• 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!

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

icehorse

......unaffiliated...... anti-dogmatist
Premium Member
Hi One-answer,

Actually, I don't think this is about you or me! I think this is about millions of other people reading the book for the first time!

And again, the reason I'm asking about this specific case is that I think it's a very common occurrence in 2014. For example, the version of the Quran that I read (in English), has been printed and distributed around the world over 250 millions times! That means that millions and millions of people are reading it just the way I'm describing. This is not some weird, rare experiment. Millions and millions of people are - right now - reading this book for the first time.

One-answer, do you think you have answered this question from the perspective of someone reading the book for the first time? I don't remember seeing that - sorry. I think you've responded from you own perspective, which is fine, but slightly different than the question.

I'd like to ask a favor, if you have already answered from that perspective, can you tell what the post number was - or close to it - I will go back and reread it! But I only remember you answering from your personal perspective.

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

Sabour

Well-Known Member
Hi One-answer,

Actually, I don't think this is about you or me! I think this is about millions of other people reading the book for the first time!

And again, the reason I'm asking about this specific case is that I think it's a very common occurrence in 2014. For example, the version of the Quran that I read (in English), has been printed and distributed around the world over 250 millions times! That means that millions and millions of people are reading it just the way I'm describing. This is not some weird, rare experiment. Millions and millions of people are - right now - reading this book for the first time.

One-answer, do you think you have answered this question from the perspective of someone reading the book for the first time? I don't remember seeing that - sorry. I think you've responded from you own perspective, which is fine, but slightly different than the question.

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

The way you are reading is biased.
 

icehorse

......unaffiliated...... anti-dogmatist
Premium Member
I'm an editor of technical documentation by profession, but I suppose it's possible that I'm not reading the words from a completely unbiased position.

But let's take a few verses from the first several pages:

"1:1 In the name of Allah, the most gracious, the most merciful."

The new reader is told that Allah is the most merciful.

"2:7 Allah has set a seal on their hearts and on their hearing (i.e. they are closed from accepting Allah's guidance), and on their eyes is a covering. Theirs will be a great torment."

And here - within the first few pages - we read that the "merciful" Allah has set a seal on their hearts and that theirs will be a great torment.

==

Why would a merciful God cause his own creations a great torment?

This is just applying basic logic to the words. Where is the bias in asking this question?
 

Union

Well-Known Member
I'm an editor of technical documentation by profession, but I suppose it's possible that I'm not reading the words from a completely unbiased position.

But let's take a few verses from the first several pages:

"1:1 In the name of Allah, the most gracious, the most merciful."

The new reader is told that Allah is the most merciful.

"2:7 Allah has set a seal on their hearts and on their hearing (i.e. they are closed from accepting Allah's guidance), and on their eyes is a covering. Theirs will be a great torment."

And here - within the first few pages - we read that the "merciful" Allah has set a seal on their hearts and that theirs will be a great torment.

==

Why would a merciful God cause his own creations a great torment?

This is just applying basic logic to the words. Where is the bias in asking this question?

You should have read the verse from 2.6 , which clarifies that 2.7 applies for the people who had already decided to be disbelivers by themselves , didn't matter how much and how long they would be given the message . Hence All Merciful GOD didn't choose in the very first place to put them in punishment rather that was the consequence of their own acts .

[002:006] As to those who reject Faith, it is the same to them whether thou warn them or do not warn them; they will not believe.
[002:007] God hath set a seal on their hearts and on their hearing, and on their eyes is a veil; great is the penalty they (incur).
 

icehorse

......unaffiliated...... anti-dogmatist
Premium Member
The *merciful* God explained in these first few Surah puts his own creations in great torment - for using the minds he gave them.

What part of that is wrong?
 

Sabour

Well-Known Member
I'm an editor of technical documentation by profession, but I suppose it's possible that I'm not reading the words from a completely unbiased position.

But let's take a few verses from the first several pages:

"1:1 In the name of Allah, the most gracious, the most merciful."

The new reader is told that Allah is the most merciful.

"2:7 Allah has set a seal on their hearts and on their hearing (i.e. they are closed from accepting Allah's guidance), and on their eyes is a covering. Theirs will be a great torment."

And here - within the first few pages - we read that the "merciful" Allah has set a seal on their hearts and that theirs will be a great torment.

==

Why would a merciful God cause his own creations a great torment?

This is just applying basic logic to the words. Where is the bias in asking this question?

Sorry the way you are reading it is beyond biased. My mistake.

I already told you these verses are speaking about those who clearly see the signs of Allah but lie about them and pretend as if they don't see. It is from their own hands.


Dude really you want to read the Quraan read it as a whole. Don't read it like a kid who takes every part separately and come up with conclusions.

You said you are an editor. Is that what you do? you take every part separately and begin editing? If you do that, it would be a mess. Just saying.

If I needed an technical editor, I am definitely not hiring you
 

icehorse

......unaffiliated...... anti-dogmatist
Premium Member
Hi One-answer,

You're most likely going to get the last word here. I ask you to try to empathize with new readers, and you ignore that, instead accusing me of "reading it like a kid".

I'm applying a little cognitive science here. The two verses I quoted appear within a page or two of each other. When a human brain puts these two sentences together there is a clear conflict. This naturally causes skepticism. This pattern of contradiction is repeated over and over again in the book. I brought up these two passages just as a concrete example, for discussion purposes. It is NOT the case that "reading it as a whole" will clear things up. The book is quite consistent in its repeated use of mixed messages.

One-answer, I'm taking this issue seriously. Many detractors have claimed that I haven't read the whole book. This is not true. I have only brought up examples that are representative of the whole book. I have not brought up unusual or rare messages, only common messages.

I claim that anyone reading this book from a neutral perspective will see the mixed message that I've mentioned here, over and over again. And this is not the only issue with the book, it's just one concrete issue, useful as a point of discussion.

So again, I'll claim that the book repeatedly says words to the effect: "Allah is merciful AND he'll torment you forever if you use the brain he gave you in a way that he doesn't approve of."

This pattern is repeated over and over over again throughout the book. This is not some anomaly I happened to find in the first few verses, this is a common theme.

One-answer, I know you'll disagree. And you might even attack me again, as opposed to addressing the topic. There are layers of discussion we could have here, but name calling makes that not possible. Remember though that this thread has had several thousand readers. When I make a post in this thread, I'm keeping those readers in mind, I'm respecting them. I don't think I can fool anyone, I'm sticking to logic and the facts as best as I can...

And, if you respond as you have been, you'll get the last word.
 

Sabour

Well-Known Member
Hi One-answer,

You're most likely going to get the last word here. I ask you to try to empathize with new readers, and you ignore that, instead accusing me of "reading it like a kid".

I'm applying a little cognitive science here. The two verses I quoted appear within a page or two of each other. When a human brain puts these two sentences together there is a clear conflict. This naturally causes skepticism. This pattern of contradiction is repeated over and over again in the book. I brought up these two passages just as a concrete example, for discussion purposes. It is NOT the case that "reading it as a whole" will clear things up. The book is quite consistent in its repeated use of mixed messages.

One-answer, I'm taking this issue seriously. Many detractors have claimed that I haven't read the whole book. This is not true. I have only brought up examples that are representative of the whole book. I have not brought up unusual or rare messages, only common messages.

I claim that anyone reading this book from a neutral perspective will see the mixed message that I've mentioned here, over and over again. And this is not the only issue with the book, it's just one concrete issue, useful as a point of discussion.

So again, I'll claim that the book repeatedly says words to the effect: "Allah is merciful AND he'll torment you forever if you use the brain he gave you in a way that he doesn't approve of."

This pattern is repeated over and over over again throughout the book. This is not some anomaly I happened to find in the first few verses, this is a common theme.

One-answer, I know you'll disagree. And you might even attack me again, as opposed to addressing the topic. There are layers of discussion we could have here, but name calling makes that not possible. Remember though that this thread has had several thousand readers. When I make a post in this thread, I'm keeping those readers in mind, I'm respecting them. I don't think I can fool anyone, I'm sticking to logic and the facts as best as I can...

And, if you respond as you have been, you'll get the last word.

I would address the topic when you stop playing your games.

Putting a smiley face between now and than and starting with Hi 0ne-answer and saying "you will attack" me again doesn't help your case much. As I told you, I read between the lines. And from what I am reading, I am not impressed.

I wish I am wrong.
 

Union

Well-Known Member
This guy seems like not ready to understand that a good government should be just and kind to its good citizens while should be harsh and accomplish sentences to the criminals to keep its state balance and peaceful .

Mercy and Punishment are a 100% balance acts of Almighty GOD - President Obama may understand this fact better but not Icehorse .:D:
 

Sabour

Well-Known Member
This guy seems like not ready to understand that a good government should be just and kind to its good citizens while should be harsh and accomplish sentences to the criminals to keep its state balance and peaceful .

Mercy and Punishment are a 100% balance acts of Almighty GOD - President Obama may understand this fact better but not Icehorse .:D:

Do people not understanding that exist?:rolleyes:
 

icehorse

......unaffiliated...... anti-dogmatist
Premium Member
And now we have ISIS looking to recreate the Caliphate.

One-Answer and Union, I have a sincere question for you. Remember the OP was about peaceful values in the Quran...

So how do you know that you guys are understanding the Quran correctly and that ISIS is not?
 

TG123456

Active Member
ISIS wages aggressive attacks. The Quran forbids transgression.
ISIS kills civilians. The Quran tells Muslims to fight those who are fighting them.
ISIS has executed children. Muhammad ordered his soldiers to not harm women, children, and the elderly if it can be avoided, and the Quran tells Muslims to follow Muhammad.

I don't believe that the Quran is from God. The mistakes I have discussed in the past two threads on this part of the forum should help indicate that.

However, the Quran does not allow terrorism.
 

icehorse

......unaffiliated...... anti-dogmatist
Premium Member
I have had several Muslims tell me that if a population resists being converted to Islam, that can be considered an attack against Islam and Muslims *are* allowed to 'defend' against such attacks.

To me this is just warping the meaning of words, but it's what I've been told. There is a three step process:

1 - "Evangelizing" Muslims give non-Muslims a peaceful opportunity to convert to Islam
2 - If the non-believers resist, they are given the chance to be dhimmis.
3 - If they still resist, they can be attacked on "defensive grounds"

And finally, Muhammad often killed women and children in his conquests.

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

TG123456

Active Member
I have had several Muslims tell me that if a population resists being converted to Islam, that can be considered an attack against Islam and Muslims *are* allowed to 'defend' against such attacks.

To me this is just warping the meaning of words, but it's what I've been told. There is a three step process:

1 - "Evangelizing" Muslims give non-Muslims a peaceful opportunity to convert to Islam
2 - If the non-believers resist, they are given the chance to be dhimmis.
3 - If they still resist, they can be attacked on "defensive grounds"
That's interesting. I have yet to meet one who would say such a thing.

And finally, Muhammad often killed women and children in his conquests.
Can you provide evidence to back that up?

I know there is a hadith that after a battle he saw some dead women (or women and children). After that, he told his soldiers to not target women and children.

According to some hadiths, he had POWs of the Banu Qurayzah tribe executed. Some of them were teenagers- though at that time, kids that age were already fighting in armies. Among the executed was also a woman who dropped a rock on a soldier's head.

The actions above would amount to killing of POWs, which I think is abhorrent and a war crime. However, this wasn't unlike what other armed groups did at that time- they would also slaughter the women and children. At least he didn't do that.

Muhammad also at one point was asked by his men whether to attack a pagan camp, in which there women and children. Muhammad replied "they are of them". This shows that at some times he did allow women and children to be "collateral damage" if he felt a military target needed to be assaulted. I believe this is wrong, and on the same moral level as the Israeli or American or Canadian armies.


However, this isn't tantamount to targeting children and women. Muhammad tried to avoid doing so, however, he did sometimes allow an attack in spite of the presence of innocent people. That would put him on the level of modern Western armies, which I don't think is one to aspire to.

I am a pacifist because firstly that is what Jesus taught but secondly, as we can see, it is almost impossible to engage in war without harming the innocent.
 

TG123456

Active Member
Jesus taught pacifism ???? Lool

Go read ya bible dude.

Luke 22: 35-38 .

Pfft. :D
This is definitely one of the most quoted verses by people who believe that God says it is OK for Christians to wage war.

Jesus told the disciples to take two swords. He said nothing about what they are to be used for. For all we know, it could have been symbolic.

Luke 22:35-38

35 And he said to them, “When I sent you out with no moneybag or knapsack or sandals, did you lack anything?” They said, “Nothing.” 36 He said to them, “But now let the one who has a moneybag take it, and likewise a knapsack. And let the one who has no sword sell his cloak and buy one. 37 For I tell you that this Scripture must be fulfilled in me: ‘And he was numbered with the transgressors.’ For what is written about me has its fulfillment.” 38 And they said, “Look, Lord, here are two swords.” And he said to them, “It is enough.”


What we do know is that there is no record of Jesus ever ordering His disciples to fight, or of His disciples using swords... except one time. Let's read on... and see what happened when one of them did.


Luke 22:47-53

47 While he was still speaking, there came a crowd, and the man called Judas, one of the twelve, was leading them. He drew near to Jesus to kiss him, 48 but Jesus said to him, “Judas, would you betray the Son of Man with a kiss?” 49 And when those who were around him saw what would follow, they said, “Lord, shall we strike with the sword?” 50 And one of them struck the servant[h] of the high priest and cut off his right ear. 51 But Jesus said, “No more of this!” And he touched his ear and healed him. 52 Then Jesus said to the chief priests and officers of the temple and elders, who had come out against him, “Have you come out as against a robber, with swords and clubs? 53 When I was with you day after day in the temple, you did not lay hands on me. But this is your hour, and the power of darkness.”

Whatever the purpose of the swords was, it clearly wasn't for violence against other human beings... even violence in self-defence. The moment one of the disciples used one of the swords to attack someone, Jesus not only ordered Him to stop, but healed the servant of the High Priest.
 

Scimitar

Eschatologist
He also said in another verse that those who live by the sword, die by the sword - you could have also mentioned that.

His ministry on earth was short lived, 2-3 years at best from the time he re-entered Jerusalem.

He himself said that his work is not done.

You being a Christian, and me being a Muslim, are both awaiting his return, peace be upon him, and when he does - I highly doubt (so do Christians) that he will come just to be all happy and peaceful - he's coming to set right the wrongs on the planet, I ask, how do you propose he's gonna do that? Is he gonna wave his blessed hand and voila - all things magically happen?

We doubt that.

His reign on this earth will be with an iron hand... an IRON hand. He will kill the anti-christ - how do you propose he is gonna do that?

Your thoughts are welcome.

Scimi
 

TG123456

Active Member
Salaam Alaikum, Scrimitar. Nice to hear you are a brother in monotheism, though we in most likelihood disagree in our definitions of how God is one.

He also said in another verse that those who live by the sword, die by the sword - you could have also mentioned that.
Sure, He said that. That was in most likelihood a figure of speech, since we know that many people who use the sword die peacefully.

That doesn't negate His command to love enemies and to turn the other cheek, or in any way provide evidence that He allowed His followers to use violence.

His ministry on earth was short lived, 2-3 years at best from the time he re-entered Jerusalem.
Correct. Even after His death and resurrection, however, His disciples continued to be non-violent. There is no record of early Christians trying to fight back and kill the Jewish mob instigators and religious authorities- and later the Roman Emperor Nero and his men- who arrested and beat and stoned and murdered them. When Paul and Silas were helped to escape from prison by an earthquake that God sent, instead of running away and allowing their jailer to kill himself, Paul stopped him and converted him.

He himself said that his work is not done.

You being a Christian, and me being a Muslim, are both awaiting his return, peace be upon him, and when he does - I highly doubt (so do Christians) that he will come just to be all happy and peaceful - he's coming to set right the wrongs on the planet, I ask, how do you propose he's gonna do that? Is he gonna wave his blessed hand and voila - all things magically happen?

We doubt that.

His reign on this earth will be with an iron hand... an IRON hand. He will kill the anti-christ - how do you propose he is gonna do that?

Your thoughts are welcome.
You are definitely correct. When Christ returns, He will use a lot of violence and He will fight the Evil One and his followers. There will be a lot of killing and there will be a lot of blood.

However, this is in reference to the End Times, not now. When the End Times happen, you believe Jesus will abolish the Jizyah. If I am not mistaken, Muslim nations are to impose it on non-Muslims until that day.
Trees will also allegedly start talking then and tell Muslims if there is a Jewish enemy hiding behind them. Are you going to start going around forests and asking trees if they are providing cover to a Jew? Of course not.

We are living in the here and now. The antiChrist has not come yet.

The fact is that Christians are not allowed to use violence, at least not until the End Times. When Christ returns, everything will change. But we are talking about the here and now.

Nice talking to you, my friend. Ramadan Mubarak.
 

gnostic

The Lost One
No where in the gospels did Jesus ordered anyone to attack anyone, scimitar. He didn't have an army like Muhammad, nor did any of them raid caravans or fought in any battle, like Muhammad and his followers did.

Jesus just talk and teach. The only things that happen is Jesus tossing some tables and driving out animals and salesmen out of the temple, and one of his disciples cutting off the ear of ONE PERSON. Like what TG said, Jesus said to bring the swords, and one person was injured, Jesus didn't order any attack and stopped it and healed a servant. I think this scene only demonstrate Jesus being a healer, not a warrior.

Neither scenes can be called as a "battle". And beside, I am not even sure that any of these events actually took place.
 
Last edited:
Top