Islam is a pro-Aspergers religion (unlike Christianity)

Post Reply New Topic

About 90% of atheists I have talked to/met are extremely disrespectful to Christians and Jews.

...as a group.

Disrespect goes both ways. I hate the holier than thou attitude from either side. I'm atheist and I really don't care to force my beliefs on others nor do I look down on people for being religious. I just hate when people are religious or atheist for stupid ass reasons. God exists only cuz a book says so! God doesn't exist cuz he lets bad things happen! Well no s**t. The bible never said God is gonna step in every time the s**t hits the fan. It says that human beings have free will and the b***h about free will is that you will be punished in the afterlife for mortal sins that haven't been atoned.

Belief in God has more to do with interpretation than logic. There's no evidence one way or the other, so if I say I'm dead certain that a God doesn't exist, then that takes as much faith as believing in God.

Hello

I appreciate your response, but your comments seem to only focus on in a small selective part of what I have said and you use poor examples to illustrate. For instance saying that people can love others without reading or following the bible is true. However someone who follows the bible will always love others, the bible advises people to love their enemies and pray for those persecuting you. It makes clear that as humans were created in Gods image that they have the same qualities of love and justice that come from God.

Jesus showed warm principled love [Greek Agapé] to many different groups including tax collectors and prostitutes thus demonstrating impartiality. Jesus was incensed generally at the Pharisees because they claimed to worship God but were leading people astray from following him with their oral law. They never followed the Mosaic law [law of Moses] but listened to what lines of Rabbis [Jewish teachers] said. Jesus here when he turned over the tables of the moneychangers was making his love for the people who come to worship there clear - he didn't want them being exploited financially and he felt it was wrong to be making unjust profit - something the scriptures speak against. Like the Pharisees., God will judge any of the Churches which do not stick to his word, the bible and the ministers/priests which teach in them.

Dont think a brief comment [or any] can dismiss the bible or true Christianity. Look at some of the churches, they don't open the bible during their services nor attribute their teaching to it. Jesus said he didn't speak of his own initiative but relied on his father's word.

Go read up on Sharia law.... If that doesnt scare the hell outta you, maybe you are a muslim after all. Do you think allah wants you to kill those who disagree with you? should your wife sister or daughter be confined to the house and be subject to your sexual whims at all times? should your wife sister or daughter be banned from reading? or being out in public without a male relative?

yeeesh! and we Christians are supposedly the intolerant ones!

This post is worrying because none of those things are integral parts of Sharia law at all. You are clearly misinformed.

Although, I suppose there is not really one objective version of Sharia law anyway. Different Muslim schools of thought have different laws.

Maddycakes is correct, Shariah is different in different Muslim nations, in and among different Muslim ethnic groups, and among different sects. The state religions of Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, Sudan are controlled by despots and are part of the fundamentalist Wahhabi sect of Sunni Islam. Those are the kinds of nations that practice stoning and abuse or treating women like chattel. The attitude toward women is more of a Semitic tribal custom of jealousy and possessiveness than Islam. The Wahhabis are a modern version of the literalist fundamentalist teachings of Hambal, a literalist theologian in medieval times.
The state religion of Iran is Shi'ah Islam which s much different and is geared toward a savior figure. S Hussein the Iraqi dictator was a secular dictator who broke Islamic traditions by erecting statues of himself and pretending to be a Babylonian war god. His regime was Ba'ath Socialist inspired by the Soviets and his party was founded by a Christian named Michel Afleq. Hussein's right hand man Tariq Aziz was a Catholic.
The state religion of Pakistan is Sunni, but there is a struggle for power between fundamentalists and Sufis. The Sufis have a more introspective approach to Islam. Sufis range from very traditional to quite " liberal" in their attitudes.
Sufis and Muslims who follow other doctrines like those founded by Abu Hanifah and Abu Hamid al Ghazzali are not in agreement with fundamentalist shariah law.
The Qu'ran is a difficult book to translate to English. Most Qu'rans contain passages in the footnotes that are part of Tafsir, commentaries by famous theologians. The Tafsir is supposed to be based on the Hadiths and/or traditions. Each version f the translated Qu'rans has different Tafsir and commentaries. Some of these are rather unpleasant and not very peaceful sounding.
The Saudis have edited an English version called "The Noble Qu'ran" printed in India. It has some very unpleasant commentaries. It is too political. An older English translation from the early 20 th century edited by Yusuf Ali is much better version. Yusuf Ali has more commentaries that reflect philosophy rather than political conflict. Consult a Yusuf Ali Qu'ran before judging all Muslims based on the Wahhabis' practices.
The Wahhabis and Salafis are becoming more and more powerful and therein lie the problem.

Personally I think Muhammad Asad's English translation of the Qur'an is probably the best, from what I have read of it. I found it online a few months ago along with his own tafsir and found the use of language to be appropriate and the interpretations plausible and interesting. It is also pretty straight-forward and a good starting point for someone who is reading the Qur'an for the very first time.

However, his translation is not as 'famous' (if I may use that word) as Yusuf Ali's (as TenFaces said) and others including M. H. Shakir's, which is the only one that we have in print in our house.

So why don't you consider loving atheists to be Christians? Or do you?



How did Jesus show warm principled love by using a whip to wreck stuff at the temple courtyard? How is this a loving act?

In today's civilized society, He would've been arrested by the police for causing such a riot. And for good reason ...



You know, you may not realize it, but you come off as arrogant when you think you and your group are such special Christians. Yes, there are churches who don't focus much on what the Bible actually says, but that doesn't mean they don't show love for their neighbours.

Besides, there are extremist groups, like the Phelps', who focus too much on what the Bible says that they're unable to differentiate between real love and narcissistic "love" as encouraged by the Bible (especially in the Old Testament and in some parts of the New Testament).

Maddycakes, where do you find a Muhammed Asad Qu'ran? I am interested. I believe new translations are very important. As much as I like Yusuf Ali, I realize that it is quite old. Most Qu'rans sold in my area are Dr Muhammed al Hilali and Dr Muhammed Muhsin Khan translations called Noble Qu'ran. It is published by DarulIslam in India. The translators are either trained in Saudi Arabia or at least one is a Saudi. This Noble Qu'ran has Tafsir that are too political, unpleasantly militarist, somewhat to very anti-Jewish, etc. I believe it is a Saudi Wahhabi translation.
The MH Shakir translation is impossible to find in this area and the Yusuf Ali can only be obtained from Sufi masjids. Where could I obtain M Asad Qu'ran? What would be a good source for additional copies of Yusuf Ali.?
I believe the controversial Tafsir from the Noble Qu'ran is being used by ant-Islamic groups to make Islam look bad. Anti-Islamist often mix the Tafsir, the Hadith, and the actual Surahs together to make up defamatory comments on Islam.

I do not own a Muhammad Asad Qur'an in print, I have just read some of it online. It can be found here.

As a Muslim, I am very wary of any religious texts that are publicly affiliated with Saudi Arabia. I find the Wahabi version of Islam to be restrictive, unpleasant, and often just plain ridiculous.

The English translations of the Qur'an by M.H. Shakir that I have in my house were from Iran. When my mother got her Iranian citizenship, she was gifted with a free Qur'an with an an English translation by M.H. Shakir.

I would once again recommend the Muhammad Asad translation and the link that I posted is his English translation with English tafsir.

I thank you, Maadycakes, for the link to a Asad Qu'ran. I look forward to reading it when I am done work. I am not familiar with Shi'ah Islam, as most of my information is from Indian Sufi sources and the prevalent Saudi sources. Do the Shi'ah have a much different Tafsir than Sunnis? Perceptions of Shi'ah are colored by the fundamentalist Shi'ah regime in Iran. I doubt all Shi'ah blindly follow Iran. Just as not all Sunni blindly follow Saudi Arabia.
The problem is that many Muslims do blindly follow Saudi Arabia's theology.
Funny, the Saudis do not personally follow their own doctrines when it comes to themselves.

What had happened leading up to that was that the temple from the very beginning had a huge treasury intended for temple upkeep and for personal use of the priests. There's nothing wrong with that since the priests need food, clothes, and to support their families just like everyone else. So given the regularity of sacrifices as well as free-will offerings and tithes, a lot of food and money passed through the temple. It was a "First National Bank" of sorts.

Partly because Palestine was a Rome-occupied state, and partly because of Palestine's location between Greece/Rome and the Far East and between Egypt/Africa and the north, it was easily a major center of trade. Because of the accumulated wealth of the temple together with different currencies used by locals and the Romans, it made sense to use the Temple as the #1 stop for currency exchange.

You also have to account for Jewish travelers making their way to Jerusalem to celebrate festivals and offer sacrifices. Not everyone was involved in raising livestock, and it wasn't necessarily convenient for those who did to cart their livestock over great distances to sacrifice them at the Temple. Also factor in the strict rules for presenting a worthy flawless sacrifice. This at times might not even be possible for some. So keeping stock animals at the Temple and selling them was a service of convenience.

Now, I don't know who it was that supplied the animals. It could be that the priests were pulling double-duty raising the animals. I kinda doubt it, but let's just say that they did. Animals that weren't holocaust (burnt offerings, completely consumed by fire) could be consumed as food by the priests. So that means if a worshipper purchased an animal for a sacrifice, not only was the priest getting to eat, but he was making a profit that the worshipper would never see.

Like I said, I doubt that was the case. But anyone who bred and sold sacrificial livestock did profit from their sale at the temple. They would then have the right to set prices. Given the exceptional quality required for the sacrifice, they could command high prices. This in turn might risk price-gouging, and what might have innocently started out as a service turned into big business. Poor people who couldn't really afford the animals were put in the position of disobeying the Law or giving up everything they had in order to make the sacrifice.

In the case of some sacrifices, there were substitutionary sacrifices that could be made if one could not afford the regular sacrifice. For instance, Mary and Joseph were not wealthy, so they offered the best sacrifice available to them: "a pair of doves or two young pigeons." A consequence of making those offerings would have been a public display of wealth, not something that would have made a poor person comfortable having to openly pay for something as minor as a pair of doves. One practice my church does in relation to tithing is absolute secrecy on who gives what. The church keeps records for tax purposes, which counts as charitable giving. The ONLY person who knows who gives what is the accountant. Since the pastor doesn't know, he can avoid the temptation of catering to the wealthy or condemning those who could probably give more but don't. Making the Temple a high-class marketplace, in addition to unfairly overcharging for sacrificial animals, had the effect of imposing class on worshipers, something that was never intended in Temple worship.

The merchants at the Temple were, in effect, thieves because of how severely they were able to profit from the Jews.

Jesus' display at the Temple was justified because He wanted to restore the purpose of Temple giving ("house of prayer") and eliminate the social, political, and economic injustices that were being committed there. Further, Jesus IS God, and because the Temple is dedicated to the worship of God, Jesus has the right to do whatever He wants in His own house. The Pharisees did seek to arrest Him on numerous occasions. While that might also have been the case at the Temple, I think part of what held them back is that they saw that Jesus was right to do as He did and sympathized with Him on this matter, which is why I don't think the Pharisees were the ones breeding and selling the animals. I suspect they'd been wanting to do something like this themselves for a long time, but never had an opportunity to take the initiative. Having accomplished that goal, it would have made having Jesus arrested at that time a morally and legally difficult (and inconvenient) action. This disruption would more have gotten the attention of Roman authorities than it would have offended the Jewish religious ruling elite.



The Phelps' don't seem to focus enough on what the Bible says. If they did, they'd be aware of the greater scope and intent of its teachings. Now, I do think if anyone feels that one thing or another is wrong, they have a civil duty to speak out and make their voices heard. But there are constructive ways of doing this and destructive ways. The Phelps stay just this side of legal to get away with what they do, but I fail to see how they are really doing any good for anyone.

Let's say that I decided to make the opposite arguments that I normally do and say, for example, that 3-year-olds ought to be automatically put to death for throwing tantrums because the Bible says so. In order to Biblically justify that argument, I'd have to make a case in support of that argument by selectively quoting scripture. I could easily do it, but then I could probably just as easily quote-mine Dawkins to show that even he has to concede that creationists are right on key points. That doesn't mean that Dawkins holds those views, and it doesn't even really mean that the quotes I mined even had that intention in the first place. Same thing with the Bible, and you find you get more Biblical contradictions when you attempt to take the text out of its intended meaning and context in order to support a limited view on the most miniscule of issues.

The mainline groups of Christians have been modifying their religion to be more congruent with the secular order. The real Bible thumpers are a different breed. That are as intolerant of the Other as are bomb toting Islamic extremists. You know the kind I mean. The sort that go around bombing abortion clinics and killing abortionists.

ruveyn

You're welcome, of course.

To be honest, I have not read that much tafsir in general. I find that most things in the Qur'an are pretty straight-forward and it is only for certain more complex issues tafsir is necessary. A lot of the time this is merely a little background knowledge of the historical context which of course must usually be the same from both Sunni and Shia sources.

The main differences between Sunni and Shia Sharia law arise from the books of hadith, as both 'sects' have their own apparently authentic books that they rely on for some aspects of Islamic law. Personally I lean more towards a Qur'anist approach to Islamic law as I feel that realistically the hadith books are flawed on both sides and I have read a lot of hadiths that are clear fabrications and in my opinion may have no justifiable place within Islamic law as determined by the Qur'an. Although, I do not mean that I completely dismiss all hadiths. I do think that really modern Islamic scholars should start a new evaluation of the main 'authentic' hadith books on a case-by-case basis for each hadith because many Muslims recognise that they cannot all be as 'authentic' as is claimed. It is the duty of the scholars to rectify this problem, but many of them are overly conservative and shirk responsibility when it comes to evaluating hadith books because it is a very difficult process.

Despite being a Shia I have a wider knowledge of Sunni hadith books (primarily the most famous, allegedly authentic two, Sahih Bukhari and Sahih Muslim) than of Shia hadith books. This is really due to my parents focusing on the Qur'an when they were educating me about Islam and online it is somewhat easier to gain access to Sunni resources than Shia resources. Furthermore, I often participate in Islamic discussions on Yahoo! Answers (in the Ramadan section), and understandably the vast majority of Muslim users there are Sunni, who will not accept Shia hadith references (unless it makes the Shia school of thought look bad). In order for me to be able to involve myself in some of the discussions there, it has been necessary for me to educate myself (to an extent) about Sunni hadiths rather than Shia hadiths.

All of the most important things in Islam are of course the same in every Muslim school of thought. It is just minor differences that separates the different denominations of Islam regarding Islamic law and perhaps also certain practicalities of worship.

I also agree that too many Muslims blindly follow what is being fed to them about Islam from Saudi Arabian authorities, and this can often cause problems both within the Islamic community itself, and with inter-faith dialogue etc.

I was thinking the same thing. Maddycakes, I have a Saudi style Qu'ran with long commentaries that appear to be a mixture of Hadith and Tafsir. I guessed that much of the Hadiths are distorted or fabricated, but I didn't want to openly say that to you. Some Muslims don't like us saying this. I believe the Hadiths are distorted/fabricated. I believe the Saudi Qu'rans have Tafsir that is distorted versions of Sahi Bukhari and Sahi Muslim.
Pat Robertson and Sean Hannity quote the Tafsir of the al-Hilali (Saudi) Qu'ran and claim that they are reading actual Surahs. They are distorting it.