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

[KWED]

Much like my basketball team isn't Christian, regardless of the religion of it's members. All of which is fine, but certainly not why I was questioning your post.
You are surely not suggesting that 'Christian movements' can't exist, are you?
And these movements can influence the behaviour of members...right? Heck, they can even influence non-members from time to time. Right?

it would be a somewhat unusual position for you to suggest there are no Christian movements or groups capable of coherently influencing behaviour, but I guess I should pause and see what you think on that point before pressing on.

Luckily, I never suggested such a thing. I merely pointed out that a movement consisting of predominantly Christian people (because pretty much everyone was assumed to be Christian by default) is not necessarily a movement based on Christian principles. The US Civil War being a good example. Both sides were movements with predominantly Christian membership who had opposite agendas and aims.

 

[firedragon]

So we can take it that you admit that the Quran instructs Muslim husbands to beat/hit/strike their wives from whom they fear ill-conduct (under certain circumstances).

Again you are making things up. Pretending you cannot understand simple English. Since you have shown that you were only pretending you knew Arabic trying to make some facade claims you have never understood ever. Now at least if you try, you can understand an English sentence or two.

Lets say the word Idhrib = Hit
And Almaal = Money

What does "Hit money" mean? Lol.

Mate. The word means "count". I know that you are not interested in learning something. You dont have time. YOU are too busy pretending you are a master in it.

Anyway, can you tell me if the word Idhribuhunna in the verse you love so much, is that word Faala Laazimun (grammar).

 

[KWED]

Again you are making things up. Pretending you cannot understand simple English. Since you have shown that you were only pretending you knew Arabic trying to make some facade claims you have never understood ever. Now at least if you try, you can understand an English sentence or two.

Lets say the word Idhrib = Hit
And Almaal = Money

What does "Hit money" mean? Lol.

Mate. The word means "count". I know that you are not interested in learning something. You dont have time. YOU are too busy pretending you are a master in it.

Anyway, can you tell me if the word Idhribuhunna in the verse you love so much, is that word Faala Laazimun (grammar).

What does that have to do with the use of the particular form used in the Quran to mean "hit/strike/beat" - which is the issue here? (Remember that there is no debate over the meaning as it is also unequivocally confirmed in hadith and classical tafsir).

Your attempted red herrings only serve to highlight your reluctance to come out either for or against the domestic violence that is prescribed in the Quran.
It must be awful for you, not having the courage to defend or reject your beliefs.

 

[firedragon]

What does that have to do with the use of the particular form used in the Quran to mean "hit/strike/beat"

That means, there are more meanings to the word.

I will give you more. I asked you a question, you ignored because obviously you dont know the answer. But I will ask you again because you still pretend to have mastered the language.

"Anyway, can you tell me if the word Idhribuhunna in the verse you love so much, is that word Faala Laazimun (grammar)."

Of course since you have no knowledge on it, you can easily say "I dont know". Or at least give it a shot, do some googling or something, ask someone, and learn something.

 

[firedragon]

(Remember that there is no debate over the meaning as it is also unequivocally confirmed in hadith and classical tafsir).

Lol. Unequivocally? Did you just make that up poor soul?

Lets see.

1. Can you tell me how this words meaning is used in the Mudawwana al Kubra of Malik Ibn Annas?
2. The word is used more than 40 times in the Qur'an. What is the usage? Whats the meaning?

Lets see how you answer this.

 

[KWED]

That means, there are more meanings to the word.

But not in the context of 4:34. It has been established beyond doubt that the word waidribu used in 4:34 means "and beat/hit/strike them". The fact that you have not tried to deny this is telling.
Let me try and explain...
"That tree has beautiful bark"
Do you think the speaker means that heh tree sounds like a dog?

Also, your example was not of a different meaning for idrib, it was the word used in conjunction with another, so still not applicable, even if your argument made ant sense, which it didn't.

you still pretend to have mastered the language.

I have never made any such claim. I merely pointed out the meaning of one particular word used in the Quran. It is not my definition. It is the definition of multiple, bilingually fluent, Muslim scholars, as well as the understanding explained in hadith, and confirmed in classical tafsir.

Still no response on the actual issue, I notice. Why am I not surprised?

 

[firedragon]

But not in the context of 4:34. It has been established beyond doubt

Nope. Just that you are not aware. Thats why you cannot answer a single question, while pretending to have mastered this.

Answer this if you have the capability, its easy.

The word is used more than 40 times in the Qur'an. What is the usage? Whats the meaning?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I myself have no concerns regarding what might have happened thousands of years ago with God's Covenant between Our Lord Almighty and the tribe of Israel's Priesthood.

There was no Covenant or priests yet when the flood occurred. It's a story that shows am angry diety being exceedingly good at doing genocide.

I seriously doubt there is sufficient H2O from all of planet Earth's combined available water sources ( i.e.- underground water, glaciers, continental ice sheets, and atmospheric water vapor) to have been able to raise the planetary sea level to that capable of having flooded the entire Earth's terrain in depth which is greater than the height of the Earth's tallest mountains., hence I can't take the Biblical flood narrative literally , I do rather consider the Flood myth to be a parabolic tale about spiritual cleansing by God, and about spiritual transformation. among human souls.

Of course there isn't enough water but it's what Jehovah is recorded doing. I also don't know where you get a lesson of spiritual cleaning from a story where everything dies. Humans, all land-based and animals and reptiles and even amphibious creatures and some aquatic life and even plants were killed off en masse. There are no lessons, there is no love or mercy, it's another piece of an overall story arc that Jehovah is very much "my way or the highway."
Amd if we take this story for metaphor, then what standards do we use to filter out real from story? After all, much of the Bible is just as impossible as a global flood. Such as a human being killed and resurrected. If Noah is metaphor, why not Jesus?

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Luckily, I never suggested such a thing. I merely pointed out that a movement consisting of predominantly Christian people (because pretty much everyone was assumed to be Christian by default) is not necessarily a movement based on Christian principles. The US Civil War being a good example. Both sides were movements with predominantly Christian membership who had opposite agendas and aims.

Yeah...lucky.
Except this isn't the realm of contract law, and I didn't say what you were suggesting. Instead, I asked clarifying questions based on reasonable inferences from your post. In any case...
From THIS post, despite it not simply saying 'Yes, there are Christian movements, and they can influence their members', I'm going to assume you have no issues with that statement.

It seems a minor leap to then suggest that SOME Christian movements were important in the abolitionist movement, and even more than the Christian movement being important, the rationale given within the group for mobilization was based on theological arguments.
This doesn't speak to 'all' Christians, by any means, but to be fair very little does. Just as it's almost impossible to say much about 'all' atheists.
Neither does it suggest the progress of those groups from being supportive (or at least not unsupportive) of slavery to being abolitionist was smooth or simple.

The original comment you made that I responded to was 'It is wrong to ascribe religious motivation simply because the people involved were nominally followers of a particular religion.'
Equally, it's wrong to deny it where an organized religious group discuss a topic along theological lines, and come to the conclusion that they should be abolitionist.

Meh...in any case, if you're interested in this specific topic (rather than just the more general one of the OP) the following links might be of interest. They provide some detail on the history of this you won't commonly see/hear about.

Quakers and Slavery: The Development of an Anti-Slavery Society (seu.edu)
Slavery in the Quaker World - Friends Journal

 

[KWED]

1. Can you tell me how this words meaning is used in the Mudawwana al Kubra of Malik Ibn Annas?

Lets see how you answer this.

So what does Malik Ibn Anas claim that "waidribu" means in the context of 4:34?
Is it "hit/strike/beat", or similar word denoting physical chastisement? Yes or no. Simple question.

(Don't worry, I know you aren't going to answer )

 

[KWED]

Yeah...lucky.
Except this isn't the realm of contract law, and I didn't say what you were suggesting. Instead, I asked clarifying questions based on reasonable inferences from your post. In any case...
From THIS post, despite it not simply saying 'Yes, there are Christian movements, and they can influence their members', I'm going to assume you have no issues with that statement.

It seems a minor leap to then suggest that SOME Christian movements were important in the abolitionist movement, and even more than the Christian movement being important, the rationale given within the group for mobilization was based on theological arguments.
This doesn't speak to 'all' Christians, by any means, but to be fair very little does. Just as it's almost impossible to say much about 'all' atheists.
Neither does it suggest the progress of those groups from being supportive (or at least not unsupportive) of slavery to being abolitionist was smooth or simple.

The original comment you made that I responded to was 'It is wrong to ascribe religious motivation simply because the people involved were nominally followers of a particular religion.'
Equally, it's wrong to deny it where an organized religious group discuss a topic along theological lines, and come to the conclusion that they should be abolitionist.

Meh...in any case, if you're interested in this specific topic (rather than just the more general one of the OP) the following links might be of interest. They provide some detail on the history of this you won't commonly see/hear about.

Quakers and Slavery: The Development of an Anti-Slavery Society (seu.edu)
Slavery in the Quaker World - Friends Journal

Abolition cannot be claimed to be a "Christian movement" because there is nothing in Christian doctrine that promotes abolition. Christians supported slavery, but as society changed around them, they started to oppose it. Same with non-Christians.
Quakers were slavers as well as abolitionists, so not sure how their involvement supports your argument.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Abolition cannot be claimed to be a "Christian movement" because there is nothing in Christian doctrine that promotes abolition. Christians supported slavery, but as society changed around them, they started to oppose it. Same with non-Christians.
Quakers were slavers as well as abolitionists, so not sure how their involvement supports your argument.

Good grief.

The links I posted to spell out very clearly that Quakers were slavers, so what is it you're trying to tell me there? That is indeed THE CENTRAL POINT made by the second link.

And 'Abolition' isn't a Christian movement because no-one can own it. It's a concept, not an object. But Christian groups...and in particular the Quakers...were absolutely central to abolition, and were (eventually) motivated by theological considerations.
Alternatively, you can simply decide that Christianity isn't responsible for much of anything, but I would humbly suggest concepts like Manifest Destiny are similarly tied to Christianity, albeit with the provision that Christianity itself is an umbrella term.

 

[KWED]

Good grief.

The links I posted to spell out very clearly that Quakers were slavers, so what is it you're trying to tell me there? That is indeed THE CENTRAL POINT made by the second link.

And 'Abolition' isn't a Christian movement because no-one can own it. It's a concept, not an object. But Christian groups...and in particular the Quakers...were absolutely central to abolition, and were (eventually) motivated by theological considerations.
Alternatively, you can simply decide that Christianity isn't responsible for much of anything, but I would humbly suggest concepts like Manifest Destiny are similarly tied to Christianity, albeit with the provision that Christianity itself is an umbrella term.

I agree that Christians considered slavery morally acceptable until a changing society meant it was mo longer morally acceptable.
I also agree that that the Abolition movement cannot be claimed to be "Christian".
And I agree that Christianity has not been responsible for much of any benefit, although Christians have been.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I agree that Christians considered slavery morally acceptable until a changing society meant it was mo longer morally acceptable.
I also agree that that the Abolition movement cannot be claimed to be "Christian".
And I agree that Christianity has not been responsible for much of any benefit, although Christians have been.

You're agreeing with yourself, which seems somewhat masturbatory.
In any case, you don't appear to need a hand from me.

Cheers.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Good grief.

The links I posted to spell out very clearly that Quakers were slavers, so what is it you're trying to tell me there? That is indeed THE CENTRAL POINT made by the second link.

And 'Abolition' isn't a Christian movement because no-one can own it. It's a concept, not an object. But Christian groups...and in particular the Quakers...were absolutely central to abolition, and were (eventually) motivated by theological considerations.
Alternatively, you can simply decide that Christianity isn't responsible for much of anything, but I would humbly suggest concepts like Manifest Destiny are similarly tied to Christianity, albeit with the provision that Christianity itself is an umbrella term.

I hate to see two people beating each other up for something that they should agree on. Some Christian groups clearly opposed slavery. And at the same time some Christian groups clearly supported it. The opposite of the Quakers would have been the Southern Baptists. Northern Baptists along with Methodists and what was that other church? Oh yeah! Quakers, thanks @Lewis Miller, thought that the slaves should be freed. The Southern Baptists did not think so.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_Baptist_Convention#Divisions_over_slavery

The difference between the two groups is that the Southern Baptists clearly relied on the Bible to support. Northern Christians much less so. They could try to refer to the teachings of Jesus, but unfortunately even Paul seemed to support slavery when he told an escaped slave to return to his master. People as a whole have improved their morals over the ages. I know, I know, Donald Trump and all that. But even so our morals have improved despite the teachings of the Bible. The Southern Baptists were simply behind the times. In much the same way the most regressive religion today is Islam. It is terribly behind the times. Hopefully all of them will improve over the years. Who knows, some day they may become atheists too.

I have to lean a bit more on Lewis's side here. But I do not think it unfair that it was Christian beliefs that largely were the excuse for maintaining slavery in the South. The real motive, was probably greed and that exists everywhere too.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I hate to see two people beating each other up for something that they should agree on.

Meh...figurative beating up is fine. If we start throwing fists, you might need to step in.

Some Christian groups clearly opposed slavery. And at the same time some Christian groups clearly supported it. The opposite of the Quakers would have been the Southern Baptists. Northern Baptists along with Methodists and what was that other church? Oh yeah! Quakers, thanks @Lewis Miller, thought that the slaves should be freed. The Southern Baptists did not think so.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_Baptist_Convention#Divisions_over_slavery

The difference between the two groups is that the Southern Baptists clearly relied on the Bible to support. Northern Christians much less so.

Hey, if anyone is making an argument that a fundamentalist or literal reading of the bible doesn't dissuade slavery, and it should, I'm right there with them. The Ten Commandments are interesting both for their inclusions AND their omissions. But since I personally don't see the Bible as anything other than a book (and an edited one at that...ahem...) it really comes down more to interpretation. If someone believes in the divinity of Christ, then I guess they're Christian. If a bunch of those folk band together because of that belief, and discuss how they should interact with the world around them, and then do so...well...that's a Christian movement impacting on something.

With relation to slavery, Christianity both enabled, and helped remove it in some parts of the world. I don't view the two aspects as equal and I don't view all Christians as the same...it's such a broad term...but there it is.
I have plenty of Christian friends. I don't feel the need to tell them their beliefs support slavery, because they don't. And I don't feel the need to tell them they should slavishly follow everything in the Bible, because...why would I? They can mix their fabrics and still be Christian. They can be disgusted by slavery and still be Christian. I'm more interested in their particular beliefs, both personally and of their denomination.

They could try to refer to the teachings of Jesus, but unfortunately even Paul seemed to support slavery when he told an escaped slave to return to his master. People as a whole have improved their morals over the ages. I know, I know, Donald Trump and all that. But even so our morals have improved despite the teachings of the Bible. The Southern Baptists were simply behind the times. In much the same way the most regressive religion today is Islam. It is terribly behind the times. Hopefully all of them will improve over the years. Who knows, some day they may become atheists too.

Meh...the atheists thing is a double-edged sword. As you're well aware, all atheists have beliefs and philosophies. Can't judge whether people becoming atheists is a good thing without some idea what they're replacing religious beliefs with. Suffice to say I prefer liberal and progressive, whether that's religion, politics, or philosophy.

I have to lean a bit more on Lewis's side here. But I do not think it unfair that it was Christian beliefs that largely were the excuse for maintaining slavery in the South. The real motive, was probably greed and that exists everywhere too.

I'm fine with religion copping it's due whack, I just try to maintain my consistency with this, regardless of gut feelings.
If I'm going to blame religion for something like Manifest Destiny...and I do...then I feel like I need to also give credit where religion is one of the vehicles for good. Equally, if organised Southern religious groups were using the Bible to justify and promote slavery, then I'd see that as an example of negative impacts from religion.
The Quakers...in time...had a positive impact. And they're a religious group. That was really my only point. It's part of my one man crusade against binary thinking. I'm keen atheists don't become that which they claim to hate, but it's like herding cats. If only they'd just listen to me, dammit.

Okay, so that last couple of sentences was a joke, in case it was unclear...lol

It's entirely possible to judge individual things on their merit, and still come up with a position of 'overall I prefer a world without religion' of course. I just think we should judge individual things on their merits.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Meh...the atheists thing is a double-edged sword. As you're well aware, all atheists have beliefs and philosophies. Can't judge whether people becoming atheists is a good thing without some idea what they're replacing religious beliefs with. Suffice to say I prefer liberal and progressive, whether that's religion, politics, or philosophy.

This was a bit of a throw away joke. Who knows what the religious beliefs of the future will be, and yes, there have been very evil atheists just as there have been very evil theists. There is not cure all to human behavior.

 

[We Never Know]

This was a bit of a throw away joke. Who knows what the religious beliefs of the future will be, and yes, there have been very evil atheists just as there have been very evil theists. There is not cure all to human behavior.

"Who knows what the religious beliefs of the future will be"

Thats true. But being you are talking about the future... As our understanding and knowledge grows,, who's to say there won't be evidence of the supernatural in the future?

 

[DNB]

I can't prove Scripture is the word of God , so I ask the Holy Spirit to guide my conscience and follow that.

Careful who's voice that you're actually paying heed to.

 

[DNB]

I try to follow the law of love, and love is kind. I try to do unto others as I would have them do unto me. I try to ease pain and suffering in the world where I can.

How my behavior will cause more suffering or ease suffering is a big basis for how I make choices.

I see much of Scripture as simply being outdated or some meaning lost over time or being in a very different culture.

Jesus said the law is summed up in loving God and loving neighbor.

Jesus quoted the Old Testament constantly, often using it to defeat his enemies. He held the whole OT to be the Word of God.