Quran Burning - Chaos Erupts In Afghanistan

[Flying Pig]

WIth the Lutherans support without the Catholics support (the Catholics worked hard against it).

Well, they wagged their fingers very forcefully (Hitler and the Catholic Church had a concordat, in other words they agreed to stay out of each others' business, and persecution - if not murder - of the Jews wasn't entirely unpopular with some of the Church heirarchy)

 

[Takhisis]

Flying Pig, remember that until recently it was our official doctrine that the Jews as a whole had murdered the Messiah and so had to pay.

 

[civ_king]

Well, they wagged their fingers very forcefully (Hitler and the Catholic Church had a concordat, in other words they agreed to stay out of each others' business, and persecution - if not murder - of the Jews wasn't entirely unpopular with some of the Church heirarchy)

You are leader of a major religion and see horrible things happening in a country that also has millions of your followers, do you a) comment on horrible things doing nothing productive and having your people killed as retaliation or b) say nothing and behind the scenes work against the horrific actions?

 

[El_Machinae]

Well, a church whose followers are willing to die for their beliefs isn't going to last as long as a church whose followers make choices that save their lives. You don't get to be a long-term version of a religion without being pragmatic.

 

[timtofly]

Flying Pig, remember that until recently it was our official doctrine that the Jews as a whole had murdered the Messiah and so had to pay.

Aawww humans taking matters into their own hands.

Well, a church whose followers are willing to die for their beliefs isn't going to last as long as a church whose followers make choices that save their lives. You don't get to be a long-term version of a religion without being pragmatic.

Or Martyrd? Some follow all the way. Not that that makes a religion.

 

[Flying Pig]

You are leader of a major religion and see horrible things happening in a country that also has millions of your followers, do you a) comment on horrible things doing nothing productive and having your people killed as retaliation or b) say nothing and behind the scenes work against the horrific actions?

The Catholic Church appeared to try c) do nothing and hope that some of your people have the guts to speak out, and then talk about how wonderful they are and how they represented your church when they're killed by said totalitarian government

 

[civ_king]

The Catholic Church appeared to try c) do nothing and hope that some of your people have the guts to speak out, and then talk about how wonderful they are and how they represented your church when they're killed by said totalitarian government

Pope Pius XII personally saved more Jews than Schindler

 

[Squonk]

The Catholic Church appeared to try c) do nothing and hope that some of your people have the guts to speak out, and then talk about how wonderful they are and how they represented your church when they're killed by said totalitarian government

Pius XI has conemned nazizm officially. It didn't do the trick. Pius XII worked to save Jews, and was thanked for it by many notable Jews. Perhaps he could do more. But it's not like Jews were the only problem of ww2. And it's not like everyone believed at once in their faith. Western gouvermenta and American Jews didn't, and initially considered the Holocaust a polish anti-german propaganda.

 

[Squonk]

Once again you fail to realize, the countries that do that are 1.) Iran (Shiite) and 2.) saudi Arabia (theocracy) , I want proof, I found this great link that explains why we can't do that and woman are supposed to be treated fair and here are a few verses

He said: My Lord! appoint a sign for me. Said He: Your sign is that you should not speak to men for three days except by signs; and remember your Lord much and glorify Him in the evening and the morning. f42. And when the angels said: O Marium (Mary)! surely Allah has chosen you and purified you and chosen you above the women of of the world

It is not allowed to you to take women afterwards, nor that you should change them for other wives, though their beauty be pleasing to you, except what your right hand possesses and Allah is Watchful over all things.

A wife can divorce her husband at any time for several reasons, Muslim woman live better then other woman because it says that Men must earn money to support the family, the Woman has no obligation to do so and the man must, you must look after your wife like a piece of land , that means, provide her everything she needs, look after her....

The Link

In exchange for these blessings, they get family violence (beating of a wife sanctioned by Al-Qur'an), being officially the most of people in hell (according to Muhammad's saying), having half a value of men in court etc.

That is not very different than Europe 100+ years ago.

No it isn't. Women in Europe even 100 years ago had more liberty in many cases than women in Iran or SA have now.

Also, what's the meaning of this post? Would it be acceptable if indeed a century or a couple ago people in another place acted the same?

Iranians are Shiite Muslims, they are totally different, they don't even believe in Muhammad p.b.u.h they believe in Ali (his son in law). They are radical to the core, they are more radical than any radical Sunni group.

Of course (twelver) shias believe that Muhammad was a prophet. Their attachement to Ali and his offspring does not conflict with that. There were and are small branches of shiism that hold Ali even above Muhammad, but that's not the case with twelvers, and that's the official denomination in Iran. It also isn't true that shias are, in general, more radical than sunnis.

 

[aelf]

This is a response to various people, especially Squonk. I don't care to read through 11 pages of this thread, and this is meant as a general response to rebut some ways of reasoning that people use when appraising Islam, here and in threads past.

First of all, let me say that I do not believe that a transcendental essence of a religion exists as such. That is my belief as a non-theist, but the following argument works from a theistic point of view as well because, as a non-believer, you clearly do not get the essence of the religion. So in either case, for a non-believer to try and derive an essence of a religion in order to generalise about it and it adherents is fallacious.

In the case of Islam, it follows that for a non-believer to try and derive its essence from textual analysis of the Quran is fallacious, because either you are missing something or you're trying to derive something that doesn't exist. It is therefore not possible for you to reason that because of certain verses, Islam as one and a whole is xyz. Either there exists no one Islam that is reducible to, or you do not know what that is.

Secondly, from both the theistic and non-theistic perspective, the interpretation of a religion is closely tied to its practice, as well as to tradition as the history of its practice. This echoes the critique of foundationalism in that there are no original meanings as such that are intelligible outside of the relevant forms of life. Thus, it is a mistake to rely solely on textual analysis to derive the meaning of religious texts in order to generalise about the religion concerned.*

So what are the implications? As suggested, either there are many forms of Islam according to its many different actualisations such that it is impossible to generalise, or non-believers do not really understand what Islam is by virtue of not grasping the crucial ingredient that makes believers believe. And a further implication is either that the existence of Muslims who are also good persons shows that there are automatically valid forms Islam that are 'good', or that it is necessary to accept the claims of Muslims that Islam is inherently 'good' because they have access to knowledge that we do not.

But why accept the claims of Muslims who are 'good' and not Muslims who are 'bad'? This is where we turn to common sense: Simply because if we accept the claims of Muslims who are 'bad', it would mean believing that Islam is 'bad'. Do you think this route will lead to constructive dialogue and peaceful coexistence?


*Of course, some, especially from among the religious, would disagree. But there are very strong arguments in support of this.

 

[Lone Wolf]

Thus, it is a mistake to rely solely on textual analysis to derive the meaning of religious texts in order to generalise about the religion concerned.

I agree. I don't think that actual text has no influence on religion at all, though. True, there isn't really an "essence" of a religion, since there are multiple interpretations of it. However, I wouldn't say that religious text should have no place in the evaluation of a religion whatsoever. Every interpretation of a religion deals with the text, either by following it literally or interpreting it differently from the face value. Reasons for different interpretations are certainly interesting, and these reasons have roots both in their texts and in other influences.

 

[aelf]

I don't think that actual text has no influence on religion at all, though.

That's not what I said.

 

[Squonk]

To aelf.
First you say that there's no essence of religion, and then that non-believers can't grasp it. If the essence of religion doesn't exist, than it's impossible to "get it" both for believers and non-believers. Anyway, I disagree with the notion that there's something inside a religion that only a believer can discover. That's absurd. And even if there is something like this, lets think of ex-believers. They did believe, so they did know this "essence". Did they lose this mystical knowledge while leaving their religion? You talk about dialogue. What's that dialogue if your fundament of it is "only if you join us, you'll understand us"? What's the dialogue when you choose these arguements of your interlocutor that please your positive view of him? It's a theatre, not a dialogue.
I've already discussed your claim that existance of good adherents of some religion means that there exist valid forms of the said religion that are good. Who says they are valid? Who says they are orthodox adherents of that religion? It is not sure. What you propose is to chose the more palatable adherents as being the right ones, because it's more useful. But I don't think it is, I've already explained why. If the "bad" interpretation of some religion is the more obvious one, it is bound to make comebacks. Especially if definite most of tradition of this religion and its practice was such.

You say that there's no original meanings of holy scriptures such that are intelligible outside of the relevant forms of life. Indeed, if one knows the life of the authors of holy scriptures (by which I don't mean God, obviously), than one knows what the practical and basic implementation of the divine orders was. Indeed, in this particular case the holy verses were "revealed" in response to practical problems, as a sollution to them. Since XIX century there are, in the religion in question, attempts to create new interpretations, new practice. But that often goes completely against the original meaning. It's you who disregards the (original) praxis and tradition of a religion, trying to counter them by new and non-religiously influenced praxis of some modern groups. Both are important. But it's the traditional praxis that is more pure, related to that religion (perhaps not solely, but mostly), while the modern attitudes are results of a compromise between religion and secular thought. And no, it's not "my idea", which was planted in my brain because I "do not get the essence". There are muslims who have the same thoughts. Anyway, it's obvious to place the holy scripture in its time, to see that-day praxis as the basic and purest one.

When it comes to some of your other thoughts... Such that when you analise a holy scripture, you either miss something, or get to something that isn't there. Well, it does not depend on being adherent of a religion or not. If you think I'm missing something or get to the point that's not there, point it out. To say "only adherents of a religion can discuss the holy scriptures of that religion" is silly. It is also one of the demands of fundamentalists. I'd say that it's the other way round. Non-adherents have clearer view of the text than people who find this text holy. Believers will try to present it in a favourable light, non-believers do not feel so passionate about it.

 

[aelf]

To aelf.
First you say that there's no essence of religion, and then that non-believers can't grasp it. If the essence of religion doesn't exist, than it's impossible to "get it" both for believers and non-believers.

Obviously you have trouble understanding arguments in English or something.

Anyway, I disagree with the notion that there's something inside a religion that only a believer can discover. That's absurd. And even if there is something like this, lets think of ex-believers. They did believe, so they did know this "essence". Did they lose this mystical knowledge while leaving their religion? You talk about dialogue. What's that dialogue if your fundament of it is "only if you join us, you'll understand us"? What's the dialogue when you choose these arguements of your interlocutor that please your positive view of him? It's a theatre, not a dialogue.

So, from a theistic point of view, what is the difference between a believer and non-believer? Are you saying there are none? What makes some people accept the faith and not others?

I've already discussed your claim that existance of good adherents of some religion means that there exist valid forms of the said religion that are good. Who says they are valid? Who says they are orthodox adherents of that religion? It is not sure. What you propose is to chose the more palatable adherents as being the right ones, because it's more useful. But I don't think it is, I've already explained why. If the "bad" interpretation of some religion is the more obvious one, it is bound to make comebacks. Especially if definite most of tradition of this religion and its practice was such.

I don't think you understand my arguments at all.

You say that there's no original meanings of holy scriptures such that are intelligible outside of the relevant forms of life. Indeed, if one knows the life of the authors of holy scriptures (by which I don't mean God, obviously), than one knows what the practical and basic implementation of the divine orders was. Indeed, in this particular case the holy verses were "revealed" in response to practical problems, as a sollution to them. Since IX century there are, in the religion in question, attempts to create new interpretations, new practice. But that often goes completely against the original meaning. It's you who disregards the (original) praxis and tradition of a religion, trying to counter them by new and non-religiously influenced praxis of some modern groups. Both are important. But it's the traditional praxis that is more pure, related to that religion (perhaps not solely, but mostly), while the modern attitudes are results of a compromise between religion and secular thought. And no, it's not "my idea", which was planted in my brain because I "do not get the essence". There are muslims who have the same thoughts. Anyway, it's obvious to place the holy scripture in its time, to see that-day praxis as the basic and purest one.

How do you know the original meanings or even the full extent of the original praxis? And if the source of the original meanings are divine, that complicates the matter even more, especially for you who have no access to any properly divine source

The praxis of religion changes constantly throughout history. Tradition does not ignore this. Tradition incorporates change. It seems you have no understanding whatsoever of dialectics.

When it comes to some of your other thoughts... Such that when you analise a holy scripture, you either miss something, or get to something that isn't there. Well, it does not depend on being adherent of a religion or not. If you think I'm missing something or get to the point that's not there, point it out. To say "only adherents of a religion can discuss the holy scriptures of that religion" is silly. It is also one of the demands of fundamentalists. I'd say that it's the other way round. Non-adherents have clearer view of the text than people who find this text holy. Believers will try to present it in a favourable light, non-believers do not feel so passionate about it.

I said you are foundering with regards to concepts such as rationality and objectivity. Seems I was right.

 

[Squonk]

Obviously you have trouble understanding arguments in English or something.

I'm more inclined to say you have difficulties constructing arguements that aren't self-contradictory. You say that that "one can not understand the essence unless he's a believer" is not what you believe, but what you think the believers might believe, if they please. But then you can not uphold that view, not being a believer yourself. You claim non-believers can not grasp the essence of the religion yet you make comments about the essence of the religion (that it can not be grasped by non-believers), which indicates there is something a non-believer can say about this essence. Moreover, a believer that wasn't a non-believer can not say this either, because, not being a non-believer, he isn't able to know it.

And if you hold both opinions, than, as I've pointed out, it's even more contradictory, because if the essence can not be understood, it can not be understood by believers also.

So, from a theistic point of view, what is the difference between a believer and non-believer? Are you saying there are none?

No.

What makes some people accept the faith and not others?

It really depends, and the explenations are varied. For example, in some places in Al-Qur'an, it's God who seals the hearts of unbelievers, or misleads them. Another times they do know well they're acting against God, but continue to do so for earthly reasons. Etc. From my perspective, it's hardly important, but people are born in religion and just carry on, accept religion out of eartly reasons, are forced to accept it; have something that they interprete as a revelation of a deity they've heard of, accept a religion due to good example of others practicing such religion etc. There are thousands of reasons. Some people observe the religious duties and that gives them satisfaction out of fulfilling the tasks they assign to themselves. Religion may give peace, free of doubts, free you of dilemas how to rule your life. Give you the hope for eternal life, for punishment of what's wrong and reward for what's good. Some are more influenced by secular thought, some less. There are many, many factors.

I don't think you understand my arguments at all.

I do, but I disagree with them.
If you don't think I do, care to explain them.

How do you know the original meanings or even the full extent of the original praxis? And if the source of the original meanings are divine, that complicates the matter even more, especially for you who have no access to any properly divine source

I've clearly stated I don't believe God to be the author of the holy scriptures. For me, it's Muhammad who is the author of the Qur'an, and various prophets etc are the authors of the Bible.
The original meaning? In comparison to the others alleged prophets, like Jesus, Moses etc, we have tons of information about his life and history. One may attribute his suras to particular events of his history. There are explenations in the sunna also (which is probably largely false, but is commonly accepted by most of muslims, so, unless I want to create the idea of islam that is no-existant, I must accept its relevance). Of course, there's always some doubt. But certainly the praxis of that-day, as seen in Al-Qur'an, sunna, and history of Muhammad, the praxis accepted by the prophet himself, is closer to the meaning of his words than the praxis of today. Which doesn't make it more moral, just more purely islamic.

The praxis of religion changes constantly throughout history. Tradition does not ignore this. Tradition incorporates change. It seems you have no understanding whatsoever of dialectics.

It can change, but it's limited in its changes. The original praxis, as visible in the holy scriptures, lives of the founders of a religion etc, will always be source of appeal. And if the changes reach out too far, a backlash is probable. Hence the protestantism, hence the wahhabism etc.

I said you are foundering with regards to concepts such as rationality and objectivity. Seems I was right.

And?

 

[aelf]

I'm more inclined to say you have difficulties constructing arguements that aren't self-contradictory.

And if you hold both opinions, than, as I've pointed out, it's even more contradictory, because if the essence can not be understood, it can not be understood by believers also.

It's an either/or proposition. It's not self-contradictory because it states that it is either true that A or true that B. If you can't understand such a formulation then I don't know what to say.

You say that that "one can not understand the essence unless he's a believer" is not what you believe, but what you think the believers might believe, if they please. But then you can not uphold that view, not being a believer yourself. You claim non-believers can not grasp the essence of the religion yet you make comments about the essence of the religion (that it can not be grasped by non-believers), which indicates there is something a non-believer can say about this essence. Moreover, a believer that wasn't a non-believer can not say this either, because, not being a non-believer, he isn't able to know it.

Not knowing the content of the essence does not mean I don't know that there could be an essence

And clearly there's something that makes believers special. If there is an essence, they would be the ones who understand it - it's entirely reasonable to suppose that believers think they know something about their faith that non-believers don't (that's why they believe) and that, since the acceptance of a faith is so central to it, this would have something to do with the essence of the faith. I'm just denying that non-believers can grasp the essence of a religion, if it exists. I'm not saying anything about the content of the essence (if it exists) that non-believers cannot grasp.

No.

It really depends, and the explenations are varied. For example, in some places in Al-Qur'an, it's God who seals the hearts of unbelievers, or misleads them. Another times they do know well they're acting against God, but continue to do so for earthly reasons. Etc. From my perspective, it's hardly important, but people are born in religion and just carry on, accept religion out of eartly reasons, are forced to accept it; have something that they interprete as a revelation of a deity they've heard of, accept a religion due to good example of others practicing such religion etc. There are thousands of reasons. Some people observe the religious duties and that gives them satisfaction out of fulfilling the tasks they assign to themselves. Religion may give peace, free of doubts, free you of dilemas how to rule your life. Give you the hope for eternal life, for punishment of what's wrong and reward for what's good. Some are more influenced by secular thought, some less. There are many, many factors.

I said from a theistic point of view. I guess you just can't put yourself in that position because you're too good for it

I do, but I disagree with them.
If you don't think I do, care to explain them.

I don't, because it would be a waste of time. My original formulations were quite clear, and if you can't understand them then I don't care to be your teacher.

I've clearly stated I don't believe God to be the author of the holy scriptures. For me, it's Muhammad who is the author of the Qur'an, and various prophets etc are the authors of the Bible.
The original meaning? In comparison to the others alleged prophets, like Jesus, Moses etc, we have tons of information about his life and history. One may attribute his suras to particular events of his history. There are explenations in the sunna also (which is probably largely false, but is commonly accepted by most of muslims, so, unless I want to create the idea of islam that is no-existant, I must accept its relevance). Of course, there's always some doubt. But certainly the praxis of that-day, as seen in Al-Qur'an, sunna, and history of Muhammad, the praxis accepted by the prophet himself, is closer to the meaning of his words than the praxis of today. Which doesn't make it more moral, just more purely islamic.

So many fallacies about authorial intent and how one goes about discovering it. What makes the praxis near the time of the production of the text, even if we have incontrovertible evidence about them, necessarily closer to the original meaning(TM) than the praxis today? That sounds like a fundamentalist line of reasoning.

It can change, but it's limited in its changes. The original praxis, as visible in the holy scriptures, lives of the founders of a religion etc, will always be source of appeal. And if the changes reach out too far, a backlash is probable. Hence the protestantism, hence the wahhabism etc.

"Limited" is such a useless word here. Of course it is limited, but what are the limits? The original praxis is "visible" in the holy books, but only to a certain extent. In any case, what claim of authority does the original praxis have over the contemporary praxis that allows it to ignore changes in the intervening centuries? You do sound like a fundamentalist Islamic preacher. Don't know what they teach you about Islam in Poland.

 

[Squonk]

It's an either/or proposition. It's not self-contradictory because it states that it is either true that A or true that B. If you can't understand such a formulation then I don't know what to say.

A contradicts B. You didn't oppose these convictions in your original post, but rather suggested that B is a variant of A that believers can accept. While it is a very different argument, at least in my opinion.
B itself is contradictory as claimed by you, because you claim to know something about the essence (that a non-believer can't grasp it) while claiming that you can't know it. It would be contradictory if claimed by a believer also (unless he's a convert), because a believer can't tell if a non-believer gets it or not. Anyway, does your theory say that all believers know the essence, or just some of them? If some of them, than it quarrels with some of your other theories, because one may claim that, say, jews acting good doesn't imply there's a valid reason to think judaism can be interpreted in a good way, because we may write them off as the ones not knowing the essence of their own religion. But if we say that all believers know the essence of their religion, there are another problems. For example, that would imply that it's enough to know the essence to become adherent of such religion. One may wonder why don't the believers share this wonderful essence with non-believers so that we may all unite in their faith
Moreover, knowledge about one thing doesn't exclude knowledge of another, while being a member of one religion most often excludes being a member of another. Therefore, being a member of some religion is not about knowing anything.

Not knowing the content of the essence does not mean I don't know that there could be an essence

But you've just claimed you don't believe it exists! Anyway, you claim something more about it than that it exists. You claim, on unknown basis, that only believers can grasp it. Which you'd have to prove. But which also means you know something about this essence.

And clearly there's something that makes believers special.

Why? I don't see any basis for this claim.

If there is an essence, they would be the ones who understand it - it's entirely reasonable to suppose that believers think they know something about their faith that non-believers don't (that's why they believe) and that, since the acceptance of a faith is so central to it, this would have something to do with the essence of the faith. I'm just denying that non-believers can grasp the essence of a religion, if it exists. I'm not saying anything about the content of the essence (if it exists) that non-believers cannot grasp.

The "essence" in my opinion is quite simple. There's no god but God and Muhammad is his prophet. That's the most essential belief. but I wouldn't say they "understand it". They believe in it.
What do you base your assertion that "believers think they know something about their faith that non-believers don't" on? What's the basis to think that non-believers can't understand it?
Anyway, as I've mentioned, I do not think that being a member of a certain religion is about knowing something. One may say "I know Muhammad is a prophet" or "I know RCC was founded by Jesus, the Son of God", but it's a belief, not a knowledge. Believers may regard it as a knowledge, but it's not.

I don't, because it would be a waste of time. My original formulations were quite clear, and if you can't understand them then I don't care to be your teacher.

I wouldn't want such a teacher anyway. I take your responce as a sign of not being able to defend your wrong ideas.

So many fallacies about authorial intent and how one goes about discovering it. What makes the praxis near the time of the production of the text, even if we have incontrovertible evidence about them, necessarily closer to the original meaning(TM) than the praxis today? That sounds like a fundamentalist line of reasoning.

Isn't that obvious? The prophet was still alive, he looked upon people and could correct them if he though (God thought) they were doing something wrong. Also, people of that day, at least the ones around the prophet, knew more about his (or God's, if you believe he was a prophet) ideas than we do today. Not all coranic verses were saved from being forgotten. Not all words of Muhammad, or actions, are recorded. They knew more about what he expected them to do, and they were corrected by him if they didn't do it right.

"Limited" is such a useless word here. Of course it is limited, but what are the limits? The original praxis is "visible" in the holy books, but only to a certain extent. In any case, what claim of authority does the original praxis have over the contemporary praxis that allows it to ignore changes in the intervening centuries? You do sound like a fundamentalist Islamic preacher. Don't know what they teach you about Islam in Poland.

The original praxis was ordered and accepted by God through his Messenger. That's what makes it purer from non-religious influences than the one existing today. Fundamentalists are often "right" in their beliefs. You believe the more liberal fractions are right, because it suits you. I don't give preconditions to whom I find interpreting something right.

 

[aelf]

A contradicts B. You didn't oppose these convictions in your original post, but rather suggested that B is a variant of A that believers can accept. While it is a very different argument, at least in my opinion.
B itself is contradictory as claimed by you, because you claim to know something about the essence (that a non-believer can't grasp it) while claiming that you can't know it.

I didn't say that I can know nothing about a hypothetical essence. I cannot grasp it to the extent that is necessary for me to engage with it any substantial manner, but I can know that I don't know what it is (provided it does exist). It's like saying that you don't think God exists, but you know that, if he did exist, you wouldn't be able to claim to know who or what God is. Because if you knew, then you wouldn't even be thinking that he doesn't exist. Duh!

It would be contradictory if claimed by a believer also (unless he's a convert), because a believer can't tell if a non-believer gets it or not. Anyway, does your theory say that all believers know the essence, or just some of them?

I wouldn't make any claim about that. It doesn't really matter anyway.

If some of them, than it quarrels with some of your other theories, because one may claim that, say, jews acting good doesn't imply there's a valid reason to think judaism can be interpreted in a good way, because we may write them off as the ones not knowing the essence of their own religion.

God, I'm not proposing multiple "theories"

Why should we write off any believer for not knowing the essence of his/her religion? What gives us any claim to being able to do that?

But if we say that all believers know the essence of their religion, there are another problems. For example, that would imply that it's enough to know the essence to become adherent of such religion. One may wonder why don't the believers share this wonderful essence with non-believers so that we may all unite in their faith

They do but you just don't get it? Duh.

Moreover, knowledge about one thing doesn't exclude knowledge of another, while being a member of one religion most often excludes being a member of another. Therefore, being a member of some religion is not about knowing anything.

Don't know what this is supposed to mean. Sounds like a terrible argument. First of all, it depends on what kind of knowledge you mean - it's not humanly possible as it is to have all the tacit knowledge in the world, because that would imply that you're capable of being 'everywhere' and learning continuously throughout. So, in some sense, tacit knowledge of something can exclude that of another.

Also, if you were the adherent of, say, an Abrahamic religion, chances are you would deny that other religions possess the same kind of special knowledge that you have. They may know more about other things than you, especially pertaining to their own religions, but you'd still claim to have access to some kind of special (divine) knowledge that they don't. In other words, you and your fellow believers are special in that particular and significant manner that no one else is - the knowledge you possess is indeed exclusive, but not because it excludes other comparable knowledge.

But you've just claimed you don't believe it exists! Anyway, you claim something more about it than that it exists. You claim, on unknown basis, that only believers can grasp it. Which you'd have to prove. But which also means you know something about this essence.

Yes, I do know something about this essence, if it exists, which is that I don't know what it is. This is not contradiction. It's so basic that don't how I can make you understand this if you still can't

Why? I don't see any basis for this claim.

Because they believe and you don't? There is clearly a difference between you and them, and so that, in a sense, makes them special. Of course, you can say that non-believers are special too, just in the opposite way. But it's just convenient to say that some people are special when the presence of something (rather than its absence) differentiates them.

The "essence" in my opinion is quite simple. There's no god but God and Muhammad is his prophet. That's the most essential belief. but I wouldn't say they "understand it". They believe in it.

That is a fundamental tenet, not an essence. If the essence can be formulated and communicated in so many words, then the necessary difference between believers and non-believers would disappear, making the distinction obsolete. That is obviously not the case, though.

What do you base your assertion that "believers think they know something about their faith that non-believers don't" on? What's the basis to think that non-believers can't understand it?

Because if you did understand it, you wouldn't be a non-believer? I'm not saying that I think there is an essence. But believers can claim that there is an essence, the understanding of which is necessarily tied to the acceptance of the faith, and that would be quite reasonable. Whether this is correct or not, there is no reason to believe that a non-believer is in a better position to claim to understand the essence of a religion, if there is such a thing.

Anyway, as I've mentioned, I do not think that being a member of a certain religion is about knowing something. One may say "I know Muhammad is a prophet" or "I know RCC was founded by Jesus, the Son of God", but it's a belief, not a knowledge. Believers may regard it as a knowledge, but it's not.

So you're saying religious belief has nothing to do with knowledge? Sounds like fideism to me.

Funnily enough, you've been studying Islam in some capacity, and yet you claim that being a Muslim is not about knowing something. So what's the point of Muslims reading and studying the Quran, then? I don't know whether it's just you or where you learned what you know from.

I wouldn't want such a teacher anyway. I take your responce as a sign of not being able to defend your wrong ideas.

Suit yourself.

Isn't that obvious? The prophet was still alive, he looked upon people and could correct them if he though (God thought) they were doing something wrong. Also, people of that day, at least the ones around the prophet, knew more about his (or God's, if you believe he was a prophet) ideas than we do today. Not all coranic verses were saved from being forgotten. Not all words of Muhammad, or actions, are recorded. They knew more about what he expected them to do, and they were corrected by him if they didn't do it right.

The original praxis was ordered and accepted by God through his Messenger. That's what makes it purer from non-religious influences than the one existing today. Fundamentalists are often "right" in their beliefs. You believe the more liberal fractions are right, because it suits you. I don't give preconditions to whom I find interpreting something right.

So, in other words, you think that Salafism is the "right" brand of Islam. And you want to be able to generalise about Islam and all Muslims from your knowledge of it. Wow, just wow.

 

[Takhisis]

 

[useless]

The guy wants to have a trial and sentence Muhammed (PBUH). The guys a troll.