the early leaders of the Islamic world.

 

The scholars -- the knowledgeable people of Saudi Arabia -- are not the leaders of the country. The title of leadership is not passed down based on qualifications of religious status, but on lineage. This tradition itself has no roots in Islam. Those with religious knowledge do not rule the country. Especially when the country itself was founded with the help of western countries.

When did I say I'm right? I'm saying that the Salaf (early predecessors of Islam, including the companions of the prophet) are right. And that the mainstream scholars who follow their knowledge are right.

 

If Saudi Arabia is an Islamic State, then it's one that has never existed at the advent of Islam. So ask yourself this: Who decides what Islam really is? Those who are following it now? Or those who established it to begin with?

 

Salam.

 

There's been some kind of mix-up/misrepresentation here:

 

"The thing is, that's your interprettion." I see this has been attributed to me, but I haven't made any such post! At least not on this thread. Strange

 

ron

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The thing is, that's your interprettion.

 

Go to Saudi Arabia and ask people if they're Muslim. Ask them if they follow the teachings of Muhammed.

 

It's all very well saying "They're wrong, I'm right!", but the fact is, their interpretation is no less valid than yours.

 

Unless you're suggeasting that these countries aren't Islamic, simply because they don't follow your particular brand of Islam?

 

 

Redeem!

This is the quote which you have ascribed to me! Whats going on here?

 

ron

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There's been some kind of mix-up/misrepresentation here:

 

"The thing is, that's your interprettion." I see this has been attributed to me, but I haven't made any such post! At least not on this thread. Strange

 

ron

 

Very strange. I knew I was responding to Cruorem_Deus, but somehow ended up putting your username in the quotations. Which is weird, because I don't remember checkmarking your post...

 

I'll fix it now, sorry about the confusion.

 

Salam.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Sign in to follow this  

×