I'm quoting verbatim. You wrote the above. By whose standards aren't Muslims doing what they're supposed to be doing? Your standards? Taliban won't agree with you. I'm sure ISIS won't either. What do you think about Boko Haram. I suspect they're as well read, if not more, as you are in your religious scriptures.
I'm appealing to no one except you ... If you feel Islam is like what those above say it is then keep away from it ... I'll support you in that ... If you however feel that Islam is like what I say it is, then what is stopping you from accepting it?
You can continue to use any excuse to justify not recognising the favour of God upon you ... The acts of people ... But had you an argument against God ... That on that Day of Judgement you could not say that God didn't give you life, that God didn't allow you to be fed as a babe, He gave you your parents to love and cherish you, He gave you this Earth to dwell in and enjoy ... He gave you your means for livelihood ... But in return you can continue to deny Him because of the acts of all us Muslim or all us religious folk ... We will not be there between you and God on that Day.
On that Day you better have a solid reason for your insistence when you will be asked ... "Which of the favours of your Lord did you deny?"
Brother Psyah,
This I have no contention with. I have no bone to pick with what you wrote here. It's your opinion, and a closely held one. I support your right to say this and act in accordance with this as much as you want, so long as you don't trample on my rights.
The op specifically titled this "Tolerating the wrong .." I'm simply stating, what's wrong to you may not be wrong to me. Generally we can come to a consensus on what we think are wrong and bad, but religion doesn't need to play any role in that.
I have been just as amicable to you like you have been towards me, and I don't call you names either. i just dont agree with you and i dont agree with reasons you give, and I hope you dont take that as attacks or insults.
I was just surprised at your statement so i asked you about it. maybe thats what you have seen in your life, but personally, i have seen far better, compassionate people who are atheists or just non-religious. even online or in real life, i have found more religious people attacking and being intolerant than the other way around. again thats my experience, just like yours is something completely different. I dont give credit to religious books for someone being nice as i have seen more nice people who dont believe in religion.
You didn't answer my question I asked you in previous pages.
What is your religion?
I have been just as amicable to you like you have been towards me, and I don't call you names either. i just dont agree with you and i dont agree with reasons you give, and I hope you dont take that as attacks or insults.
I was just surprised at your statement so i asked you about it. maybe thats what you have seen in your life, but personally, i have seen far better, compassionate people who are atheists or just non-religious. even online or in real life, i have found more religious people attacking and being intolerant than the other way around. again thats my experience, just like yours is something completely different. I dont give credit to religious books for someone being nice as i have seen more nice people who dont believe in religion.
By making that statement it shows you still do not want to understand what I say, but insist on saying something else. Alas anyhow, I thank you for your exchange.
By making that statement it shows you still do not want to understand what I say, but insist on saying something else. Alas anyhow, I thank you for your exchange.
you mentioned thats your personal experience. what am i not trying to understand here? Also, i dont understand why you think you're more amicable to me than I am towards you. I think i have treated you just like you treat me.
This I have no contention with. I have no bone to pick with what you wrote here. It's your opinion, and a closely held one. I support your right to say this and act in accordance with this as much as you want, so long as you don't trample on my rights.
The op specifically titled this "Tolerating the wrong .." I'm simply stating, what's wrong to you may not be wrong to me. Generally we can come to a consensus on what we think are wrong and bad, but religion doesn't need to play any role in that.
If we truly academically know and understand each other's versions of right and wrong ... Then the least we can do is respect each other in our differences and join hands with each other in our common ground.
I cant post here why i left religion, I did that once before when someone asked me that question, and the posts were reported, and deleted, and then i get warnings.
secondly, i have no interest in religion, I only posted here because this thread is about ‘tolerance’.
Sister bella88 … Not my personal experience of others … I am talking about ME … I choose to consciously try to be better towards others in how they behave towards ME, because that way I think I can better soften them up to see reason or at least appreciate my stance without getting their back up. I can very clearly see and detect when someone in lieu of my attitude towards them, then try to be better than me … I conclude they are doing that out of a similar sense of obligation.
I'm quoting verbatim. You wrote the above. By whose standards aren't Muslims doing what they're supposed to be doing? Your standards? Taliban won't agree with you. I'm sure ISIS won't either. What do you think about Boko Haram.I suspect they're as well read, if not more, as you are in your religious scriptures.
I have to disagree with you there. They really are not well versed in any sense of the word and frankly, it is a travesty to suggest that they are. Being well versed requires understanding and reading comprehension. Sitting in a corner, rocking back and forth, memorising a text in a language that you don't speak or understand like a parrot is not reading comprehension and I suspect that is the only type of "knowledge" the Taliban and Boko Haram have in regards to religion.
Secondly, you've used the Taliban as an example a couple of times and I have a comment on that. Many of the beliefs held by the Taliban are not based on the Quran or any sort of scripture. Many of their beliefs are drawn from a much older cultural code of ethics that predates Islam. Being originally from Afghanistan and visiting regularly, I can tell you that people are under no illusions about this and are well aware of their hypocrisy, so they are hardly an example for anyone.
If we truly academically know and understand each other's versions of right and wrong ... Then the least we can do is respect each other in our differences and join hands with each other in our common ground.
My version of right and wrong, your version of right and wrong, may not be someone else's version or right and wrong. We can generally come to a consensus and agreement for what is and is not right. Religion simply cannot be a justification, alone, and one should not force their religious views on someone else.
I have to disagree with you there. They really are not well versed in any sense of the word and frankly, it is a travesty to such that they are. Being well versed requires understanding and reading comprehension. Sitting in a corner rocking back and forth memorising a text in a language that you don't speak or understand like a parrot is not reading comprehension and I suspect that is the only type of "knowledge" the Taliban and Boko Haram have in regards to religion.
Secondly, you've used the Taliban as an example a couple of times and I have a comment on that. Many of the beliefs held by the Taliban are not based on the Quran or any sort of scripture. Many of their beliefs are drawn from a much older cultural code of ethics that predates Islam. Being originally from Afghanistan and visiting every so often, I can tell you that people are under no illusions about this and are well aware of their hypocrisy, so they are hardly an example for anyone.
That's your opinion. The Taliban and Boko Haram would refute you! Which one of you has the correct interpretation? My opinion, extremists of all religions have the correct interpretation.
That's your opinion. The Taliban and Boko Haram would refute you! Which one of you has the correct interpretation? My opinion, extremists of all religions have the correct interpretation.
where in the world would that be a serious argument ?
People who know stuff, practice it, have no value of their opinion.
A person who is adamant enough not to look at any thing seriously, have opinion and should be considered ??
That's your opinion. The Taliban and Boko Haram would refute you! **Which one of you has the correct interpretation? **My opinion, extremists of all religions have the correct interpretation.
Simple. The one that is based on the Quran. What is written in the Quran and what is not written is rather concrete. Certain things are written, while others are not (and the Taliban and Boko Haram both subscribe to beliefs which are not). For instance, the cornerstone of Boko Haram's ideology is that they are against western education and that it is haram, an idea that is not stated anywhere in the Quran. Now, whether you like and agree with what is written is another matter entirely.
perhaps that is why God is putting you with us.. so you see his message.
I want a proper closure of this one.
No-believer(on the surface), Not-interested-in-Islam-beyond-criticism people need to acknowledge this fact, that common people like folks on GS , have ability to clearly identify deviations in ideologies.
We should not need to repeat this fact over and over and over and over. Again.
common people like folks on GS , have ability to clearly identify deviations in ideologies.
^Thank you! I'm not sure why this is so difficult to understand. Do people really believe that common, mostly college educated, people don't have the thinking capacity to discern what is written in their religious books and therefore part of their religion and what is not?
In the case of uneducated, illiterate individuals from remote villages, there is truth to the notion that they may not know what is part of their religion and what is not and therefore, easily fall prey to the manipulations of extremists. However, I don't understand why people trot out this argument in the case of the average, college educated, person who is not illiterate and can read religious texts on their own and discern what is written and what is not.
^Thank you! I'm not sure why this is so difficult to understand. Do people really believe that common people don't have the thinking capacity to discern what is written in their religious books and therefore part of their religion and what is not?
Its not difficult to see, but as I said sadly interest is to criticise not to understand.
I beg non believer to use their, every day professional brains.
1500 years later, any common person can identify deviation with precision and ease.
I wonder who could mange masses like this ?
I wonder if this is not miracle , then what is??
Not my personal experience of others … I am talking about ME … I choose to consciously try to be better towards others in how they behave towards ME, because that way I think I can better soften them up to see reason or at least appreciate my stance without getting their back up. I can very clearly see and detect when someone in lieu of my attitude towards them, then try to be better than me … I conclude they are doing that out of a similar sense of obligation.