• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Hate speech in the Quran and Bible. Should it be tolerated/accepted?

Should we oppose the hate-speech in the Bible and Quran?

  • I lean more towards yes

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • I strongly feel we should

    Votes: 11 68.8%
  • I lean towards "No we should not"

    Votes: 1 6.3%
  • I strongly feel we should not

    Votes: 4 25.0%

  • Total voters
    16

RabbiO

הרב יונה בן זכריה
You couldn't make it up...unless you are a sophisticated atheist troll attempting to satirise this kind of "apologetics", in which case, chapeau. (This would actually explain your responses here pretty well.)
@firedragon has been on the forum for 8 years and, with close to 15,000 posts, has painted a portrait of himself, who he is, where he is coming from.

I appreciate that you have no love for Islam. I appreciate that you are engaged in a contentious conversation. However, don’t you think it might be a good idea to get a better handle on who the person is that you’re conversing with before you engage in the kind of sarcastic, mean spirited, character assessment you have posted here?
 

firedragon

Veteran Member
Remember the word used in the Quran is "idrib", not "dharb".

See, that is the most nonsensical, childish, ignorant statement one could make. Your statement is similar to 'the book uses "Do" instead of "doing"'.

In which case, why bring it up?

To give simple examples of how this most famous and used word similar to "get" is used in the earliest arabic books ever produced.

There are essentially two meanings of idrib in the Quran. To "strike/hit", and "to present".

No. You just made that up. If you want the usages, I will give you. See, others are not like you, they have done the research already. They actually know what they are talking about.

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

But as you accept that 4:34 is talking about using domestic violence to deter ill-conduct in wives,

See, that's a lie. When did I accept that? ;)
 

firedragon

Veteran Member
So now you are claiming that Sahih International, Hilal/Khan, Sarwar, Shakir, Yusuf Ali, Pickthall and Arberry are not among the most widely used and accepted translations of the Quran?

I did not make the claim that any of these translations are not the most widely used.

So again, which logical fallacy are you committing? Ad populum or appeal to authority?
 

KWED

Scratching head, scratching knee
@firedragon has been on the forum for 8 years and, with close to 15,000 posts, has painted a portrait of himself, who he is, where he is coming from.

I appreciate that you have no love for Islam. I appreciate that you are engaged in a contentious conversation. However, don’t you think it might be a good idea to get a better handle on who the person is that you’re conversing with before you engage in the kind of sarcastic, mean spirited, character assessment you have posted here?
I judge a person's argument by the content of that argument, not by where they came from, how old they are, what shoes they wear, or anything else.

My "atheist troll" comment was obvious satire. He is clearly the kind of apologist who attempts to muddy the water, poison the well, lay red herrings, attack straw men, etc, than actually respond to points or answer questions. This is because of the theological "rock and a hard place" they find themselves between. He does not want to criticise the Quran for promoting domestic violence because god's word is perfect, but he does not want to be seen to be condoning domestic violence himself as it paints Islam in a bad light. So deflection, diversion and distraction are used instead.

I have encountered many such apologists who use exactly the same method. Perhaps it is actively taught and promoted on some forums?
 

Lain

Well-Known Member
In the poll, please choose the answer that you lean most towards.

There should be an option for "there is no hate-speech in the Scriptures," for I can not vote for any of these options. At least hate-speech in your definitions here. I am referring to the Bible.
 

Sand Dancer

Crazy Cat Lady
Christianity , like Islam, are very bigoted Religions that display/portray the epitome of hatred for infidels/heretics/pagans/unbelievers etc. (At least , total hatred for them if they die in that state without converting). You don't torture people forever and ever, unless you severely hate them.

It's why I left Christianity. I saw the bigotry and hate constantly. Just go to a Christian website and tell them you pray to the "Queens of Heaven", and see what some of the responses are, about the Kami I cherish being Demons.

Look at all the Biblical verses where God justifies complete genocide against people based on ethnicity or different Religious beliefs.

It's just wrong and goes against my conscience!

Threatening to torture people for ever, most of the world even, is worse than any form of hate speech, and it is very intrinsic to the nature and essence of Christianity.

To what extent should good people who don't like hatred and bigotry, take a stand against the hate-speech and bigotry in the Bible and Quran?

A lot of people are unaware of it, until it is brought to their attention. Some of the gruesome tortures amputations of limbs, crucifixion, and mutilations in the Quran and burning of infidels are so bad, it fills me with darkness to read them.

If you want the quotes and verses, I can provide them, or you can Google it.

I consider Muhammad and his daughter Fatima , peace be upon them, to be my close friends, but I can't object more to some of what is attributed to the Prophet, and his violent aggressive lifestyle, where he personally decapitated people and destroyed everything sacred to Polytheists, repeatedly condemning them to eternal torture in Quranic verses, destroying their shrines that are sacred to them, robbing people of basic liberties, and beyond.

Saudi Arabia, the Capitol of Islam, is run by an extremely bigoted regime where you won't find a single synagogue, Church, or Polytheist temple. It's forbidden and outlawed.

Jewish (as well as Christian and other non-Muslim) religious services are prohibited from being held in Saudi Arabia. That is total tyranny and bigotry!

I believe the Prophet was an orphan with a tough life who had nobody, and did indeed love God, and I love him, I just disagree with some of his behaviors.

I have met many orphans growing up and as an adult in jails, institutions, and ghettos, and they can be very violent angry people compared to those who had parents who nurtured, cared for, and gave them a healthy environment , with good role models.

But should we really be tolerant of pure hatred, bigotry, and hate-speech in the Bible and Quranic text??

The only thing necessary for hatred and bigotry to triumph in our world is for good people to remain silent, passive , and do nothing. Is that right or wrong?

In the poll, please choose the answer that you lean most towards.

You gotta take them in historical and cultural context, the authors' motives, and in the case of the Bible, you have to judge every verse by Jesus' teachings and standards, which is why in many of his teachings, he said, "It is written...", and followed with, "But I say..." He was refuting the Old Testament.
 

Sand Dancer

Crazy Cat Lady
I'm firmly against editing ancient manuscripts. You accept the Bible, the quran, and whatever esle, the way they are written. If you don't like this or that in them, then you are under no obligation to believe it. But chagne the text of the manuscript? NOOOOO. i'm also greatly opposed to giving the Bible "more inclusive language" for example.

You don't have to edit, just realize which verses are not useful.
 

Sand Dancer

Crazy Cat Lady
There should be an option for "there is no hate-speech in the Scriptures," for I can not vote for any of these options. At least hate-speech in your definitions here. I am referring to the Bible.

Why make that an option? To read the passages are to realize that things from the ancient Middle East are not relevant or correct for the current day world.
 

Lain

Well-Known Member
Why make that an option? To read the passages are to realize that things from the ancient Middle East are not relevant or correct for the current day world.

I suppose it doesn't have to be an option, and the thread is only for those who agree there is hate-speech (in his definitions) in the text. That's fine too.

I don't know what passages you mean, and I am not one who thinks God changes so to me I read the Scriptures and they are perpetually relevant and correct/correcting to our world.
 

Sand Dancer

Crazy Cat Lady
He is correct. If there had been no Christianity, there would have been no end to slavery. Give credit where credit is due.

Not true. There are/were just as many Christians who use the Bible for their racist views. Different denominations have different interpretations. There was a big backlash against the Social Gospel, and there are Christians who are against using any pain relief during childbirth because of the Bible. Christianity is no one monolithic thing. Heck, Jesus wasn't trying to start a new religion, just making Judaism more people friendly.
 

Sand Dancer

Crazy Cat Lady
I suppose it doesn't have to be an option, and the thread is only for those who agree there is hate-speech (in his definitions) in the text. That's fine too.

I don't know what passages you mean, and I am not one who thinks God changes so to me I read the Scriptures and they are perpetually relevant and correct/correcting to our world.

Jesus often refuted the OT, so if Jesus was god, then he must change. Yahweh was large and in charge until the people mostly wiped out other god believers, then he became a still small voice. That's a change.
 

Lain

Well-Known Member
Jesus often refuted the OT, so if Jesus was god, then he must change. Yahweh was large and in charge until the people mostly wiped out other god believers, then he became a still small voice. That's a change.

How did He refute the OT? Moreover Jesus is Yahweh (Yahweh just being the Deity as a whole, the entire Holy Trinity) and did not become a still small voice, just because God uses a distinct act does not not mean God has changed either in Person, attributes, or nature.
 

Sand Dancer

Crazy Cat Lady
Pharaoh killed them, not God. Pharaoh was warmed beyond acceptable tolerance. One simple request: let my people go, and Pharaoh wouldn't comply. After nine miraculous and ominous plagues, Pharaoh wickedly denied the Israelites emancipation, and increased their workload to an inhumane degree. God said 'let them go, or else' and Pharaoh killed millions of his own people by putting his entire country at risk.
Pharaoh was not guiltless, nor were the pagan and idolatrous Egyptians..

Yahweh says he is jealous and creates evil.
 

Sand Dancer

Crazy Cat Lady
How did He refute the OT? Moreover Jesus is Yahweh (Yahweh just being the Deity as a whole, the entire Holy Trinity) and did not become a still small voice, just because God uses a distinct act does not not mean God has changed either in Person, attributes, or nature.

Look at the verses in Matthew, when he starts with "It is written..." and ends with "But I tell you..." OT is about law and the NT is about grace. That's a major change in attitude.
 

Lain

Well-Known Member
Look at the verses in Matthew, when he starts with "It is written..." and ends with "But I tell you..." OT is about law and the NT is about grace. That's a major change in attitude.

This is not a refutation but an expansion and transformation of Commandments, unless what He quotes is no longer in effect (such as to not murder people, but He refuted it and said only do not be angry at people). Moreover the NT is plenty about Laws, Christ in this very place given them and we being exhorted by St. Paul to fulfill the Law of Christ. There is grace within them now to fulfill it. On top of this: the Psalter shows the unity even more than all of this.
 

Samantha Rinne

Resident Genderfluid Writer/Artist
Christianity , like Islam, are very bigoted Religions that display/portray the epitome of hatred for infidels/heretics/pagans/unbelievers etc. (At least , total hatred for them if they die in that state without converting). You don't torture people forever and ever, unless you severely hate them.

I consider Muhammad and his daughter Fatima , peace be upon them, to be my close friends, but I can't object more to some of what is attributed to the Prophet, and his violent aggressive lifestyle, where he personally decapitated people and destroyed everything sacred to Polytheists, repeatedly condemning them to eternal torture in Quranic verses, destroying their shrines that are sacred to them, robbing people of basic liberties, and beyond.

Saudi Arabia, the Capitol of Islam, is run by an extremely bigoted regime where you won't find a single synagogue, Church, or Polytheist temple. It's forbidden and outlawed.

Jewish (as well as Christian and other non-Muslim) religious services are prohibited from being held in Saudi Arabia. That is total tyranny and bigotry!

I believe the Prophet was an orphan with a tough life who had nobody, and did indeed love God, and I love him, I just disagree with some of his behaviors.

I have met many orphans growing up and as an adult in jails, institutions, and ghettos, and they can be very violent angry people compared to those who had parents who nurtured, cared for, and gave them a healthy environment , with good role models.

But should we really be tolerant of pure hatred, bigotry, and hate-speech in the Bible and Quranic text??

The only thing necessary for hatred and bigotry to triumph in our world is for good people to remain silent, passive , and do nothing. Is that right or wrong?

In the poll, please choose the answer that you lean most towards.

Peace be upon them, my ***.

The Bible doesn't have hate speech. It is Christians including myself that are guilty of hate speech. But the Bible has history events where people were consumed with hatred and said or did harsh things. But its core teaching is to love those who hate you.

The Quran is filled with large sections telling not to associate with Jews, or to strike off the neck of unbelievers. By this standard, only the Quran should be banned.

Muhammad didn't have a "rough life". He was a trader's son, and could have made a living this way. Instead, he performed an enormous con job on the people of Mecca. He got some old woman to back him, but this wasn't enough for him. He prophesied for like 12 years in Mecca, creating a public nuisance and disrupting the tourism of a town that apparently had plenty of visitors from all religions. Basically Mecca had the ideal of religioys tolerance, and they tolerated him for years and years, even though he was openly hostile to them. They finally tossed him out on his ear. He went to Medina, where he wrote that "divine revelation" had shown him that his followers could be violent. It also later showed him that his followers could raid and pillage, like common thieves. This is the Islam you praise. So this man goes and sacks a town because they didn't put up with his crappy message. And then he goes and sacks other towns, becoming very rich, but eventually being poisoned.

He didn't have a rough life. He got what he deserved.
 
Last edited:

stevecanuck

Well-Known Member
Err. Dont make things up. As usual.

What are usages of the same word in the Quran?

Do the research, then come back. Dont make things up.

The following is from The Quranic Arabic Corpus - Translation

Are you saying these translations are wrong?

Sahih International: Men are in charge of women by [right of] what Allah has given one over the other and what they spend [for maintenance] from their wealth. So righteous women are devoutly obedient, guarding in [the husband's] absence what Allah would have them guard. But those [wives] from whom you fear arrogance - [first] advise them; [then if they persist], forsake them in bed; and [finally], strike them. But if they obey you [once more], seek no means against them. Indeed, Allah is ever Exalted and Grand.

Pickthall: Men are in charge of women, because Allah hath made the one of them to excel the other, and because they spend of their property (for the support of women). So good women are the obedient, guarding in secret that which Allah hath guarded. As for those from whom ye fear rebellion, admonish them and banish them to beds apart, and scourge them. Then if they obey you, seek not a way against them. Lo! Allah is ever High, Exalted, Great.

Yusuf Ali: 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).

Shakir: Men are the maintainers of women because Allah has made some of them to excel others and because they spend out of their property; the good women are therefore obedient, guarding the unseen as Allah has guarded; and (as to) those on whose part you fear desertion, admonish them, and leave them alone in the sleeping-places and beat them; then if they obey you, do not seek a way against them; surely Allah is High, Great.

Muhammad Sarwar: Men are the protectors of women because of the greater preference that God has given to some of them and because they financially support them. Among virtuous women are those who are steadfast in prayer and dependable in keeping the secrets that God has protected. Admonish women who disobey (God's laws), do not sleep with them and beat them. If they obey (the laws of God), do not try to find fault in them. God is High and Supreme.

Mohsin Khan: Men are the protectors and maintainers of women, because Allah has made one of them to excel the other, and because they spend (to support them) from their means. Therefore the righteous women are devoutly obedient (to Allah and to their husbands), and guard in the husband's absence what Allah orders them to guard (e.g. their chastity, their husband's property, etc.). As to those women on whose part you see illconduct, admonish them (first), (next), refuse to share their beds, (and last) beat them (lightly, if it is useful), but if they return to obedience, seek not against them means (of annoyance). Surely, Allah is Ever Most High, Most Great.

Arberry: Men are the managers of the affairs of women for that God has preferred in bounty one of them over another, and for that they have expended of their property. Righteous women are therefore obedient, guarding the secret for God's guarding. And those you fear may be rebellious admonish; banish them to their couches, and beat them. If they then obey you, look not for any way against them; God is All-high, All-great.
 

firedragon

Veteran Member
Muhammad didn't have a "rough life". He was a trader's son, and could have made a living this way. Instead, he performed an enormous con job on the people of Mecca.

Ah. Another hate spreader I see. I think with individuals like you, only cut and paste jobs would be appropriate. I can do that, like anyone else could. What you say? Shall we? I know that this is the most shallow manner of discussing theology or history, but, there are some who deserve a good discussion, and some who deserve cut and paste.

Kill People Who Don’t Listen to Priests

Anyone arrogant enough to reject the verdict of the judge or of the priest who represents the LORD your God must be put to death. Such evil must be purged from Israel. (Deuteronomy 17:12)

Kill Witches

You should not let a sorceress live. (Exodus 22:17)

Kill Homosexuals
“If a man lies with a male as with a women, both of them shall be put to death for their abomile deed; they have forfeited their lives.” (Leviticus 20:13)

Kill Fortunetellers

A man or a woman who acts as a medium or fortuneteller shall be put to death by stoning; they have no one but themselves to blame for their death. (Leviticus 20:27)

Death for Hitting Dad

Whoever strikes his father or mother shall be put to death. (Exodus 21:15)

Death for Cursing Parents

1) If one curses his father or mother, his lamp will go out at the coming of darkness. (Proverbs 20:20)

2) All who curse their father or mother must be put to death. They are guilty of a capital offense. (Leviticus 20:9)

Death for Adultery

If a man commits adultery with another man’s wife, both the man and the woman must be put to death. (Leviticus 20:10)

Death for Fornication

A priest’s daughter who loses her honor by committing fornication and thereby dishonors her father also, shall be burned to death. (Leviticus 21:9 )
 

firedragon

Veteran Member
The following is from The Quranic Arabic Corpus - Translation

Are you saying these translations are wrong?

Sahih International: Men are in charge of women by [right of] what Allah has given one over the other and what they spend [for maintenance] from their wealth. So righteous women are devoutly obedient, guarding in [the husband's] absence what Allah would have them guard. But those [wives] from whom you fear arrogance - [first] advise them; [then if they persist], forsake them in bed; and [finally], strike them. But if they obey you [once more], seek no means against them. Indeed, Allah is ever Exalted and Grand.

Pickthall: Men are in charge of women, because Allah hath made the one of them to excel the other, and because they spend of their property (for the support of women). So good women are the obedient, guarding in secret that which Allah hath guarded. As for those from whom ye fear rebellion, admonish them and banish them to beds apart, and scourge them. Then if they obey you, seek not a way against them. Lo! Allah is ever High, Exalted, Great.

Yusuf Ali: 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).

Shakir: Men are the maintainers of women because Allah has made some of them to excel others and because they spend out of their property; the good women are therefore obedient, guarding the unseen as Allah has guarded; and (as to) those on whose part you fear desertion, admonish them, and leave them alone in the sleeping-places and beat them; then if they obey you, do not seek a way against them; surely Allah is High, Great.

Muhammad Sarwar: Men are the protectors of women because of the greater preference that God has given to some of them and because they financially support them. Among virtuous women are those who are steadfast in prayer and dependable in keeping the secrets that God has protected. Admonish women who disobey (God's laws), do not sleep with them and beat them. If they obey (the laws of God), do not try to find fault in them. God is High and Supreme.

Mohsin Khan: Men are the protectors and maintainers of women, because Allah has made one of them to excel the other, and because they spend (to support them) from their means. Therefore the righteous women are devoutly obedient (to Allah and to their husbands), and guard in the husband's absence what Allah orders them to guard (e.g. their chastity, their husband's property, etc.). As to those women on whose part you see illconduct, admonish them (first), (next), refuse to share their beds, (and last) beat them (lightly, if it is useful), but if they return to obedience, seek not against them means (of annoyance). Surely, Allah is Ever Most High, Most Great.

Arberry: Men are the managers of the affairs of women for that God has preferred in bounty one of them over another, and for that they have expended of their property. Righteous women are therefore obedient, guarding the secret for God's guarding. And those you fear may be rebellious admonish; banish them to their couches, and beat them. If they then obey you, look not for any way against them; God is All-high, All-great.

What is this. Appeal to authority or ad populum? ;)

Anyway, I think I remember you. You are the person who pretended to be an expert in Arabic ;) Hilarious isn't it?

Rather than doing cut and paste jobs, after making such a big blunder, try to use your intellect and analyse.
 
Top