Basics That Every Non-Muslim Should Know About Islam

[football5680]

JihadWatch is an evil group with a twisted agenda. It is no more honest to suggest jihadwatch as a source on Islam than it is to use a Christian white power website to learn about Christianity. The truth about Islam is ugly enough that we should not reduce ourselves to promoting such garbage. Educate yourself about jihadwatch before you post share abject garbage. We must be better than this and not let our fears enslave us and make us resort to the exact behavior that has made Muslims and Jews hate eachother for several hundred years.

http://www.splcenter.org/get-inform...sues/2011/summer/the-anti-muslim-inner-circle

It is understood that nobody is going to accept them as an Islamic source which is why they back up their statements with the Quran, traditions attributed to Muhammad and the traditions of the earliest believers. It is not simply saying, "Look at what Muslims do, they are animals." It says, "Look at what Muslims do, this is why they do it."

For 1400 years the same thing has happened and thinking it will change on its own is not practical. We cannot live in a delusional state of mind and just deny anything that frightens us.

 

[MikeK]

Yes, that's what Jack chick does too. You'll see an awful lot of real quotes from Catholic documents and Popes in his work. You'll also see a lot of dishonest implications, hand-wringing, and unsupported conclusions that seem reasonable at first. This is also what militant atheists do when they supply dozens of Bible quotes that make God seem like a monster.

 

[LivingWordUnity]

We'll see about that. There is much less text here to pour over and refute than jihadwatch's filth, so it should be cake. PM me when you're addressed each of these claims. Make sure that each of your answers is detailed with sources better than Mr Chick's, lest you be no better than him.

There are tons of Catholic books and websites which refute Jack Chick's claims. And the method of refuting is to look at each claim that is made by him and showing the points where he is wrong. We don't need to attack him as a person. Nor do we issue out fatwas on him for criticizing us. Try Catholic Answers for starters. There is no question ever asked by a Protestant fundamentalist that Catholic Answers hasn't answered.

 

[Antigone]

There are tons of Catholic books and websites which refute Jack Chick's claims. And the method of refuting is to look at each claim that is made by him and showing the points where he is wrong. We don't need to attack him as a person. Nor do we issue out fatwas on him for criticizing us. Try Catholic Answers for starters. There is no question ever asked by a Protestant fundamentalist that Catholic Answers hasn't answered.

Exactly, so why go to JihadWatch if you want honest information about Islam?

 

[football5680]

Exactly, so why go to JihadWatch if you want honest information about Islam?

The site does not claim to be an authority on Islam, it uses the sources which Muslims accept and shows what they say to people who normally wouldn't hear this stuff. Muslims don't want people in the West to know about this stuff so you will not find many of the sources in English.

 

[LivingWordUnity]

Is there no one who can refute what is actually said in the article?

 

[Tallguy88]

We have Muslims on this site. Go to Christianity and World Religion and see if any will come here and try to refute the article. Or just post it in there and see what they say.

 

[Antigone]

The site does not claim to be an authority on Islam, it uses the sources which Muslims accept and shows what they say to people who normally wouldn't hear this stuff. Muslims don't want people in the West to know about this stuff so you will not find many of the sources in English.

That is not an answer to my question: Why would you go to a notoriously biased source if you want to lean about Islam?

 

[Antigone]

Now it's my turn to ask you for proof of those statements, prefferably from the SPLC itself.

I'm still waiting for an answer to this. Sadly, this does not suprise me.

 

[Antigone]

Is there no one who can refute what is actually said in the article?

With your habitual mistrust and unwavering dismissal of anything remotely academic (peer-reviewed and all that) I doubt anyone will go through the effort, particularly since you've yet to substantiate your own claims.

 

[AMDG]

That no one bothers to show if the article IS indeed accurate, doesn't really surprise me. Often people are what my mother would call "tail holders" (after circus elephants just holding each other's tails and following each other to wherever). These people refuse to check out the facts for themselves--they just "follow the leader". If the "leader" believes something, most people simply "follow along" without verifying what the "leader" says. Guess it's saves "wear and tear on the brain" or something.

Of course, I WOULD think that folks would be interested in finding out what Muslims believe since Muslims ARE part of our society and this DOES effect us. (I mean that's why former President Jefferson had a Koran--as a help in figuring out Muslim behavior which IS different than Western behavior. Oh well, that's just President Jefferson from long ago...)

 

[Needing_Grace]

That no one bothers to show if the article IS indeed accurate, doesn't really surprise me. Often people are what my mother would call "tail holders" (after circus elephants just holding each other's tails and following each other to wherever). These people refuse to check out the facts for themselves--they just "follow the leader". If the "leader" believes something, most people simply "follow along" without verifying what the "leader" says. Guess it's saves "wear and tear on the brain" or something.

Of course, I WOULD think that folks would be interested in finding out what Muslims believe since Muslims ARE part of our society and this DOES effect us. (I mean that's why former President Jefferson had a Koran--as a help in figuring out Muslim behavior which IS different than Western behavior. Oh well, that's just President Jefferson from long ago...)

In other words, President Jefferson went to the PRIMARY SOURCE. That's exactly what any honest person does.

 

[AMDG]

Hmm--in own words, the article is using PRIMARY SOURCE when it quotes extensively from the Koran. Now why is that wrong? (It seems to mean that the article is therefore accurate.)

Again, it's not simply where the article is FROM that should be concerning. What seems to be important is whether or not the ARTICLE is accurate.

So...what do the Muslims believe?

What are the feasts celebrated? Is Ramadan one? What does it entail?

Are Muslims encouraged to make a pilgrimage to Mecca (a Hajj)? (If so, will Muslim employees in unions be insisting on time off for that?)

Do Muslims believe in Sharia law? In what ways is that different from Western law?

Do Muslims practice a doctrine of Aborgation? What IS that? Is that the doctrine that says it's okay to lie to a non-Muslim (part of "The ends justify the means")? How does Christianity view that?

I know that Muslims practice a form of charity. What is it called again? Is it an actual work of volunteering (like in Christianity) or is it simply a "duty"?

Are there any known battles fought by the Muslims? What was the aftermath? Were any buildings taken over as war memorials? How were the inhabitants of the captured lands treated?

Since Dhimmi is in the news, is it a tax on non-Muslims? On what grounds?

What are "Honor killings"?

And I know Jefferson wanted to know why our ships were being attacked and the sailors were either held for ransom or put in slavery even AFTER we were paying tribute to keep the ships from being attacked, so he got a Koran to find out if it REALLY gave Muslims permission to kill non-believers (infidels), does the Koran order Muslims to kill infidels or at least mistreat them?

 

[MikeK]

The article is doing exactly what dishonest people do to Catholics. If someone would like to criticize Catholocism, I'd appreciate it if they posted their commentary in links to full, authoritative, unabridged documents with commentary if need be rather than cherry-picking the worst sounding bits to draw the conclusion that our God is false or our faith evil. Right now there are atheists and Muslims and Jews and Protestants posting misleading garbage like this on this about us on their forums, and to their shame. We are no better when we do it. If you're looking for scandal or apparent contradictions to exploit we have no shortage of our own unclear teachings when removed from context. Let's be better.

 

[Cosmic Charlie]

The article is doing exactly what dishonest people do to Catholics. If someone would like to criticize Catholocism, I'd appreciate it if they posted their commentary in links to full, authoritative, unabridged documents with commentary if need be rather than cherry-picking the worst sounding bits to draw the conclusion that our God is false or our faith evil. Right now there are atheists and Muslims and Jews and Protestants posting misleading garbage like this on this about us on their forums, and to their shame. We are no better when we do it. If you're looking for scandal or apparent contradictions to exploit we have no shortage of our own unclear teachings when removed from context. Let's be better.

My new social media addiction:

Whisper.

You're anonymous but have to post to the whole whisper community or no one at all.

Trolling is almost non-existent, although I understand women have to put up with some stuff on their private texts.

It's something different.

 

[AMDG]

Again, no one but LivingWordUnity seems willing or even able to attempt answers to the questions. I wonder why "tail holders" prefer not knowing at all.

 

[Antigone]

Again, no one but LivingWordUnity seems willing or even able to attempt answers to the questions.

No. He's avoided answering the questions posted to him so far.

 

[LivingWordUnity]

That no one bothers to show if the article IS indeed accurate, doesn't really surprise me. Often people are what my mother would call "tail holders" (after circus elephants just holding each other's tails and following each other to wherever). These people refuse to check out the facts for themselves--they just "follow the leader". If the "leader" believes something, most people simply "follow along" without verifying what the "leader" says. Guess it's saves "wear and tear on the brain" or something.

Of course, I WOULD think that folks would be interested in finding out what Muslims believe since Muslims ARE part of our society and this DOES effect us. (I mean that's why former President Jefferson had a Koran--as a help in figuring out Muslim behavior which IS different than Western behavior. Oh well, that's just President Jefferson from long ago...)

What you described is the sociopsychological phenomenon known as "herd mentality." Jesus compared people to sheep because we tend to follow whomever is acting as the leader. And that leader is either going to be a good one or a bad one. I think a lot of people would rather live in bliss and be surprised whenever we are attacked. Here's an article about herd mentality:

Herd Mentality

A new research study sheds light on a behavior that is consistent among many species – that is, making decisions based upon the actions of others. Scientists at the University of Leeds believe they may have found why humans flock like sheep and birds, subconsciously following a minority of individuals. Researchers discovered that it takes a minority of just five per cent to influence a crowd’s direction – and that the other 95 per cent follow without realizing it.
​

 

[Antigone]

What you described is the sociopsychological phenomenon known as "herd mentality."

Does mindlessly following blogs that fit your worldview fall under that category?

You still haven't answered the question. Please back up your statements about the SPLC or retract them, or we would have to assume you are lying.

And as I try to keep faith in people, I'd rather not do that.

 

[LivingWordUnity]

Does mindlessly following blogs that fit your worldview fall under that category?

It takes more thinking to read the article than it does to refuse to read it. And it doesn't require thinking to use the ad hominem logical fallacy.