I'm just questioning why sura 2:190 which condemns aggressive warfare was was deliberately left out of the side that quoted from all the subsequent verses. It's not as if they could have missed it.
-
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!
Good "Islam = Religion of Peace" Debate
- Thread starter Sees
- Start date
I'm just questioning why sura 2:190 which condemns aggressive warfare was was deliberately left out of the side that quoted from all the subsequent verses. It's not as if they could have missed it.
Pages 19-21 have a nice exposition of how Islamic communities tend to follow dangerous voices with little reluctance.
Maajid Nawaz is attempting to object, IMO unsuccesfully, on the grounds that they are not qualified theologians. Personally I don't see how or why that would make much of a difference either way. People do what they do, they follow the leaders that they feel like following. If they don't care or agree on who are qualified theologians, then the matter lacks practical significance. Islam can't expect to be spared of criticism because it was vaguely supposed to be different.
Page 21 (John Dovan):
Yet it also goes against the apparent hopes of many or most Muslims that the faith and obedience to the Qur'an is divinely warranted to lead to virtue and righteousness no matter what.
Ayaan Hirsi Ali's response to that is just brilliant. Douglas Murray's in page 22 is very good as well, although I think he is focusing a bit too much on leaders and not enough on the lack of actual, valid religious content in Islamic doctrine.
Page 22 also has an interesting if perhaps controversial analysis by Maajid Nawaz of Khomeini's background and role in the current situation of Shia Islam.
I am not sure to which degree I agree with him. But either way, even if he is right it still lampshades the excessive reliance on the wisdom of specific religious leaders and the sad lack of proper room for individual discernment and insight that Islam so often encourages and even demands.
Page 23 has some very interesting statements by Zeba Khan about the need for renewal in Islam. I think she is underestimating the affinity for central authorities in Islam, but her take on the matter is nonetheless worth reading. Ayaan Hirsi Ali presents a good counterpoint as well.
I can't help but find Zeba Khan's take on Al-Qaeda naive and more than slightly colored by wishful thinking.
Maajid Nawaz is attempting to object, IMO unsuccesfully, on the grounds that they are not qualified theologians. Personally I don't see how or why that would make much of a difference either way. People do what they do, they follow the leaders that they feel like following. If they don't care or agree on who are qualified theologians, then the matter lacks practical significance. Islam can't expect to be spared of criticism because it was vaguely supposed to be different.
Page 21 (John Dovan):
That is quite correct.
Yet it also goes against the apparent hopes of many or most Muslims that the faith and obedience to the Qur'an is divinely warranted to lead to virtue and righteousness no matter what.
Ayaan Hirsi Ali's response to that is just brilliant. Douglas Murray's in page 22 is very good as well, although I think he is focusing a bit too much on leaders and not enough on the lack of actual, valid religious content in Islamic doctrine.
Page 22 also has an interesting if perhaps controversial analysis by Maajid Nawaz of Khomeini's background and role in the current situation of Shia Islam.
I am not sure to which degree I agree with him. But either way, even if he is right it still lampshades the excessive reliance on the wisdom of specific religious leaders and the sad lack of proper room for individual discernment and insight that Islam so often encourages and even demands.
Page 23 has some very interesting statements by Zeba Khan about the need for renewal in Islam. I think she is underestimating the affinity for central authorities in Islam, but her take on the matter is nonetheless worth reading. Ayaan Hirsi Ali presents a good counterpoint as well.
I can't help but find Zeba Khan's take on Al-Qaeda naive and more than slightly colored by wishful thinking.
Personally, I don't think that verse is very relevant, or very helpful in bettering the public image of Islam in this context.
All religions tend to appear like they favor believers over non believers...in other words, that God Himself favors believers over non believers, but it's honestly not so. When reading any holy text, you have to read it in its entirety, unfortunately, on forums we tend to take snippets of passages here and there, blow them up, and forget about the rest of the book. I don't believe that Islam is a faith that I could follow, but I know many Muslims who are able to view it as a positive in their life. Maybe they ignore the tough passages, maybe they interpret them differently, maybe the passages that we think we know so well, aren't what they seem. It's hard to say, but ISIS in my estimation, would probably be the same insane group they are, even if they were following the Bible or Torah, to be honest. It isn't Islam that makes them rape children, and enslave women. That's not Islam. It isn't Islam that is making them drown and burn Muslims alive. It is because they are psychopaths, just like Hitler was, and their desire is to take over the world. Islam is just the tool that they use as their scapegoat, IMO.
True. But what if they are wrong and Muhammad was a sinless Prophet of God and the Quran was the Word of God?
It makes a huge difference being the aggressor or defending oneself.
What of it? To the extent that it is even an actual possibility, it would change nothing, now would it?
It doesn't, because human nature is such that one can nearly always, even under extreme circunstances, paint oneself as the aggravated part.
If we found out it were true you don't think relations would be better?
Wouldn't the world be a better place with less hostility and suspicion?
Sees
Dragonslayer
Luis, thank you for finding and linking that page.
That is for each of us decide for himself You know my views and I respect your views.
Sorry, I will have to challenge that in the interests of accuracy and fairness.
That appearance you speak of is in and of itself enough of a serious flaw. But it is not one that "all" relgions have. It may appear so for one not sufficiently aware of religious diversity, I suppose.
Still, the Qur'an is what it is, and it goes way beyond a mere apperance of claim of superiority over non-Muslims.
A frequent appeal, but unfortunately not a convincing one. One can't help but wonder how come the relevant parts consistently fail to show up when push comes to shove.
With well over one and a half billion Muslims around to present the fair portrayal of Islaam, claims that it is not being fairly represented can't have much traction anymore.
Of course. We would not be discussing it if those people did not exist. We would be joining in strategies to eradicate Islam in self-defense instead.
Some of that, no doubt. But it seems clear to me that the decisive factor is that religion is practiced by human beings with discernment. People tend to improve on the doctrines they learn as a matter of course, particularly when there are glaring flaws in it.
For all the claims that Islaam and the Qur'an are not being fairly represented, biased depictions of both are actually a major asset to their continued survival and thriving. And that has probably always been true.
Perhaps. But mild as that claim is, it still can't help but lampshade that comparable Jewish or Christian groups are basically non-existent these days. And non-existence is hardly a hint of likelihood of existence.
The relevant question is rather how come extremist Muslim groups keep arising so often and so resiliently. Are we expected to chalk it up to coincidence or bad luck of the draw?
Arguably not. But they sure seem to have easy enough of a time finding Quranic support for their claims about the need to fight for Allah and for the expression of their presumed superiority over kuffar and even non-Muslim People of the Book.
They may or may not be in good understanding of the Qur'an's message. But they recruit in the name of Islaam and there is zero evidence or even hint that they are not true believers in Islaam to the best of their own understandings.
Or rather, the fertile ground that enables their hate to take root.
It is too bad that reality can't accomodate for everyone's disagreements with no further consequence.
We Baha'is all believe in the Quran and even more strongly than Muslims so why aren't we terrorists or going around killing people?
As humanity matures I'm sure it will.
The Emperor of Mankind
Currently the galaxy's spookiest paraplegic
Oh boy...
Because your entire religion revolves around peace, love, acceptance of diversity (unless it challenges your own perception; then you ignore it) and the preconceived notion that since he is a prophet of God, Muhammad must be perfect, sinless etc so you use that as the standard to which you aspire in your conduct with others. Islam, on the other hand, is about submission, Islamic supremacy in society (it doesn't view religion as separate from things like lawmaking) and creates social distinctions between Muslims and non-Muslims; and that Muhammad conquered his enemies by defeating them in battle who then submitted to him - in keeping with the overall theme of submission.
Sees
Dragonslayer
I'm curious how Baha'is treat insults against Muhammad/Islam. Is it seen as an attack that is worthy of a physical counter-attack? There have been polls of American Muslims in very recent times, arguably some of the world's most lenient, tolerant, progressive, etc. Muslims - showing 33% see it as such. That percentage simply climbs when you go to regions of the world where it is a Muslim majority, without the same degree of outside influence concerning freedom of speech and freedom of religion.
If Baha'is were polled from any part of the world, what percentage do you think would agree that insulting Bahá’u’lláh (or Muhammad, Jesus, Moses, etc.) is worthy of a counter-attack? I'm betting it would always be a very insignificant minority. This is a key difference, without political or economic struggles to use as an excuse for why it exists.
YmirGF
Bodhisattva in Recovery
You would think a being worthy of being called a god would have implored his believers to try to understand why they found themselves in adverse conditions, why others attacked them and what they could possibly do to peacefully ward off such attacks. Counteracting belligerence with more belligerence is hardly noble.
YmirGF
Bodhisattva in Recovery
The point is that we simply do not see the evidence that Muslims are a "guided" group that is vastly superior to other human animals. That painful reality tends to blow the idea that Islam is the religion of God right out of the water. In theory, if the claim was true, the Muslim community, en masse, would be clearly superior by many yardsticks than all alternatives. Muslims claim this closeness to God and yet we see so little evidence to back up this claim. There is almost no area, whatsoever, where the Muslim community is sought out for guidance due to their illustrious wisdom.
hi.
Allah does not forbid you respecting those who have not made war against you on account of [your] religion, and have not driven you forth from your homes,
that you show them kindness and deal with them justly; surely Allah loves the doers of justice.
Allah only forbids you respecting those who made war upon you on account of [your] religion, and drove you forth from your homes and backed up [others] in your expulsion, that you make friends with them, and whoever makes friends with them, these are the unjust.
the message of islam is mercy and peace for all creations and you can find many books about islam's mercy in the website
al-islam.org
Allah who is all merciful says in the holy quran, chapter 60, verses 8 and 9:Not all that new and I'm sure at least a few have seen it before, but....
Having just recently watched it, I couldn't help but imagine what RF commentary would be likeI think both sides in this recorded debate did a pretty good job for their position...which is kinda rare, making it more worthwhile than many.
Interested to hear some thoughts on the debate, either as a whole or just on some of the statements/claims made by one or more of those participating.
Pre-Debate - 41% of the audience agreed that Islam is a religion of peace, while 25% disagreed and 34% were undecided.
Allah does not forbid you respecting those who have not made war against you on account of [your] religion, and have not driven you forth from your homes,
that you show them kindness and deal with them justly; surely Allah loves the doers of justice.
Allah only forbids you respecting those who made war upon you on account of [your] religion, and drove you forth from your homes and backed up [others] in your expulsion, that you make friends with them, and whoever makes friends with them, these are the unjust.
the message of islam is mercy and peace for all creations and you can find many books about islam's mercy in the website
al-islam.org