• 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!

The attack Quran thread

;);)


Many thanks for sharing your views on this, Artis Magistra.

I believe it is very important to always read spiritual texts in a spiritual frame of mind. Otherwise, they can lead to much harm and suffering.

I read the words symbolically and metaphorically and so, like you re. the Qur'an, I would say in regards to NT that Jesus does not want us to kill [our] children or anyone, for that matter. Just saying. ;)

Humbly
Hermit
I totally agree, the Jesus I believe in and think is a good role model would never want children to be killed (because I think that is wrong and bad), and there is even that verse in the New Testament about something like "whoever harms these little ones" that they should have some heavy thing tied to them and throw them in the water to drown. These are the two parts together:

Mark 7:1
The Pharisees and some of the teachers of the law who had come from Jerusalem gathered around Jesus
2
and saw some of his disciples eating food with hands that were defiled, that is, unwashed.
3
(The Pharisees and all the Jews do not eat unless they give their hands a ceremonial washing, holding to the tradition of the elders.
4
When they come from the marketplace they do not eat unless they wash. And they observe many other traditions, such as the washing of cups, pitchers and kettles.)
5
And the Pharisees and the scribes questioned Him, "Why do Your disciples not walk according to the tradition of the elders, but eat the bread with unwashed hands?"
6
And He said to them, "Isaiah prophesied rightly concerning you hypocrites, as it has been written: 'This people honors Me with the lips, but their heart is kept far away from Me;
7
They worship Me in vain; they teach as doctrine the precepts of men.’
8
You have let go of the commands of God and are holding on to human traditions."
9
He went on to say, “You neatly set aside the command of God to maintain your own tradition.
10
For Moses said, 'Honor your Father and your mother,' and, 'The one speaking evil of father or mother must surely die.'
11
But you say that if a man says to his father or mother, ‘Whatever you would have received from me is Corban’ (that is, a gift devoted to God),
12
then you no longer permit him to do anything for his father or mother,
13
making void the word of God for your tradition, which you have handed down. And you do many things like such."

So this seems to give the impression that the figure speaking here seems to be insisting that the commandments of God might be things like "if your children speak evil of you or dishonor you (honor killings?) kill them."

Matthew 15:1 shortens it a bit:
1
Then some Pharisees and teachers of the law came to Jesus from Jerusalem and asked,
2
"Why do your disciples break the tradition of the elders? They don't wash their hands before they eat!"
3
Jesus replied, “And why do you, by your traditions, violate the direct commandments of God?
4
For instance, God says, ‘Honor your father and mother,’ and ‘Anyone who speaks disrespectfully of father or mother must be put to death.’
5
But you say that if anyone declares that what might have been used to help their father or mother is 'devoted to God,'
6
In this way, you say they don’t need to honor their parents. And so you cancel the word of God for the sake of your own tradition.
7
You hypocrites! Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you:
8
"'These people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me.
9
They worship me in vain; their teachings are merely human rules.'"

Mark 9:42
But if anyone causes one of these little ones who believe in Me to stumble, it would be better for him to have a large millstone hung around his neck and to be thrown into the sea.
43
If your hand causes you to stumble, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life maimed than with two hands to go into hell, where the fire never goes out.
44
where ‘Their worm does not die And the fire is not quenched.’
45
And if your foot causes you to stumble, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life crippled than to have two feet and be thrown into hell.
46
where ‘Their worm does not die And the fire is not quenched.’
47
And if your eye causes you to stumble, pluck it out. It is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye than to have two eyes and be thrown into hell,
48
where "'the worms that eat them do not die, and the fire is not quenched.'
49
Everyone will be salted with fire.
9:50
"Salt is good, but if it loses its saltiness, how can you make it salty again? Have salt among yourselves, and be at peace with each other."

Late Antique Salt Ad.

My Jesus would never encourage people to kill children, so I don't believe Jesus (my Jesus) likely ever did. That would mean my Jesus (like the Jesus of a great many others) was not obedient to the Commandments of God as presented in the Old Testament and referenced in the New Testament, such as:

Leviticus 20:9
"'For everyone who curses his father or his mother shall surely be put to death: he has cursed his father or his mother; his blood shall be upon him.

Leviticus 20:11
If a man lies with his father’s wife, he has uncovered his father’s nakedness; both of them shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them.

Oh, is this what Ham did in that weird story about seeing drunk Noah naked? Was it just a weird way of saying he slept with Noah's wife while his father was drunk?

List of capital crimes in the Torah - Wikipedia

Crime and punishment in the Torah - Wikipedia
 
The Qur'an has much looser laws and strictness regarding most things in comparison to the Old Testament which Jesus seemed to not be rejecting or bypassing, but rather his character in the scriptures seemed to make him out to be critical of those ignoring the Old Testament rulings which were believed to be from God as commandments.

The Qur'an seems to create doubt in these things by suggesting what the Old Testament itself suggests:
Jeremiah 8:8
“How can you say, ‘We are wise, and the law of the LORD is with us’? But behold, the lying pen of the scribes has made it into a lie.

The idea is that the Ancient B'nei Israel people were disobedient and manipulated the texts to manipulate the people, and lied, presenting false things as the words or commandments of God, to perpetrate all sorts of evil acts, including atrocious mass killings which are mentioned throughout the Old Testament when the Qur'an says they were told to be peaceful and enter in peace, but they took to murdering everyone and killing the people of the cities they were told to enter peacefully. The Qur'an presents a revisionist or alternative history full of believable conspiracy and wickedness that also explains away or gives space to explain away practically any difficult verse in the Bible before it as "that is just trash the evil people made up and inserted or twisted".

The Qur'an even has ways out of killing in response to murder or killing I think, with certain fees, penalties, or what I perceive as leeway and other sorts of punishments. This thus resembles some very ancient laws which had options like paying reparations to victims or their families rather than necessarily an "eye for an eye" only.

The devout Jewish people, to this day, can not accept modern Christianity or Islam since it basically disregards not only their developed traditions, but also the words which remain visible to them in their scriptures and commentaries.

Islam and Judaism can't be compatible, because Islam seems to imply that much of Jewish history and thought is based on fabrications they created and false narratives, it basically is calling them liars, as it also does with Christians in calling Trinitarians exaggerators.

Islam has after the Qur'an, developed its own laws and rulings, even if inspired by the other communities or converts from other religions, while the Qur'an itself presented a different picture in many ways, especially regarding legal rulings and responses, than what was long practiced among the Jewish communities. It further separates itself and provides the excuse like "every community / people has been given their own traditions" and so is seeming to say that the Jewish tradition is their own ethnic cultural system that doesn't need to be followed by other people who aren't part of their group.

The way people talk about the behavior of criminals coming out of predominantly Muslim cultures almost matches up better to recommendations provided in the Old Testament and Ancient Jewish system than it matches to anything in the Qur'an itself, which is overall a very mild book in comparison, and much more palatable to the human sensibilities perhaps, if anyone is ever permitted to read it in comparison to its elder predecessor in the Bible.

Two resources I use are:
www.islamawakened.com
www.bible.cc

One can read these together and see the rather vast gap in style and content and clarity. One can also include other scriptures, like the Vedas, Dhammapada, Bhagavad Gita, and see if those really are as helpful in providing a pragmatic overall picture and relatively decent moral and legal system, out of all of them, anyone who is honest will find the Qur'an is the most comprehensive of them, and ultimately quite concise for all its seeming repetition (which many people complain about).

The Bible is a painful read (for me at least), because it appears tedious, pointless, tangential, and very much lacking in clear moral guidance for very long sections.

I've read all the scriptures in depth, in order to extract from them anything I can which can be used to teach a singular good message for whoever might like this book or that, and of all the scriptures, the most useful to me has been the Qur'an for its content and messages, but isn't one that I can use very much since those who read my writing typically find the book despicable. Why? Well this thread was apparently designed for people to make it clear why the Qur'an is a despicable book in their opinion, and how it deserves more trouble than the other texts, because if anyone was ever honest, the Bible is very literally and quantifiably more horrific in leaps and bounds, real and normal Buddhist rules are extremist and not suitable to the continuation of the human race and are really messed up and unreasonable if you read the Vinayaka or whatever the rules are for the true Buddhist monks and followers.

There is literally no other religion but Islam, however many religions there appear to be, they are all a mess, but out of all those mangled faces, the Qur'an is the best available combination of pragmatic advice, humanism, common sense, spirituality, hope, good superstitions, conduct benefitting fear tactics, its pretty good and safe for children to adults.

Its consequences are those I have mentioned earlier, such as a tendency to create an elitist mindset, separating people from what is considered the modern Western way of life (fornication, intoxication, feeling like you are part of a network of similarly sexualized alcoholics, as well as everyone else), it fills people who exist in a society that it views as utterly corrupt and despicable with a sort of snootiness, at least in my case, where I genuinely look down upon everyone as inferior filth for reasons as petty as the cleanliness of their anal cavity, their dishonorable conduct in relation to their marriages and relationships, their indulgence in drugs and criminality, their untrustworthiness and love of material gain and Godless lack of fear about repercussions for what they plot in secret or do in the open, their general indecency that I notice everywhere online and offline, on the television and in real life. I'd say that, though there are many followers of the Qur'an living in all sorts of countries with various cultures, it definitely creates a tension by being different, and would even if one was different in some other way, but this adds the (perhaps dangerous) ingredient of thinking that we or at least I am divinely endorsed.
 
;);)


Many thanks for sharing your views on this, Artis Magistra.

I believe it is very important to always read spiritual texts in a spiritual frame of mind. Otherwise, they can lead to much harm and suffering.

I read the words symbolically and metaphorically and so, like you re. the Qur'an, I would say in regards to NT that Jesus does not want us to kill [our] children or anyone, for that matter. Just saying. ;)

Humbly
Hermit

I really like to read texts as metaphorical and spiritual, but I also find it pretty difficult to think that the verses regarding the filthiness of Jesus and his disciples hands was not meant as or taken to be genuinely grimey hands by those who were commenting on them. I don't know if the incident even happened, but the way it is written seems so strongly presenting an initially literal seeming picture and scene, that I wonder if the scene was not meant to make those listeners of the story and its details to imagine it as a literal event (at least as well).

I wash my hands before I use them to eat.

Maybe if the Jews would've paid better attention they might have noticed they didn't need to wash their hands because the food was levitating into their mouths or something, or was not actually touching their hands, just sort of levitating slightly above their flesh (lol, which reminds me of the sorts of stories and ideas Gnostics may have come up with at times, especially those sects which took Jesus to be a sort of illusory being who was not material or fleshy).
 
Successful indeed are the believers Who are humble in their prayers, And who shun vain conversation, And who are payers of the poor-due; And who guard their modesty - Save from their wives or the (slaves) that their right hands possess, for then they are not blameworthy. Quran 23:1-6

This is just one of the many, MANY verses that comes to my mind. I've forgotten most of the verses. I remember I gave about 15 verses talking about slaves and their treatment in other topic around 3-4 months ago when talking about the subject with another Muslim brother here. Regardless, considering the fact that, historically, Prophet Muhammad S.A.W himself had slaves and engaged in slave trading [I can think of Maria al-Qibtiyya] is, in itself, a concrete evidence that Islam promotes slavery.

Now, if The Holy Qur'an was really ever-guiding moral compass, why didn't it just explicitly abolished slavery, explained it's evils and set up penalties against it's practicing like it did with alcohol and swine [which, btw, are no way NEAR slavery in terms of overall harmfulness]?

Maybe I am getting something wrong here, but history and Qur'an is proving otherwise

If the Qur'an said all slavery was prohibited and evil, how then would it be that all that exists is considered slave to Allah? Furthermore, from where did slavery emerge, or the taking advantage of and dominating and putting to work human resources? From the very basic laws of nature seemingly, or else such a concept might never have come into existence. That makes whatever is responsible for the way things are to be responsible for slavery, with all its accomplishments and its failures and abuses.

So, we come (hastily) to the conclusion that, whatever is truly most influential and powerful over everything, whether one calls it Chaos, or Nature, or Reality, or Luck, or whatever, is the True God over everything, the Source and Cause of Everything Always, and that since there are evils, it is responsible for these too, and slavery (whether ever good or bad) is its production as well, and if all slavery is considered evil, then its source and perpetrator and that which tolerates it, is likewise evil as well, and so the Qur'an seems to be tolerant of ongoing slavery, and Islamic culture for centuries was tolerant of ongoing slavery, and the Qur'an even seems to refer to all things as the slaves of Allah who are bound to Allah's will and can not defy it in the least or truly.

So even if the Qur'an had abolished slavery, which it did not seem to do in any clear fashion (so that Muslims for generations were slaves or owned slaves), people could argue "Why did God even allow slavery to exist in the first place? Why did God create slavery and create a thing which was not eradicated immediately after its creation (or else we wouldn't have heard of it)? On that line, why did God create all manner of evil and oppression, and tolerate some? Why do women get their period and suffer sometimes every month? Why is there this one kid who apparently can scarcely move except without feeling seering pain all over their body due to their disease? Why is such tolerated?"

People are satisfied to answer this question with "There is no God", and much less satisfied with the answer "God isn't really omnibenevolent". Yet all these evils and more exist, and many of them are necessarily tolerated, while others are seemingly unnecessarily tolerated and perpetrated or considered acceptable in today's world system, such as interest rates (which were seemingly much more strongly condemned in the Qur'an than slavery), so what exactly is going on?

Personally, I find Reality to be rather hideous if explored and examined. To me, the way things are, The State of things, is synonymous with what people call "God's Will", and even Reality itself another name for the Only True God (Al-Haqq in Arabic, translated as The Reality or The Truth as it is). So that the Atheist who believes in The Reality, believes in Allah, and the person who says this is how things are, is also saying "It is God's Will". There is no difference to me, between how things occur and what factors are attributed to how things are said to occur, and Luck or Chance or Probability as all just alternative names of God and the True Power. So that, in saying it backwards "whatever at all is truly the source, the cause, the influencer, the power" that is God, by any name. In that way, no one really denies or can deny the True God, and what they do deny, an imaginary cloud-man in the sky or other cartoonish notions, should be denied.

So who created slavery?
Who also created its current status as deprecated and out of practice openly?
What is responsible for improvements in society and health care?
Who really brought about and distributed Moby Dick and the Qur'an?

If you follow the chain, any chain, back and back and back, whatever name you give that Ultimate point which is thus responsible for everything after it and has nothing before it, that is The One.

You can call it, Slaver.

slaver
[ˈslāvər]
NOUN
historical
  1. a person dealing in or owning slaves.
    • a vehicle used for transporting slaves.
slave
[slāv]
NOUN
  1. a person who is the legal property of another and is forced to obey them.
    "they kidnapped entire towns and turned them into slaves"
    synonyms:
    bondsman · bondswoman · bondservant · bondslave · serf · vassal · thrall · helot · odalisque · blackbird · hierodule
VERB
  1. work excessively hard.
    "after slaving away for fourteen years all he gets is two thousand"
    synonyms:
    toil · labor · grind · sweat · work one's fingers to the bone · work day and night ·
    [more]

Isn't it hard, even while its supposedly easier, to even do practically anything in a day? Don't you find yourself slaving away at this task or that task, losing energy, becoming exhausted? The animals out in the wild burn so many calories in trying to find calories to burn.

What is responsible for all this?

Does the Quran Support Slavery?

Whatever is responsible for all this, is the only thing that should be called God, by any name, and there is no God except what is responsible for everything, and so whatever is actually responsible for everything, that is the Real One, but many people attribute the responsibility to lesser or more immediate seeming things without thinking back far enough or accurately enough.

Go back far enough, and you'll know who to blame, for everything you like, and everything you dislike.

Slaver. Slaver. Slaver!

ttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UXWNUCsPRXA

So this is an easy way to figure out where you currently stand. I believe I'm likely in an extreme minority position.

Listening to that song, are you (and anyone else reading this who might like to take this little test, and I'd love to hear your answers) one who believes:
A. This song was brought about by the mind of this artist or human writer of the song, and brought to your attention simply by your adding h to the beginning of the link and viewing it.
B. This song was brought about by an incomprehensibly complex chain of events leading back to whatever is responsible for anything through a chain of cause and effect which leads back to whatever.
C. This song was generated by an initial and Ultimate Power responsible for the Generation of all experience you directly experience in the moment you experience it.
D. This song was brought about by God starting things but not being responsible immediately for what happens in between then and now.
F. This song was brought about by God right now as "You experiencing yourself listening to and looking at and playing this song" and all and any chain regarding it can be considered just information generated in the moment as well and assumed for the sake of sanity and convenience.
G. Nothing is the ultimate cause of this song or anything, and even if there was an ultimate cause, there is no reason at all to think it has any life or intelligence or can hear or respond or is near or that we are in it as in a vehicle transporting slaves or any of that strangeness.
H. What song? The link didn't work (because I didn't add an h to the beginning of the link).
 
You can choose multiple if you find that multiple work well together, and you can even rank them or order them from how closely they might represent your thinking, to how they don't and how much they don't.

I think most people think that the author of the song is the only one responsible for its creation. It just seems obvious, someone sat there and wrote this, people even saw them sit there and write it (it is assumed). They can even sue someone who plagiarizes it, by proving in various ways that they are the author.

Yet, they did eat breakfast, and notice some things on the television, and all these little influences might be said to have make things pop into their mind which they didn't really select or choose to pop into their mind at all, let alone as options to choose from, and which options they did choose, are stemming from their breakfast choice, which they also didn't really make, since they had brushed their teeth at a certain time which led to blah blah blah and so on and so forth.

All of which wouldn't even occur to them or anyone if there was no experience of it, if those things were not generated in an experience that they recall in a current experience, which could really say anything and they would really be forced to believe it, as it is undeniably occurring or otherwise what they recall now.

So who isn't a slave to their breakfast? Not only to the limitations of the available choices, but the limitation of having to make a choice if there is a choice that has to be made, and what we choose, is chosen by the circumstances, by our mood, by factors outside of our control and decision, by suggestions which seem to pop into our minds not even as a drop down list, and we feel that is the way to go and can only go that one way at the time.

What is responsible for all this?

96. The Clot - Al-'Alaq
In the Name of Allah the Most Merciful, the Most Beneficent

  1. Read (Prophet Muhammad) in the Name of your Lord who created,
  2. created the human from a (blood) clot.
  3. Read! Your Lord is the Most Generous,
  4. who taught by the pen,
  5. taught the human what he did not know.
  6. Indeed, surely the human is very insolent

  7. that he sees himself self-sufficient.

  8. Indeed, to your Lord is the returning.
  9. What do you think? Have you seen he who forbids
  10. a worshiper when he prays.
  11. Have you seen if he was upon guidance
  12. or orders piety?
  13. What do you think? Have you seen if he belies and turns away,
  14. does he not know that Allah sees?
  15. Indeed, if he does not desist, We will seize him by the forelock (frontal lobe),
  16. a lying, sinful forelock.
  17. So, let him call upon his way!
  18. We, will call the Zabania (the harsh angels of Hell).
  19. No, indeed; do not obey him! Prostrate and come nearer (to Allah).

What is Allah? People seem to imagine some fantastic beast is being referred to, but where then shall we find them?
 
Great. Thanks for quoting the verse you are referring to.

Hellbound. Please note that in the verse you quoted, the word slaves is inside brackets, and not in the sentence. The sentence used here is "Ma malakut aymaanukum" and honestly I am very well aware of this. It doesn't mean slaves in any sense whatsoever. People assume it means slaves so they put the word slave inside brackets as inference.

What is the other verse that you speak of?

Why do they assume it means slaves? Was it because of other commentaries? How did they come to this idea and continue to perpetuate it?
 

firedragon

Veteran Member
This is still, how do you say, "good press."

The fact remains that whites in America owned slaves for a very brief period, to a very low percentage.
(Snopes fudges this by listing families owning slaves, then does funny math to declare that between 3% and 49% of families owned slaves. If you measured distant relations, you could say anything you want, but the fact is, there are only so plantations around and not 49% of the people were even involved in agriculture. Btw if my great aunt owns slaves, but we have disowned her, how is it our business if she owns all these people? The actual number was about 300,000 out 31 million, which they declare up and down is not the real stastistic, but adds up to about 1.4%)
Many of them were freed before the 245 years
American slavery: Separating fact from myth
of slavery were up. This was what abolitionists were all about. These "families of slaves" might have consisted of one owner and many brothers and children who would just as soon free them but for the logistical nightmare that all of these free people now have to manage their own affairs (or to put it anorher way, while it's very idealistic to think freeing slaves is as simple as buying their freedom, if you really care about them, there's the consideration of making sure they don't starve once free) and some cases the whites weren't as wealthy as history books would have you believe. In any case, after Civil War, slavery ended, and there was some Jim Crow stuff, but it mostly died down. Or should have, except for dredging up resentment through reparations and things like Critical Race Theory (fun fact: you know what the actual political party of most slaveowners was? Democrat).

By contrast, the Quran hauls out some story about some freed slave and we are supposed to believe the good press. Yet slavery has persisted 1400 years. They enslaved blacks. They enslaved whites (you know those sexy harem girls in pictures of Middle East in popular media? White slaves of Muslim owners). And they'll probably enslave you and me once they make this country Muslim.

But you are missing the point. The thread is about the Quran. So provide the verse, and engage with analysis.
 

firedragon

Veteran Member
Why do they assume it means slaves? Was it because of other commentaries? How did they come to this idea and continue to perpetuate it?

"Why" someone claims Ma Malakut Aymanukum meant slaves is a mystery really. One can only speculate. But if you read the Quran, all the verses, and all the verses mentioning Yamin or oaths you will easily realise that it can never mean slaves. Impossible.
 
"Why" someone claims Ma Malakut Aymanukum meant slaves is a mystery really. One can only speculate. But if you read the Quran, all the verses, and all the verses mentioning Yamin or oaths you will easily realise that it can never mean slaves. Impossible.

Have you seen this thread:
Religion is not about judging others, it is about judging one self.

How widespread currently, and how actively promoted, is this corrective information regarding the truth of the Qur'an and its contents, as it seems important to me that people come to know this, most especially Muslims themselves who may be relying on these difficult or outright false interpretations and translations.
 

firedragon

Veteran Member
Have you seen this thread:
Religion is not about judging others, it is about judging one self.

How widespread currently, and how actively promoted, is this corrective information regarding the truth of the Qur'an and its contents, as it seems important to me that people come to know this, most especially Muslims themselves who may be relying on these difficult or outright false interpretations and translations.

Well, its average, day to day discussion in Madrasa for a long long time. But I really dont know how to measure how widespread it is brother. What I can say is that its pretty normal discussion.

If you note most of the translations will say "those who your right hand possess". Some translations would say "Oaths". Its actually rarely that you would see someone refer to it directly as slaves.

But the perception on the internet is built not by analysis, minority view, majority view, linguistics or even wide speed discussion. Internet top of mind awareness is created by those who pick what they like, when they like.

You can rely on one thing. People on the internet generally use popular views when convenient, and at other times to insult a religion if they want, they will pick the minority view. So its based on the agenda.

Thus, when you ask for "how wide spread", its not answerable. I hope you understand.
 
Well, its average, day to day discussion in Madrasa for a long long time. But I really dont know how to measure how widespread it is brother. What I can say is that its pretty normal discussion.

If you note most of the translations will say "those who your right hand possess". Some translations would say "Oaths". Its actually rarely that you would see someone refer to it directly as slaves.

But the perception on the internet is built not by analysis, minority view, majority view, linguistics or even wide speed discussion. Internet top of mind awareness is created by those who pick what they like, when they like.

You can rely on one thing. People on the internet generally use popular views when convenient, and at other times to insult a religion if they want, they will pick the minority view. So its based on the agenda.

Thus, when you ask for "how wide spread", its not answerable. I hope you understand.
Alright, that was a nice, thorough, and accurate seeming answer which provided a lot of information. So how about the idea of concubines, can you give me a little more information on that? For example, what do you know about the idea and various opinions or verses from the Qur'an if there are any regarding the actual practice of a slave or concubine or something, what that is or would be, and having sex with such. Also, there is a movement of people who are homosexual Muslims, does the Qur'an explicitly condemn sex acts between males and anal sex (between males or in general). I'm familiar at least with the apparent condemnation of the abomination and "choosing men instead of women" or whatever that the people of Lot were doing, but somehow the homosexual Muslims are finding ways around that to get into the places they want to go.

So I'd like to know also about the multiple wives thing. When I read the Qur'an, because it seems to say "only if you can treat them equally, and you'll never be able to treat them equally" which seems to say that you can really only marry one woman at a time since you can't treat more than one equally, but maybe you could clarify this based on your understanding and the ancient Arabic.

So to recap, if it isn't too much trouble, I'd like to know about:
1. Concubines/Slaves and the degree of freedom of having sex with them, or if one can have sex with them even if they aren't married to them but otherwise has them in some kind of position as a concubine or slave (and what that would be or what that agreement would be). You can include ideas regarding any allowance or loopholes regarding sex or sex acts before marriage (I currently don't think any such things are allowed).
2. What qualifies as a marriage, and what is a slave, an oath bound thing right hand possessing thing, all these different distinctions clarified.
3. Permission regarding saying "Bismillahirahmaniraheem" over food not slaughtered in any particularly Islamic fashion and what that specific fashion would be based on the Qur'an (as far as I'm aware, it would basically be killing the animal after saying "Bismillahirahmaniraheem").
4. How many prayers or salat periods are mentioned in the Qur'an (people spread that it says only 3, but I've seen or thought I saw more, all five, maybe even six as an additional one).
5. People also say the Qur'an doesn't say how to worship, but I think it pretty much does in general, you can clarify that and how you choose to worship if you do.
6. People complain about Slaves and Slavery,
Concubines and Sex with Slaves,
Multiple Wives,
The Age of Marriage Permission and Marrying little kids or age of consent or adulthood,
Killing of Enemies and Enemy Combatants and Self Defense or Seeking Out people to Slay,
The Qur'anic opinions of or words against other groups such as Jews, Christians, Polytheists, etc, and
what qualifies as a Muslim or a Non-Muslim or especially a Polytheist when Hindus today for example often claim to be Monotheistic,
Exclusivity of Beliefs or Who Gets into Paradise,
Permanence of Hell or Not (when the Qur'an seems to criticize people who popularly used to say that Hell is temporary, it makes me think it isn't),
The Sunni belief (which I think is disturbing and blasphemous) that the Qur'an is Co-Existing Eternally with Allah (what exactly are they calling the Qur'an? Allah's ability to create information, or this book starring the Pharaoh and other characters? If they mean this book existing eternally and the Pharaoh existing eternally in it, they are completely out of their minds).

7. Why, if at all, should any of the Hadiths or, other than those, commentaries be trusted at all? Are Muslims very much necessarily dependent on these, and would Islam based off of the Qur'an end up nothing like the currently practiced range of Muslim beliefs and practices? If so, what would these major differences, at least theoretically, be?

8. What is the status, rank, rights, and what are the freedoms of women, children, men, slaves, etc. What would an Islamic or Qur'anic government look like and act like, and could you list out the commandments or laws of the Qur'an the way the Jews have their 613 Commandments? I think the Qur'an probably has a whole lot fewer than 613 as it seems very simple to me.

9, When did you become familiar with Ancient Arabic or learn these things, and what kind of ethnic community did you grow up in and around and influenced by or where is your family from or what kind of a cultural background or cultural Islam do you originate from? What do you consider yourself now, and why do you visit forums like these if you are being very honest with yourself? What is the hope and plan and agenda if any, in the most introspective and authentic explanation possible?

10. How acceptable do you personally (or based on the Qur'an) find the use of names of so-called "pagan Gods" if they are taken to be epithets of qualities of Allah (even if other people misuse these words or names to refer to other things, just as they do the term "Allah")? For example, Shiva meaning Auspicious, when we consider Allah the Shiva, or Vishnu meaning Pervading, when we consider Allah the Pervading, or Lucifer as Light Bearer, when consider Allah the Light Bearer who brings the light and makes people see or blinds them, or even Apollo as Destroyer, when we consider Allah the Apollo and Apollyon or Destroyer?
 

firedragon

Veteran Member
Alright, that was a nice, thorough, and accurate seeming answer which provided a lot of information. So how about the idea of concubines, can you give me a little more information on that? For example, what do you know about the idea and various opinions or verses from the Qur'an if there are any regarding the actual practice of a slave or concubine or something, what that is or would be, and having sex with such. Also, there is a movement of people who are homosexual Muslims, does the Qur'an explicitly condemn sex acts between males and anal sex (between males or in general). I'm familiar at least with the apparent condemnation of the abomination and "choosing men instead of women" or whatever that the people of Lot were doing, but somehow the homosexual Muslims are finding ways around that to get into the places they want to go.

So I'd like to know also about the multiple wives thing. When I read the Qur'an, because it seems to say "only if you can treat them equally, and you'll never be able to treat them equally" which seems to say that you can really only marry one woman at a time since you can't treat more than one equally, but maybe you could clarify this based on your understanding and the ancient Arabic.

So to recap, if it isn't too much trouble, I'd like to know about:
1. Concubines/Slaves and the degree of freedom of having sex with them, or if one can have sex with them even if they aren't married to them but otherwise has them in some kind of position as a concubine or slave (and what that would be or what that agreement would be). You can include ideas regarding any allowance or loopholes regarding sex or sex acts before marriage (I currently don't think any such things are allowed).
2. What qualifies as a marriage, and what is a slave, an oath bound thing right hand possessing thing, all these different distinctions clarified.
3. Permission regarding saying "Bismillahirahmaniraheem" over food not slaughtered in any particularly Islamic fashion and what that specific fashion would be based on the Qur'an (as far as I'm aware, it would basically be killing the animal after saying "Bismillahirahmaniraheem").
4. How many prayers or salat periods are mentioned in the Qur'an (people spread that it says only 3, but I've seen or thought I saw more, all five, maybe even six as an additional one).
5. People also say the Qur'an doesn't say how to worship, but I think it pretty much does in general, you can clarify that and how you choose to worship if you do.
6. People complain about Slaves and Slavery,
Concubines and Sex with Slaves,
Multiple Wives,
The Age of Marriage Permission and Marrying little kids or age of consent or adulthood,
Killing of Enemies and Enemy Combatants and Self Defense or Seeking Out people to Slay,
The Qur'anic opinions of or words against other groups such as Jews, Christians, Polytheists, etc, and
what qualifies as a Muslim or a Non-Muslim or especially a Polytheist when Hindus today for example often claim to be Monotheistic,
Exclusivity of Beliefs or Who Gets into Paradise,
Permanence of Hell or Not (when the Qur'an seems to criticize people who popularly used to say that Hell is temporary, it makes me think it isn't),
The Sunni belief (which I think is disturbing and blasphemous) that the Qur'an is Co-Existing Eternally with Allah (what exactly are they calling the Qur'an? Allah's ability to create information, or this book starring the Pharaoh and other characters? If they mean this book existing eternally and the Pharaoh existing eternally in it, they are completely out of their minds).

7. Why, if at all, should any of the Hadiths or, other than those, commentaries be trusted at all? Are Muslims very much necessarily dependent on these, and would Islam based off of the Qur'an end up nothing like the currently practiced range of Muslim beliefs and practices? If so, what would these major differences, at least theoretically, be?

8. What is the status, rank, rights, and what are the freedoms of women, children, men, slaves, etc. What would an Islamic or Qur'anic government look like and act like, and could you list out the commandments or laws of the Qur'an the way the Jews have their 613 Commandments? I think the Qur'an probably has a whole lot fewer than 613 as it seems very simple to me.

9, When did you become familiar with Ancient Arabic or learn these things, and what kind of ethnic community did you grow up in and around and influenced by or where is your family from or what kind of a cultural background or cultural Islam do you originate from? What do you consider yourself now, and why do you visit forums like these if you are being very honest with yourself? What is the hope and plan and agenda if any, in the most introspective and authentic explanation possible?

10. How acceptable do you personally (or based on the Qur'an) find the use of names of so-called "pagan Gods" if they are taken to be epithets of qualities of Allah (even if other people misuse these words or names to refer to other things, just as they do the term "Allah")? For example, Shiva meaning Auspicious, when we consider Allah the Shiva, or Vishnu meaning Pervading, when we consider Allah the Pervading, or Lucifer as Light Bearer, when consider Allah the Light Bearer who brings the light and makes people see or blinds them, or even Apollo as Destroyer, when we consider Allah the Apollo and Apollyon or Destroyer?

Bro, Ill tell you what! Why not ope a new thread with this exact same post of yours? This calls for a whole discussion of its own. Each question might require a whole chapter in a book.

I till contribute as much as I can.
 

danieldemol

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
Thus, when you ask for "how wide spread", its not answerable.
Actually oil rich nations such as Saudi Arabia could easily fund scientific surveys to determine how widespread certain views are, but it would possibly go against vested interests to have accurate information concerning the views of Muslims
 
Actually oil rich nations such as Saudi Arabia could easily fund scientific surveys to determine how widespread certain views are, but it would possibly go against vested interests to have accurate information concerning the views of Muslims

That guy who owns Amazon or whatever, Bezos or however it is spelled, has a lot of money. He could give me and all other poor people enough to live happy and complete lives, but human beings don't seem to care about doing such things generally, so I'm about to let him pick my pockets again soon, but I did negotiate a 6 dollar discount on something the other day.
 

Estro Felino

Believer in free will
Premium Member
I am curious... @firedragon to know what the Holy Qur'an says about art, about statues and paintings ...about aesthethics.

For example...a painting like the Birth of Venus by Botticelli.

Sandro_Botticelli_La_Nascita_di_Venere-1024x639.jpg
 

firedragon

Veteran Member
I am curious... @firedragon to know what the Holy Qur'an says about art, about statues and paintings ...about aesthethics.

For example...a painting like the Birth of Venus by Botticelli.

View attachment 43460

The Qur'an does not say anything about physical paintings or/and about aesthetics.

If you are in-fact referring to idol worship, the Quran refers to idol worship as even worshiping your wealth as "ilah" or "deity". There is absolutely no indication of a work of art being idol worship unless someone worships it. Quran cites that there are people who took their own children as Divine. Even their own personal ego/desire or "Havah".
 

Estro Felino

Believer in free will
Premium Member
The Qur'an does not say anything about physical paintings or/and about aesthetics.

If you are in-fact referring to idol worship, the Quran refers to idol worship as even worshiping your wealth as "ilah" or "deity". There is absolutely no indication of a work of art being idol worship unless someone worships it. Quran cites that there are people who took their own children as Divine. Even their own personal ego/desire or "Havah".
Thank you;):)
 
Thank you;):)
That was a good question! I'm a bit of an artist myself and I love art, and naked ladies too. Should I be lowering my gaze or because the depiction is not of a human, do you think its ok that I'm looking at these breasts? How about if its pornographic imagery or imagery of other inappropriate or indecent sorts of things, which are "simulated" or otherwise "actual" sex acts by "performers" who I'm not married to (and who aren't my slaves either, drat!).
Now, due to my genes, my biology, what happens when I see images like these, is little chemical triggers go pew pew in my brain, and then there is a choosh (an onomatopoeia) of chemicals that get sent out and hormones or whatever, that make one want to pursue more or pursue further stimulation and arousal, and whatever else follows that, sex acts like masturbation or actual sex (unlikely available to most of us here). Which we are supposed to do with our wives (or otherwise those who our right hand possess or whatever? What is that again exactly?). The Qur'an seems to have not clarified about the watching of sex acts of others, but has said to lower the gaze when facing women directly, should we read in between the lines and extend things to not looking at imagery or photographs? The photographs are depicting acts which would generally be considered crimes or sinful and an evil way of life!

Anyway, the archeologists (perverts that they are) have discovered Ancient Islamic Culture Baths and things which are full of art, even art which can be considered erotic or with images of naked women plastered all over the place. Also, through a very long Islamic History, it seems many Muslims cultures seemed to tolerate the existence of and production of erotic art at times, nudes, sex acts drawn, things like that, but perhaps not as prevalent as some periods and cultures. There seemed to be a fluctuating sense of the acceptability of such things or leniency with such, and in many cases it seems that it may have been the upper classes (even in the case of European art) that ever accessed these sorts of images for the most part (perverts that they are)!
 
Top