Islam, the unexploded bomb

[paarsurrey]

Yes, you are changing goalposts. I never made such a specific claim. My claim is that the Quran frequently instructs Muslims to wage war against (and kill), non-Muslims. I already gave you one example. If you read the book then surely you must know there are many more.

"frequently" Unquote.
I have checked all of one's posts in this thread earlier than this one, the word frequently I don't find in them.

Regards

 

[England my lionheart]

"but its easy to see the flaws in their book" Unquote

If one has read Quran from cover to cover then please quote one verse not many with the verses in context, some preceding and some following to support one's point of view that Quran has any flaw. If one does not do that or one gives a list that will show that one is just copy/pasting from some opposing site and one's post is not based on any experience with Quran.

Regards

No need to quote in or out of context, it's biggest flaw is its inability to prove itself, its not alone in that department though, its flaws are that it was authored by a human with very human desires, money women and land, nothing new really.

 

[nPeace]

I appreciate your sincere response, and we now have many points to juggle at the same time.

As I read your posts, I think perhaps a good theme is that you have your INTERPRETATION of the bible. That's fine, and it sounds like an interpretation I could largely agree with. But the point is that many Christians have different interpretations, and they use the bible as a sort of hammer to do evil things:

Thanks for taking the time to consider it.
I understand what you are trying to say, but the texts I used required no interpretation. That's an unnecessary problem created by those who don't really care about the Bible, but are interested in their own selfish interest - more often filling the pews with "rice Christians" so they can extract as much money as they can.

Contrary to that attitude, Jesus gave his followers a nice principle to follow.

You received free, give free.

Matthew 10:8
However, that's a story that probably may be required to be told later..

- In AIDS-ridden Africa the church worked against the use of condoms.
- Many religious people declare gays "born a sin"
- The church shields its clerics from being punished for systemic pedophilia
- Religious people vote to allow corporal punishment in schools. Your counter argument is a false choice, an either-or that ignores more moderate and effective approaches.
- Christian loud mouths have made the teaching of evolution in the US a huge problem. A clear violation of secularism.

So the problem is that MANY people use the scripture to achieve bad ends.

Hup. The story apparently needs to be told now.

Why do you overstep the commandment of God because of your tradition?

Matthew 15:3
Notice that Jesus did not say they used or followed God's word. He said they followed their own traditions.
What a difference!

Those people do not use the Bible to carry out their action. They use their own twisted reasoning.
During the dark ages, when they were carrying out the inquisitions, they were not using the Bible. That was their twisted mind.
During the Rwandan genocide, they were not using the Bible. It was their twisted mind.
When people that call themselves Christian, are doing bad things, they are not using the Bible. Rather, they are doing what the Bible condemns.

When they are raping, and sodomizing, torturing, and terrorizing, and all the other things I mentioned before, it's not the Bible they are using.
This is the point Unveiled Artist was making earlier.

I think people are so opposed to the Bible simply because they don't want to follow its high standards of living, so they are looking for excuses to condemn the Bible by pointing the finger at it. They do the same with God. ...but I say, if one hates the Bible, and God, just say so, and leave it alone. There is no need to make excuses. God is not mock. We can't fool him. That's what the Pharisees in Jesus' day were guilty of thinking, and there are modern day Pharisees today, as well.
Are you with me?

 

[Notanumber]

Because they have been newly brainwashed by Anti-Religion.

Scrub the ‘newly’ and ‘Anti’ parts of that statement and you will receive overwhelming agreement.

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

"but its easy to see the flaws in their book" Unquote

If one has read Quran from cover to cover then please quote one verse not many with the verses in context, some preceding and some following to support one's point of view that Quran has any flaw. If one does not do that or one gives a list that will show that one is just copy/pasting from some opposing site and one's post is not based on any experience with Quran.

Regards

A few posts prior to the one I'm quoting above, you criticised someone for quoting a Quranic verse out of context. Now you advocate that someone else do the exact thing you just criticised.

Is quoting a Quranic verse 'out of context' okay or is it not?

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

You quoted 2:191 in an attempt to show that the Qur'an justifies the indiscriminate killing of non-Muslims. The purpose of my post was to correct this notion; and to do so by placing the verse in its setting. Whether or not I have been successful is for others to decide. This has nothing to do with pattern matching, and everything to do with honest reporting.

Even without context the message of the verses is clear:

If attacked, you are entitled to defend yourself, even if this can be done only by the use of deadly force. But all retaliation must cease the moment your assailant stops their attack.

Hold on. The Quran is supposed to be the eternally true word of your god, correct? If that's the case then arguments from temporal context are rendered invalid as the Quran is as completely true now as it was when it was written.

Also, if you're going to insist on applying the 'out of context' argument, do you ever apply that argument to the 'no compulsion in religion' verse?

 

[sayak83]

Yes, you are changing goalposts. I never made such a specific claim. My claim is that the Quran frequently instructs Muslims to wage war against (and kill), non-Muslims. I already gave you one example. If you read the book then surely you must know there are many more.

No. You are changing goalposts. The OP claims that Islam says that Muslims must exterminate non-Muslims. Nothing like that exists in the Quran. That's my point and you have failed to show otherwise yet.

 

[paarsurrey]

A few posts prior to the one I'm quoting above, you criticised someone for quoting a Quranic verse out of context. Now you advocate that someone else do the exact thing you just criticised.

Is quoting a Quranic verse 'out of context' okay or is it not?

"Is quoting a Quranic verse 'out of context' okay or is it not?" Unquote.

I said that for correct understanding of a verse, the verses in its context are to be quoted. If I said anything against it, please give the post # so that I may amend it accordingly ,please.
Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

Hold on. The Quran is supposed to be the eternally true word of your god, correct? If that's the case then arguments from temporal context are rendered invalid as the Quran is as completely true now as it was when it was written.

Also, if you're going to insist on applying the 'out of context' argument, do you ever apply that argument to the 'no compulsion in religion' verse?

That should also be seen from the context, please.
Regards

 

[icehorse]

There is only one thing worse than a guy who misrepresents a text - any text- and that's the guy who refuses to come clean when found out. But thanks for your time.

What exactly do think I need to come clean about? I read the entire danged book. I understand the claim that there is often a broader context than what's in an individual verse. And I'll even tell you I agree with that much.

But what you seem to be ignoring is cognitive science. What you seem to be ignoring more specifically is the effect of the unending repetition in the book. You haven't spoken to the fact that the Quran bashes non-Muslims over and over and over and over again ad nauseam.

 

[icehorse]

Are you with me?

As I read your post, it strikes me that you're trying to have it both ways. You would like us to appreciate the bible when people act correctly in its name, but you want to exonerate the bible when people do evil things in its name.

I would love to have sort of job! Give me credit when things work out well, but shield me when things go badly?

 

[icehorse]

No. You are changing goalposts. The OP claims that Islam says that Muslims must exterminate non-Muslims. Nothing like that exists in the Quran. That's my point and you have failed to show otherwise yet.

Ok, I see the misunderstanding. I think the OP was somewhat, but not entirely accurate. So my posts were not intended to defend the every jot and tittle of the OP (a little bible humor there for the crowd).

Having said that, I will say that by far the most parsimonious reading of the Quran is that at the very least, Muslims should detest non-Muslims. According to the Quran, we non-Muslims are sometimes like pigs, always dishonest, never to be befriended, the enemies of allah, disloyal in general, and on and on and on. And of course - with the proper context - there are a seemingly endless array of situations in which it's just fine to kill non-Muslims.

Can you explain why the Quran is SO fixated on enumerating the various situations in which killing non- Muslims is okay? It doesn't strike me as a peaceful, timeless orientation.

 

[icehorse]

@paarsurrey @sayak83 @Niblo

Below is a link to a webpage that lists 527 times that the Quran preaches intolerance towards non-Muslims.

527 times !!!!

Can any of you explain to us non-Muslims what overarching message we should take away from the Quran's fixation on denigrating non-Muslims? Is this consistent with calling Islam a religion of peace?

An Inquiry Into Islam: Search results for intolerance

In case your thought is to criticize the website, I would suggest that that is not a refutation. The website is making a very specific and detailed claim. Either there are over 500 instances of intolerance in the Quran or there are not.

 

[sayak83]

Ok, I see the misunderstanding. I think the OP was somewhat, but not entirely accurate. So my posts were not intended to defend the every jot and tittle of the OP (a little bible humor there for the crowd).

Having said that, I will say that by far the most parsimonious reading of the Quran is that at the very least, Muslims should detest non-Muslims. According to the Quran, we non-Muslims are sometimes like pigs, always dishonest, never to be befriended, the enemies of allah, disloyal in general, and on and on and on. And of course - with the proper context - there are a seemingly endless array of situations in which it's just fine to kill non-Muslims.

Can you explain why the Quran is SO fixated on enumerating the various situations in which killing non- Muslims is okay? It doesn't strike me as a peaceful, timeless orientation.

Its not a peaceful timeless orientation. I have criticized Islam often enough here on many of its quite severe deficiencies.
In context of the OP however, I would say that orthodox Islam is no more an unexploded bomb than OT Judaism or evangelical Christianity. All these religion's scriptures show equivalent levels of intolerance towards heretics and non-converts as does Quranic Islam.

 

[stvdv]

04 okt 2018 stvdv Religion

The problem is not the Koran. If I read the Koran I do not go around chopping of heads of non-Muslims
The problem is the arrogant cruel fanatic Muslims who, blinded by hate without compassion, want to kill

The Qur'an is very much a problem when it is not countered and course-corrected by either the discernment and/or ignorance of the actual contents of that book by well-meaning Muslims or the absence of a political and pseudo-religious structure that raises it to the level of god-given commandment.

Agreed. Koran inflames the problem; being this "fanatic destructive Muslim". Sane people need no supervision, but these religious people do need
YES we should be realistic. You don't give drugs to a drug addict and similar don't give Koran and Bible to narcissistic Muslims and Christians.
All Muslims/Christians believe/speak/act as if their belief is superior I call narcissists. Smart and best would be "Ban these violent Scripture verses"

As parents do you read violent verses to your child? NO! That's proof. Narcissists, according to psychology, got stuck between age 4 and 7

 

[Looncall]

Context is indeed everything. Muslims pilgrims wanted to know if they could retaliate when attacked within the sacred precincts in Mecca. In these verses they are given permission to fight back wherever they encounter their attackers, in the precinct or outside it:

‘Fight in Allāh’s cause against those who fight you, but do not overstep (walā taʿtadū) the limits: Allāh does not love those who overstep the limits. Kill them wherever you encounter them, and drive them out from where they drove you out, for persecution is more serious than killing. Do not fight them at the Sacred Mosque unless they fight you there. If they do fight you, kill them – this is what such disbelievers deserve – but if they stop, then Allāh is most forgiving and merciful. Fight them until there is no more persecution, and worship is devoted to Allāh. If they cease hostilities, there can be no (further) hostility, except towards aggressors.’ (Al-Baqara: 190-193)

M.A.S. Haleem reminds us that the Arabic command ‘walā taʿtadū’ is: ‘so general that commentators have agreed that it includes prohibition of starting hostilities, fighting non-combatants, disproportionate response to aggression, etc.’ (‘The Qur’an’).

There are two timeless messages in these verses. The first is that folk, when attacked, are entitled to defend themselves, even if this can be done only by the use of deadly force. The second is that all retaliation must cease the moment an aggressor stops their attack.

Interesting. Thank you.
However, this sounds like something that can be stretched to suit. What is an attack? Is not being Muslim an excuse for genocide? The Yazidis found it so. Is being the wrong kind if Muslim an attack? The endless sectarian warfare that Muslims love so much indiçates that it is taken to be so.

 

[Notanumber]

This former Muslim has some valuable information about the topic.

 

[nPeace]

As I read your post, it strikes me that you're trying to have it both ways. You would like us to appreciate the bible when people act correctly in its name, but you want to exonerate the bible when people do evil things in its name.

I would love to have sort of job! Give me credit when things work out well, but shield me when things go badly?

A father has two sons.
One - the older - tries to follow his father's good example - hardworking, a loving kind and supportive husband and father, etc.
The other son follows a selfish debauched lifestyle.

Some people in the community, praise the actions of the younger, and commend him for his efforts to follow his father's good example.
Some others look at the younger boy in contempt, and point the finger at his father, and say, "That contemptible man is responsible for this boy's bad ways. he should be shot."

S1
Me: You know that the Father is really a good man, and the older boy demonstrated that he appreciated his father and the qualities he displayed. The younger boy on the other hand followed his own selfish ways, perhaps he was led astray by wayward youth.
Critics: Beeeeeeeeeeeep Wrong.

S2
Me: You know that the Father is really bad, He had two sons, and he couldn't even get both to do the right thing. How disgusting he is.
Critics: Bravo! Here Here! Absolutely right!

Is that okay?

 

[icehorse]

Is that okay?

I do NOT think yours is a good analogy. Religious people voluntarily decide to place their scripture on an extremely high pedestal. By your own definitions, these books are perfect. So your analogy seems to me to be a different flavor of eating your cake and wanting it too. In other words it seems to me that you're saying: "My book is perfect, but don't judge it more harshly than you would judge a man."

 

[nPeace]

I do NOT think yours is a good analogy. Religious people voluntarily decide to place their scripture on an extremely high pedestal. By your own definitions, these books are perfect. So your analogy seems to me to be a different flavor of eating your cake and wanting it too. In other words it seems to me that you're saying: "My book is perfect, but don't judge it more harshly than you would judge a man."

I'm not saying the book is perfect. Nothing here is.
I am saying that there are people who have a problem with the book, - not necessarily based on anything they can present any clear argument on - other than what they believe, even when asked to show it. So they find it convention to point at people who claim to belong to or follow the main character in the book, but which evidence show that they are lying - and they want everyone to take their side, and have issues with the book even if everyone don't find any evidence of those issues.

In other words, they are people that are not happy to hold a view against God or the Bible, unless everyone else agrees with their views. ...and if one doesn't agree with their views, then those ones are considered as "wanting to have their cake, and eat it too".
...but that can never be the case with the ones who have an issue with the Bible, because they are always right, even though they can never produce a solid argument that stand up to scrutiny.

That's how I see it.