Does the Quran promote peaceful values? (I claim it does not.)

icehorse said:

I read your post on apostasy. It seems to boil down to this:

Apostasy is linked to blasphemy, and some combination of apostasy and blasphemy is considered to be a crime punishable by death.

Would you agree with that summary?

Click to expand...

No I do not agree respectfully,

The Word blasphemy as I understand indicates only as in Dictionary:

“the act or offense of speaking sacrilegiously about God or sacred things; profane talk.”

This alone does not lead to any punishment I mentioned in the thread; you have to include with it the summoning massive population to leave Islam in combination with trying to divide the Muslim country.

I have to admit that this summarization by you is considered correct to many Muslims, Sad as it is, but it does not alone relate to the thread I posted. And it’s not backed up by the holy Qur’an.

To prove this I present to you In addition to the verses in the thread this verse this verse from chapter 3 verse 186 (You will surely be tested in your possessions and in yourselves. And you will surely hear from those who were given the Scripture before you and from those who associate others with Allah much abuse. But if you are patient and fear Allah - indeed, that is of the matters [worthy] of determination.)

See how God orders Muslims to be patient in reply to any verbally abuse concerning religion..

Regards
Mahmoud

Hi mahmoud_mrt,

Do you remember the situation of the novel "The Satanic Verses"? If so, do you recall that powerful Muslims issued a fatwa against the author? Is that an example of "summoning a massive population to leave Islam"?

In other words, did the fact that the book was published and distributed widely constitute the reason for the fatwa? So if an ex-Muslim publishes a book critical of Islam, would that be reason for punishment?

icehorse said:

Hi mahmoud_mrt,

Do you remember the situation of the novel "The Satanic Verses"? If so, do you recall that powerful Muslims issued a fatwa against the author? Is that an example of "summoning a massive population to leave Islam"?

In other words, did the fact that the book was published and distributed widely constitute the reason for the fatwa? So if an ex-Muslim publishes a book critical of Islam, would that be reason for punishment?

Click to expand...

You’re a very clever debater icehorse,

What I know about The “The Satanic Verses" is that it’s novel based on the Quraish Pagans’ claim that the Prophet included their idols in worship with Allah in some verses and then he declined these verses.

I did not read the novel, but I’m aware of this Quraish Pagans’ claim, I will illustrate the conditions it came from.

Well I can discuss two points here,

1- Do I agree with making a Fatwa ordering Muslims to kill the author of that book?
The answer is No, If this author is an apostate meaning he was a Muslim before writing the book, then he wrote the book, then the Sharia Legal procedure is that the council of top Scholars will discuss if this book makes him an apostate or not, then the court will decide if this book is threating the stability of the society, then afterward the appropriate punishment whether it’s death or prison or else is verdict.

So the concept of ordering normal Muslims to execute a punishment is refused by the Sharia. The punishment is only executed by court in the Muslim country.
But if this person is in a non-Muslim country, then no one should every harm him according to the Sharia, because Sharia is only applied Inside the Muslim country

Some so called Scholars are a disgrace to Islam because they insert politics, & extremism, into their Fatwas. And there are some quite a number of them.


2- Well, The “The Satanic Verses" is a novel based on Quraish Pagans’ claim that the Prophet included their idols in worship with Allah in some verses and then he declined these verses. How did this claim come?

To understand that we must refer to holy Qur’an itself, the holy Quran came with a miraculous top literature, any educated Arab including me can Cleary see with no doubt that there is not a single poem, novel, literature that even comes close to contest with it.

God in the Quran challenged Quraish pagans to produce even one chapter like it, but they couldn’t, they preferred to fight battles that in them they lost lives, and economic interests, because simply they couldn’t produce even one chapter like it.

Quraish Knew Allah the in their religion, they worshiped him as the creator of the universe, Who can’t be seen by our weak eyes, He is above place and time, He is God the one the only one.
That is because traces from the prophet Abraham (Ibrahim) religion who build the Kabaa with his Son Ismail were still in their culture. The problem is that they worshiped with Allah other idols, these idols were like tribes’ flags, each tribe has an idol or more which they worship in addition to Allah.

So before the prophet Muhammad Migration to Medina, he was still in Mecca oppressed with his followers for preaching Islam and summoning people to worship Allah the one the only one.

So one day prophet Muhammad stood beside the Kaaba in the presence of Quraish leaders and started reciting the holy Quran loud. They were all taken by the beauty of the rhythm and words, they stood quite, astonished, till the prophet reached the following verses from chapter 53:
53:55
Then which of the favors of your Lord do you doubt?
53:56
This [Prophet] is a warner like the former warners.
53:57
The Approaching Day has approached.
53:58
Of it, [from those] besides Allah , there is no remover.
53:59
Then at this statement do you wonder?
53:60
And you laugh and do not weep
53:61
While you are proudly sporting?
53:62
So prostrate to Allah and worship [Him].


In that moment while the Kabaa was in front of them no one from the Quraish leaders who heard these verses could help himself, they all prostrated.

After this they regretted this prostration, and feared that the Arabian tribes when they hear about this incident will consider them admitting that Islam is the truth.
So they invented the myth of the Satanic verses, they created some verses and claimed that Prophet Muhammad recited them, these claimed verses praise their Idols and give them worship. These claimed verses are the basis for this novel you mentioned.

I hope this clears this issue up,

Regards,
Mahmoud

icehorse said:

Hi mahmoud_mrt,

Do you remember the situation of the novel "The Satanic Verses"? If so, do you recall that powerful Muslims issued a fatwa against the author? Is that an example of "summoning a massive population to leave Islam"?

In other words, did the fact that the book was published and distributed widely constitute the reason for the fatwa? So if an ex-Muslim publishes a book critical of Islam, would that be reason for punishment?

Click to expand...

I think I've realized what icehorse seems to be getting at.

His criticism doesn't seem to be directed toward the Quran so much like the thread topic or even the flow of the debate is going, but toward Muslim polititians today since mahmoud has done well in refuting his claims.

Well, I think it's now clear that politics and religion are clearly two different things. The Quran itself, nor have we seen in Muhammed's actions call for killing apostates like our polititians or leaders have. If that's the case, I'm afraid to say that it's true that they aren't following what the Quran and the Prophet's Sunnah seems to be telling them to, and it's a sad shame.

Hi Mahmoud,

Well I'm not trying to be a clever debater. But I am trying to make sure that we're using the same definitions of important words, or at least that we understand each other's definitions

I'm using the author as an example because it's one I think many people have heard about and will understand... If I understand you correctly, it's possible that Islamic scholars and an Islamic court could punish the author - even with the death penalty - for writing this book. Correct?

If I understand you correctly, then by my definition of blasphemy, if an Islamic court decided the author should be punished, then this would be called a punishment for blasphemy. So that's the definition I'd use. What words would you use to describe such a punishment?

Sega said:

I think I've realized what icehorse seems to be getting at.

His criticism doesn't seem to be directed toward the Quran so much like the thread topic or even the flow of the debate is going, but toward Muslim polititians today since mahmoud has done well in refuting his claims.

Well, I think it's now clear that politics and religion are clearly two different things. The Quran itself, nor have we seen in Muhammed's actions call for killing apostates like our polititians or leaders have. If that's the case, I'm afraid to say that it's true that they aren't following what the Quran and the Prophet's Sunnah seems to be telling them to, and it's a sad shame.

Click to expand...

Hi Sega,

Well I'd agree that many of today's politicians are terrible. (This is true all over the world AFAIC.)

But the evidence I see in the book itself and in how millions of people interpret it is that it is far too easy to read the book and come to the conclusion that the book calls for Muslims to despise non-believers and work to make all of the world ruled by Islamic law.

That seems like a good start. The verses I listed are only a small fraction of the verses in the Quran that read as though the Quran does NOT have a peaceful message.
yes my friend it is true
there is no peaceful message in qoran
there is the one verise copy all peace message
fating any one not belive in god and last day from chresten an jews until thy paid trube in hand and they صاغرون
and the famous hadeth to mohammed say
i am order to fating the people untl they say no god only allh and mohammed is message for allah

icehorse said:

Hi Mahmoud,

Well I'm not trying to be a clever debater. But I am trying to make sure that we're using the same definitions of important words, or at least that we understand each other's definitions

I'm using the author as an example because it's one I think many people have heard about and will understand... If I understand you correctly, it's possible that Islamic scholars and an Islamic court could punish the author - even with the death penalty - for writing this book. Correct?

If I understand you correctly, then by my definition of blasphemy, if an Islamic court decided the author should be punished, then this would be called a punishment for blasphemy. So that's the definition I'd use. What words would you use to describe such a punishment?

Click to expand...

Well icehorse, there are two main concepts (Definitions) in Sharia that needs to be illustrated to answer this Question:


In Sharia we have two kinds of legal punishments:


1- (Hodood) which are the punishments clearly stated in the Holy Qur’an.


2- (Tazeer) which are human made, it’s simply the space allowed to the Muslim law maker to define punishment not listed in the Holy Qur’an.



So to make an example, A thief who inters homes and steal, and who do not returned the borrowed if convicted is judged according to the (Hodood) by cutting his hand.


But what about the pic pocket,deceitful who takes money from you by a fake project or by a fake paper, what about who steals from his parents, etc. All these crimes are not under the (hodood), so they fall under the (Tazeer) which is human measured by law makers, it includes prison to lashes ,etc.


So when I state the respected scholars’ opinion That the aggressive Apostasy (Or as you mention a combination of Apostacy & blasphemy) is a political punishment not a religious punishment, then I mean that it’s under the (Tazeer) category, it’s man made. So may be in a Muslim country the law maker decide the punishment by death, in another country prison, in another money penalty, etc.

There is also a very important note: That according to some Muslim scholars and law makers, the (Hodood) are not only derived from the Holy Qur’an, they are also derived from the Prophet’s Traditions (Hadith), so to them the Penalty for Any Apostasy is a period of discussion with the scholars, and if he does not repent after this period then it’s a death penalty.


That is why I mentioned that I agree with the respected scholars who disregard any Hadith that contradicts with the holy Quran.

mahmoud mrt said:

Hi all,

I’d like to share ideas about this sensitive subject in Islam


First I make clear one important fact.

In Islam we have two sources of information:

A-The holy Qur’an, which we Muslims believe it’s the actual words of God, we recite it in our prayers every day (We do minimum 5 prayers a day), in addition to normal reading which is considered worship. In the month of Ramadan millions of Muslims recite the whole holy Quran in the payers, in addition to millions who read it as a whole. It’s persevered, memorized, and written exactly by every letter as the Prophet (pbuh) recited it to the Muslims, at the Prophet’s time tens of thousands had memorized the Holy Quran in addition to the written copy, these thousands have passed it to millions of Muslims throughout the ages. This perfect preservation is called in Arabic (Twator), which means that there can be no single atom of doubt that every letter in the Written and memorized Qur’an is exactly as the Prophet recited it, because millions through ages were practically reciting it every day more than five times, and they all agree till now on every letter. The Holy Quran has around 600 pages.

B-The prophet’s (pbuh) traditions, which is called in Arabic (Hadith). This category of information is different from the holy Qur’an in the following perspectives:
1- They were not written in the prophet’s life, only memorized by many Muslims. This is due to the fact that the prophet ordered Muslims to Not write anything that he says except the Holy Quran, this was a precaution to prevent any non-Quranic sentence to accidently be inserted into the holy Quran.
2- They were begun to be written after the prophet’s death by around 20 years. This fact made a problem, How can we make sure that the traditions are authentic. To solve this problem the Muslim scholars developed a science called (Isnad), which is specialized in investigation on everyone in the line of persons who told the Hadith till the writer of the Hadith book. There are several Hadith books written by Hadith Scholars, the most popular of them are “Sahih AlBukhary”, and “Sahih Muslim”.
Still this Science (Isnad) is a work of men, it has problems.

So Muslims and Muslim Scholars in dealing with Hadith were divided into three general groups:

1- Who believed that all Hadiths in the respected books are authentic and the instructions in them must be applied regardless whether they contradict with the Holy Quran or not.
2- Who disregarded all Hadiths and only believed in the holy Quran, the term Quranieen, or Quranic faith was called on them.
3- Who took a middle path between the former two groups, meaning for each topic in Islam the holy Quran is the supreme judge, that they measure any hadith and compare it with the instructions in the holy Quran, if they meet, then they accepted the Hadith, if they contradict, then they disregarded the Hadith regardless of the book or scholar who wrote it. I myself follow this way.

Click to expand...

Regards
Mahmoud

Thanks Mahmoud.

Back to the OP, in these modern times, the idea that freedom of expression could ever be punishable by death is simply not a peaceful idea.

People deserve respect, ideas do not.

_____________
defend net neutrality - "without love in the game, insanity's king"

mahmoud mrt ==write in post 81
Quraish Knew Allah the in their religion, they worshiped him as the creator of the universe, Who can’t be seen by our weak eyes, He is above place and time, He is God the one the only one.
That is because traces from the prophet Abraham (Ibrahim) religion who build the Kabaa with his Son Ismail were still in their culture. The problem is that they worshiped with Allah other idols, these idols were like tribes’ flags, each tribe has an idol or more which they worship in addition to Allah.==========
who say that
ibrahemm not buliding- al -kabba
and he not join with arab people
al-kabba
it is mmy note here
and
-al -hdood
yes it in qouran
al-tazer
this student in islammic law
but this not the subject of this topic
are the islam message know peacefu
yes or know
in islam law
the war is not stopping
until the islamme is become the regime to all world
this is the in islamic law and qouran
it is use --
the sowrd --and power--
and terriores
and let the man marrige in four woman --
it name in arabic الترغيب والترهيب --
and al --tkea
التقية
all muslem in world not reconized in any law
they just reconized in islamic law
therefore
they want the power
there many verse about this idea in qouran
thee fore no peace message in islame religion

icehorse said:

Thanks Mahmoud.

Back to the OP, in these modern times, the idea that freedom of expression could ever be punishable by death is simply not a peaceful idea.

People deserve respect, ideas do not.

_____________
defend net neutrality - "without love in the game, insanity's king"

Click to expand...

Hi icehorse


Ideas do lead to peoples murder, just look at Karl Marks, and Hitler’s ideas, Ideas are the main road all tyrants, oppressor, mass murderers walk through to reach power.
So there cannot be a supreme law that allows any ideas regardless of how destructive they are to be published to the people,


Just see how most the terrorists groups in the Arab world were funded, and taken care of by the western world like the Ekhwan Moslimon group, then they came back to their countries to destabilize them using their extreme destructive ideas that they call Islamic. And the result is civil war in, Syria, Yeman, Lybia, etc. See how ideas became war fuel against Muslims and non Muslims. And all of this is to the supreme Western Goal, Keeps the Muslims away from Israel, let them fight in between themselves.

Regards
Mahmoud

Hi Mahmoud,

Thanks for your thoughtful reply. You brought up two ideas:

Freedom of expression: Tyrants like Marx and Hitler shut down free speech. For the most part, they allowed ONLY their messages to get out. People who openly disagreed with them were usually in a LOT of trouble. Those tyrants would have had more trouble coming to power and holding on to their power if the people had really had free speech.

Here's just one way to look at the issue of free speech: It's not just about letting speakers say what ever they want. It's also about the person listening. Freedom of expression means that I am allowed to listen to anything I want. This is a critical freedom. There is no one I trust to tell me what I shouldn't be able to listen to. How about you, would you trust me to tell you what you could hear and what you couldn't hear? Probably not. Well then who would you trust? Man, if I was you, I can't think of anyone I would trust. That's just too much power for one human being to have over another.

The Western Goal: I suspect I'm going to disagree with your idea here, but I'm not quite sure I understand it. You're saying something about how the West supporting Israel causes Muslims in other parts of the world to fight with each other? Is that right? That doesn't sound right, can you say more about what you mean?

Thanks!

its plain and obvious what the western imperial agenda is Ice you sure you are not an alien visiting earth? because I sense a greenness around your ears here.

Scimi

mahmoud mrt said:

Hi icehorse


Ideas do lead to peoples murder, just look at Karl Marks, and Hitler’s ideas, Ideas are the main road all tyrants, oppressor, mass murderers walk through to reach power.
So there cannot be a supreme law that allows any ideas regardless of how destructive they are to be published to the people,


Just see how most the terrorists groups in the Arab world were funded, and taken care of by the western world like the Ekhwan Moslimon group, then they came back to their countries to destabilize them using their extreme destructive ideas that they call Islamic. And the result is civil war in, Syria, Yeman, Lybia, etc. See how ideas became war fuel against Muslims and non Muslims. And all of this is to the supreme Western Goal, Keeps the Muslims away from Israel, let them fight in between themselves.

Regards
Mahmoud

Click to expand...

Do you want to make comparisons between Hitler and Muhammad
Hitler said that sex is the best Germanic races
He wants to restore the glory of the nation, Romania
Hitler did not say he came from the book of God
Did not claim that what he says of God
Hitler was a military leader par excellence
The worldly man aspires to control
While Mohammed is otherwise
Muhammad led wars and said that this is from God
He speaks of the prophets Bulsln
Mohammed was killed and fought in the name of God
Mohammed said that the best religion religions
The sword will be published Dinh
* So which is better

But Marx is the owner of an economic ideology
Did not call for fight
Who took to the imposition of Bolshevism is Lenin
The economic theory of Karl Marx have a significant effect
It is possible that the effects are still to this day
It calls for the division of wealth and social parasite
While
Mohammed and Islam profess and allow the division of the spoils
Do you know that Islam allows booty that come from the wars of the Muslims
One reason for the defeat of the Muslims in one of the attacks are the spoils
And Islam says that the booty is not just stuff, but women also spoils
Read the history of invasions

State of Israel has the right to life
Why do you hate Israel

at the cost of other peoples lives sure kid. try again

Scimitar said:

its plain and obvious what the western imperial agenda is Ice you sure you are not an alien visiting earth? because I sense a greenness around your ears here.

Scimi

Click to expand...

Tell me again why Israel's existence causes Muslims 2,000 miles away to fight against each other? Wow, what a superpower Israel has!

@icehorse ...

weren't you on Gawaher for the longest? I was un abdullahfath there

mahasn ebn sawresho said:

Do you want to make comparisons between Hitler and Muhammad
Hitler said that sex is the best Germanic races
He wants to restore the glory of the nation, Romania
Hitler did not say he came from the book of God
Did not claim that what he says of God
Hitler was a military leader par excellence
The worldly man aspires to control
While Mohammed is otherwise
Muhammad led wars and said that this is from God
He speaks of the prophets Bulsln
Mohammed was killed and fought in the name of God
Mohammed said that the best religion religions
The sword will be published Dinh
* So which is better

Click to expand...

Hitler was known for multiple formilitary blunders. Hitler believed he was a messiah of sorts snd even claimed thstthe burning of jews was a frangrance for God.

Muhammad never died in battle. I am not presently an advocate for Islam but facts are facts