Islamaphobia

[dybmh]

My general understanding is that such events are - for the most part - captured in scripture (I count the Hadith as scripture), Was this event recorded outside of scripture?

I'm not sure. I think @firedragon was referring to an Islamic Historian, Al-Tabari.

I am still trying to find an english version of the text referenced, tho... So far, it could be scriptural commentary, or it could be historical data about the raid.

hyperlink >>> britanica.com - Al-Tabari

 

[firedragon]

"Demonise" is not my intention,i i find Islam interesting,Christianity too and how they affected history,don't believe in any but love history.

Great. Then go to the source. And study it. Be rational. Thats good.

 

[firedragon]

I'm not sure. I think @firedragon was referring to an Islamic Historian, Al-Tabari.

I am still trying to find an english version of the text referenced, tho... So far, it could be scriptural commentary or it could be historical data about the raid.

hyperlink >>> britanica.com - Al-Tabari

At Tabari or as most know Al-Tabari a authoritative historian in Islamic history. What information do you need brother. Oh if you are looking for an online version of his books, I dont really know if you will find them. I am not sure, but I have not come across any. But mind you, anyone who ever writes anything on the history of Islam, in a good light or a bad light will refer to his work. There is no doubt about it.

Anyway, even he in his writing says that he is only reporter. He reports history as he receives them but doesn't stand by this history and say "This is absolute fact". What is strange though is a lot of people who are intent upon making Muhammed a murderous thief will quote a story that originates from Atthabari but dont know the source, Attabari himself is not sure about the story100%, but 21st century apologetics you find here in this forum are 100% sure that Muhammed raided caravan and what ever they have been told by some website.

Thats a real strange phenomena.

 

[LuisDantas]

"who does in fact read the Qur'an"

That will make a meaningful dialogue.

Regards

Will it?
Do you doubt that, say, Bill Warner read the Qur'an properly?

 

[LuisDantas]

And I feel it's important to criticize any and all ideologies that promote misogyny, homophobia, supremacism, and / or anti-secularism.

Quite so, Icehorse.

You know what they say about what is necessary for evil to triumph.

 

[firedragon]

Will it?
Do you doubt that, say, Bill Warner read the Qur'an properly?

Of course not. He hasn't read it properly.

 

[LuisDantas]

I don't doubt your sincerity here. My point was to suggest that Islam is a bit easier to defend knowing that some folks glean good humanitarian and existential inspiration from it. That it can also bring out the worst in people doesn't distract me from defending it as readily as I would any other religion.

We will have to agree to disagree here. Not so much about the facts as about their implications.

It probably comes down to diverging opinions about what would happen were it not for Islaam. I sincerely doubt that there are any people who turned out for the better because of Islaam, but I don't think that I can prove it - although the evidence is plentiful and IMO incredibly convincing.

Alternatively, that doesn't distract me from criticizing the worst that can come from it especially when it involves policy and treatment of other people.

How is Islam different from others in this respect? The other creeds, I mean.

It is highly dogmatic even by Abrahamic standards; it defines itself far more than it would be advisable from its scripture; said scripture is explicitly crystalized and immutable, thereby denying the doctrine badly needed room for self-improvement; and it is, from its very conception, tainted by unhealthy reliance on monotheism as "truth" as opposed to a form of inspiration.

Oh, and it spends a remarkable percentage of its own scripture telling Muslims how they should not dare believe that non-Muslims might conceivably be people worth of equal respect and dignity unless they repent and _become_ Muslims.

 

[LuisDantas]

Of course not. He hasn't read it properly.

Thanks for illustrating my point.

It is not possible to convince you - or hardly any Muslim - because your criteria are twisted, tainted, corrupted.

I will not feel responsible for your lack of honesty in judgement, and I will not stand as a silent accomplice when I see that injustice be directed towards others.

You will, of course, call me unfair.

So be it. I can not be made to care what people think of me under such corrupted parameters.

In all honesty, you apologists of Islaam ought to feel deeply ashame for being that.

 

[firedragon]

Thanks for illustrating my point.

It is not possible to convince you - or hardly any Muslim - because your criteria are twisted, tainted, corrupted.

I will not feel responsible for your lack of honesty in judgement, and I will not stand as a silent accomplice when I see that injustice be directed towards others.

You will, of course, call me unfair.

So be it. I can not be made to care what people think of me under such corrupted parameters.

In all honesty, you apologists of Islaam ought to feel deeply ashame for being that.

Awesome.

 

[firedragon]

Thanks for illustrating my point.

It is not possible to convince you - or hardly any Muslim - because your criteria are twisted, tainted, corrupted.

I will not feel responsible for your lack of honesty in judgement, and I will not stand as a silent accomplice when I see that injustice be directed towards others.

You will, of course, call me unfair.

So be it. I can not be made to care what people think of me under such corrupted parameters.

In all honesty, you apologists of Islaam ought to feel deeply ashame for being that.

So which Bill Warner book about Quran have you read, and why do you believe he has read it correctly and accuse others of negating him purely out of dishonesty?

 

[Shad]

Great. Dont accept her version. But with reason, not genetic fallacy. Also, she is talking about putting a word so that non-muslims would not feel so offended is translating the word Kafir as unbeliever and/or infidel. Not when it comes to the wife beating verse. And she was not speaking about her whole translation in general.

That is pandering thus not accurate

Her website is clear that she pick one translation which is just as valid in Lane's Lexicon as "beat" is. Her core argument is that "beat" is sex based bias which is assertion.

You are just finding all kinds of reasons to reject her just like some others did because they wish to have the monopoly in what they call "scholar" which is in their mind a rite of passage, not an academic achievement. Also, I didnt only quote Laleh, I quoted others. You are focusing on this lady because your intention is not to analyse but to demonise the Quran. You just dont like what ever literature you think is trying to 'white wash' the Quran.

This is just assertion excuses without evidence.

She has admitted to whitewashing it. It was her goal.

That is why I gave you the arabic information to analyse, which you will not do because you dont intend to. If you dont know the language its still fine, but be honest in your exploration.

You gave information you selected. You didn't provide any source which is comprehensive such as Lane's Lexicon have both "go away" and "beat" as both valid. You expect me to analyses a language I have no knowledge of. It is absurd to expect a layman to critique a language they do not know. Y

So you still didnt answer me. You reject Laleh because her Classical Arabic training is 3 years. How about some who have 20 years. If 3 years is your rejection criteria, then do you accept all who have 20 years? I bet you still dont see your logical fallacy.

Name the fallacy then.

Let's see I have read native speakers objecting to her translation, scholars with decades of experience, the major of translation disagreeing with her which is called a consensus. Her own admittance of bias. All you have is an argument from authority and an absurd demand.

After reading the article you gave here I think I agree more with this lady in many aspects. She has taken a dictionary approach to the translation, not a tafsir based approach. So its all new. Its good and good academic study. thats how it should be. Respect different approaches. But analyse the substance.

Lane's lexicon shows "beat" is just as valid. Her only argument is that everyone but her is wrong.

I would recommend that you stop committing the genetic fallacy. Analyse the data and information, even if the person who told you this doesn't have any academic education. Maybe they have a point you have all your life. Maybe they are honest and have made a great point. If you dont analyse it you would not know.

Again Lane's lexicon shows "beat" is valid. Multiple translations use it.

Also, you still have not given your reasons to reject everyone else I have cited. You picked one person. And committed the genetic fallacy by rejecting what she says based purely on who she is. Whoever it is. Even if its a Christian, Atheist or alien. Do the analysis based on the merit on the work.

Actually I have both in the previous post and this one. I do not know Arabic. Having me analyses a language I do not know at all is absurd. I reject her translation based on her limited education, majority of experts disagreeing with her and her open bias. Try again.


It is common knowledge that Islam allows women to be beaten. Most traditional translators have interpreted this verse 4:34 to propagate the same. Some even go to the length of quoting a hadith that says beat her with a toothbrush. Picture a man beating a woman with a toothbrush. Traditionally, women were thought to have lesser intellect and the men had a much superior position in societies but the world has seen too many state leaders, authors, philosophers and intellectual women to consider them to be beaten with a toothbrush. These are all translators who were born way after Islamic practices have been established based on evolution of Hadith and other interpolations where the translators approach the Quran with preconceived notions, thus measuring the yardstick with the cloth.

The verse in concern and its analysis based on the Quran.

Men are the protectors and maintainers of women, because Allah has given the one more (strength) than the other, and because they support them from their means. Therefore the righteous women are devoutly obedient, and guard in (the husband’s) absence what Allah would have them guard. As to those women on whose part ye fear disloyalty and ill-conduct , admonish them (first), (Next), refuse to share their beds, (And last) beat them (lightly); but if they return to obedience, seek not against them Means (of annoyance): For Allah is Most High, great (above you all). - Quran 4:34
The word used here for beat is “Idribuhun”. This word has many meanings as Arabic usually is and the meaning changes depending on the context of what you are saying. Take a simple example of the English word beat.

e.g. I beat him and broke his nose
I beat him in the 100 meter race by .2 seconds

Wrong language focus. The question is about Arabic not English.

You could see the difference in the meaning of the same word when you take the word in context. Now, let’s explore the Arabic word “Idribuhunna” derived from the root “Daraba”.

[The Quran is one book and understanding must be based on the context of the Quran. Islam establishes harmony and tranquility in the man and woman relationship. By showing Quranic evidence I will prove that it is very easy to understand that this verse simply tells you to “separate” and not to “beat”.

Other verses that have the same word “Idribuhunna”

The Quran has used this word in many other verses and the word has many meanings. It has been translated as give, move, cover, separate and to strike (as in strike their feet on the ground) over 40 times in the Quran as far as my research has found.

"So we sealed (Fadarabna – Same root word Daraba) their ears in the cave for many years" – Quran 18:11

When it comes to so many verses the word is never translatable as “Beat” but the egoistic, ignorant, male supremacy in the Muslim men who translated the verse, in combination with illogical and extremely questionable idea of measuring the yardstick with the and they want to translate the verse as Beat. There are two words used in this that need relooking at.

The word Idribuhunna simply means “Separate” or "leave" and Nushuz means disloyalty (e.g. extra marital affairs, unruly family bonds)

Feminist babble

1. The men are to support the women with what God has bestowed upon them over one another and for what they spend of their money.

2. The upright females are dutiful; keeping private the personal matters for what God keeps watch over.
3. As for those females from whom you fear desertion (Nushuz),

a. then you shall advise them,
b. and abandon them in the bedchamber,
c. and leave (Idribuhunna) them.
4. If they respond to you, then do not seek a way over them; God is Most High, Great. – Quran 4:34

Analysis of 4:34
1. It is the man’s responsibility or duty to provide for the woman. That is not to say that women cannot seek employment or that she must stay at home but that it is the man’s responsibility and he must take it upon himself. The Quran preaches equity.
2. Women are to be bound by the duty of protecting the privacy and chastity of a man woman relationship. It is the man’s prerogative to expect the woman to be loyal as much as she expects from him. Is that not obvious?
3. If the woman desserts you or is being disloyal,
a. you must try advising them,
b. If that doesn’t work you must stop your sexual activities with her
c. Then separate from her.
4. If the woman responds to this process by changing her ways, then don’t let her down because God knows best.

Just repeating the claim

Of course we can expect the usual arguments. Whitewashing accusation, quoting other translations and calling for authority and genetic fallacy etc. They are logical fallacies and generally those who do that have not made the analysis. It's quite normal.

Babble used for an excuse to dismiss any objection before it is made.

This is the more logical and obvious interpretation of this verse. But if you are bizarre in mind and come from a women beating society or with a preconceived notion, you could interpret it as hit the woman. But from the Quranic point of view and context, you cannot hit your wife. Quran establishes the nature of the relationship between a man and a woman in the following verse.

Assertion

"

Among His signs is that He created for you spouses from among yourselves, in order to have tranquillity and contentment with each other. He places in your heart love and care towards your spouses. In this, there are signs for people who think." (30:21)

Irrelevant.

Other renditions of the word just too common in the Quran will show any explorer that in this case it simply means leave. Of course, many will adamantly argue because another tool goes down the drain.

These verses says travel, leave. Simple.

2:273, 4:101, 3:156, 38:44, 73:20



travel/leave/get out: 4:101, 73:20, 2:273, 5:106, 3:156, 38:44
ignore/take away: 43:5
Set forth: 14:25
give/Put forth: 14:24,14:45; 16:75, 16:76, 16:112; 18:32, 18:45; 24:35; 30:28, 30:58; 36:78; 39:27, 39:29; 43:17; 59:21; 66:10, 66:11, 17:48
seal/cover/draw over: 18:11
condemn: 2:61
cover: 24:31
strike: 2:60, 2:73, 7:160, 20:77, 24:31, 26:63, 37:93, 8:12, 47:4
set up: 43:58; 57:13
explain: 13:17

Irrelevant due to be out of context

When you wish to say take a road to go somewhere, you say "dharaba". When you count coins you say "dharaba".

Out of context.

When you construct a sentence like "Zahuba Haazaa wadhurabaauhoo" it doesn't have a qualifying handler after the generic word Dharabaa and it naturally means "this and the likes of him went away (Left)". So if you say Wadhribuhunna it means go away or leave.

Out of context.

We must take note not to commit genetic the fallacy, and appealing to authority without analysing the actual argument.

Wa = And. Idhribuhunna = Leave.

Out of context. Refuted by the majority of Muslim scholars.

 

[LuisDantas]

So which Bill Warner book about Quran have you read, and why do you believe he has read it correctly and accuse others of negating him purely out of dishonesty?

Firedragon, Bill Warner sources his statements extensively.

He loves statistics. He is very direct and objective in his statements.

And his critics, of which there is legion, find themselves essentially powerless to refutate anything that he says.

So what do you do? You resort to your old and trusty workhorse, the claim (very often quite sincere, I have no doubt) that he did not read the Qur'an "with the correct intention". Because, in truth, you have no better recourse.

That is a dishonest, hypocritical stance, which amounts to deciding that any criticism of Islaam must be invalid no matter what, even if one needs to slander or threaten the critics in order to protect the reputation of Islaam.

Which is why so many ex-Muslims become atheists. They have learned the true scope and worth of Islaamic doctrine, and want nothing to do with it. It is a pity that you usually end up scaring those heroic people away from religion while at it.

Edited to add: Let's also not forget the very significant fact that there is no quality rebuttal of his accusations. Most worrying of all, none of a doctrinary nature.

 

[firedragon]

Firedragon, Bill Warner sources his statements ostensively.

He loves statistics. He is very direct and objective in his statements.

And his critics, of which there is legion, find themselves essentially powerless to refutate anything that he says.

So what do you do? You resort to your old and trusty workhorse, the claim (very often quite sincere, I have no doubt) that he did not read the Qur'an "with the correct intention". Because, in truth, you have no better recourse.

That is a dishonest, hypocritical stance, which amounts to deciding that any criticism of Islaam must be invalid no matter what, even if one needs to slander or threaten the critics in order to protect the reputation of Islaam.

Which is why so many ex-Muslims become atheists. They have learned the true scope and worth of Islaamic doctrine, and want nothing to do with it. It is a pity that you usually end up scaring those heroic people away from religion while at it.

Tell me which book you have read about the Quran written by bill Warner and I will tell you the reason that he has not read the Quran properly.

What?

 

[firedragon]

That is pandering thus not accurate

Her website is clear that she pick one translation which is just as valid in Lane's Lexicon as "beat" is. Her core argument is that "beat" is sex based bias which is assertion.




This is just assertion excuses without evidence.

She has admitted to whitewashing it. It was her goal.



You gave information you selected. You didn't provide any source which is comprehensive such as Lane's Lexicon have both "go away" and "beat" as both valid. You expect me to analyses a language I have no knowledge of. It is absurd to expect a layman to critique a language they do not know. Y



Name the fallacy then.

Let's see I have read native speakers objecting to her translation, scholars with decades of experience, the major of translation disagreeing with her which is called a consensus. Her own admittance of bias. All you have is an argument from authority and an absurd demand.



Lane's lexicon shows "beat" is just as valid. Her only argument is that everyone but her is wrong.



Again Lane's lexicon shows "beat" is valid. Multiple translations use it.



Actually I have both in the previous post and this one. I do not know Arabic. Having me analyses a language I do not know at all is absurd. I reject her translation based on her limited education, majority of experts disagreeing with her and her open bias. Try again.


It is common knowledge that Islam allows women to be beaten. Most traditional translators have interpreted this verse 4:34 to propagate the same. Some even go to the length of quoting a hadith that says beat her with a toothbrush. Picture a man beating a woman with a toothbrush. Traditionally, women were thought to have lesser intellect and the men had a much superior position in societies but the world has seen too many state leaders, authors, philosophers and intellectual women to consider them to be beaten with a toothbrush. These are all translators who were born way after Islamic practices have been established based on evolution of Hadith and other interpolations where the translators approach the Quran with preconceived notions, thus measuring the yardstick with the cloth.

The verse in concern and its analysis based on the Quran.



Wrong language focus. The question is about Arabic not English.



Feminist babble



Just repeating the claim





Babble used for an excuse to dismiss any objection before it is made.



Assertion

"

Irrelevant.



Irrelevant due to be out of context




Out of context.



Out of context.



Out of context. Refuted by the majority of Muslim scholars.

Lol. Cheers.

 

[Shad]

Lol. Cheers.

Yawn

The Quranic Arabic Corpus - Word by Word Grammar, Syntax and Morphology of the Holy Quran

 

[firedragon]

Yawn

The Quranic Arabic Corpus - Word by Word Grammar, Syntax and Morphology of the Holy Quran

Great.

 

[dybmh]

At Tabari or as most know Al-Tabari a authoritative historian in Islamic history. What information do you need brother.

Thank you!

The wikipedia entry for the Al-Qarada raid is a quick read. If you have time, would you please take a look at it and provide feedback? Does the Wikipedia entry accurately describe the raid?

Al-Qarada raid - Wikipedia

 

[Shad]

Great.

No rebuttal. Typical

 

[firedragon]

No rebuttal. Typical

Haha.

 

[LuisDantas]

Tell me which book you have read about the Quran written by bill Warner and I will tell you the reason that he has not read the Quran properly.

What?

Eh. Not playing this game, pal.

For one thing, it is a waste of time. If you are set on exercising selective perception in order to validate the Qur'an, you will of course succeed.

That is not what I am talking about, and holds no interest for me... because that is not how a scripture can be made or validated.

Even a butcher's training book can be raised to scripture if given sufficiently partial a reading.

The proof is in the pudding, in the actual effect of the scripture (or more properly, the doctrine) on actual people.