How do Ismaili Muslims find love for all, hatred for none in the Qur'an?

[Guitar's Cry]

This thread appears to be saying "Islam is violent no matter what Muslims say or do," as if peaceful Muslims who interpret their ancient literature should be more violent.

That's unreasonable and ultimately unsound and invalid given that Islam is like any other religion, composed of its history, media, and followers.

 

[stevecanuck]

The answer to your question is pretty simple anyway for any Muslim who wants to interpret their religion in a peaceful manner - they contextualise the violent stuff as defensive and based in specific historical circumstances.

The underlined is a legitimate response. Another way to put it is that they lie to themselves.

However, the on-going violence by jihadi groups suggests that there are enough Muslims who read the "violent stuff" as .......wait for it ........ violent stuff. Verse 2:191 says that combating 'fitnah', which it calls worse than killing, is an even greater reason for fighting. Read your Qur'an. Learn.

Muslims don’t actually interpret the Quran the way you personally think they should ....

People who want to deny the explicit commands to hate and to wage war always throw the "interpret" card onto the table as though it's a magic get-out-of-jihad-free card that doesn't even need to be explained. Take verse 9:29 for example, which starts with "Fight those who believe not in Allah."

Who "interprets" it that way? Well, these guys for a start:

Sahih International: Fight those who do not believe in Allah or in the Last Day and who do not consider unlawful what Allah and His Messenger have made unlawful and who do not adopt the religion of truth from those who were given the Scripture - [fight] until they give the jizyah willingly while they are humbled.
Pickthall: Fight against such of those who have been given the Scripture as believe not in Allah
Yusuf Ali: Fight those who believe not in Allah
Shakir: Fight those who do not believe in Allah
Muhammad Sarwar: Fight against those People of the Book who have no faith in God
Mohsin Khan: Fight against those who (1) believe not in Allah
Arberry: Fight those who believe not in God

Oh, and absolutely EVERYONE here: Ayah at-Taubah (Repentance) 9:29

If you had said, "Not all Muslims actually obey the Quran", then I would have no issue. But, to disingenuously suggest that verses such as 9:29 can be interpreted, or contextualized differently is an outright falsehood.

 

[stevecanuck]

This thread appears to be saying "Islam is violent no matter what Muslims say or do," as if peaceful Muslims who interpret their ancient literature should be more violent.

That's unreasonable and ultimately unsound and invalid given that Islam is like any other religion, composed of its history, media, and followers.

The Qur'an was delivered to/authored by (pick one based on your belief) Mohamed for the sole purpose of creating and defining Islam. It is Islam's founding document, it's constitution, its manifesto, its user's manual. We know that because it says so from cover to cover. So, no. Islam is the Qur'an. Period.

 

[Augustus]

The underlined is a legitimate response. Another way to put it is that they lie to themselves.

Not really. There is enough ambiguity in the theology and enough holes in the historical record to craft many narratives.

You do this all the time when you take the standard theological narrative, but revise it so that Muhammad was simply a malevolent and mendacious charlatan.

See, you seem to find it meaningful to confect an alternative version of a mythological narrative when it serves your personal interests too.

However, the on-going violence by jihadi groups suggests that there are enough Muslims who read the "violent stuff" as .......wait for it ........ violent stuff. Verse 2:191 says that combating 'fitnah', which it calls worse than killing, is an even greater reason for fighting. Read your Qur'an. Learn.

It’s almost as if people can interpret religious scriptures in a wide variety of ways…

If you had said, "Not all Muslims actually obey the Quran", then I would have no issue. But, to disingenuously suggest that verses such as 9:29 can be interpreted, or contextualized differently is an outright falsehood

It’s a simple fact that people can, and do.

You may not agree with them, but a random internet chap’s opinion on what they are doing wrong probably isn’t going to make them think any differently.

Islam is the Qur'an. Period.

This is not true from a factual historical perspective or from an Islamic theological perspective (at least for 99% of Muslims).

Even then, no one just looks at a verse in isolation, but in a much larger context so any verse can easily be contextualised to mean something different.

You may not like this reality and think that Muslims should follow the Sheik Stevie madhab, but they don't. So it’s pretty meaningless and somewhat vapid to whine about Muslims not practicing their religion the way you think they should.

See how easily you can convince yourself of whatever you find most satisfying though, now just imagine Muslims doing likewise and you’ve solved your conundrum.

 

[stevecanuck]

Even then, no one just looks at a verse in isolation,

Utter BS. Countless Muslims and their useful idiot co-apologists just love to quote "There is no compulsion in religion" in absolute isolation. They also love to quote a redacted version of 5:32 in isolation. You are VERY bad at this.

but in a much larger context so any verse can easily be contextualised to mean something different.

Utter BS, yet again. Looking at the Qur'an as a whole - considering every verse - is what allows a person to see the true meaning of the vast majority of the Qur'an. Your own argument works against you.

 

[stevecanuck]

The reason there are Muslims who fight those who believe not in Allah is that the Qur'an explicitly says "fight those who believe not in Allah".

That is all we really need to know.

 

[stevecanuck]

No, I haven’t read it. But I have yet to come across a text from any culture. Which wasn’t open to interpretation. Maybe the Quran is binary to you because you approach it with that mindset.

I have read Rumi, Attar, some Nasrudin stories, and some work by the Islamic scholar Idries Shah. Enough to know that subtlety, nuance, metaphor, and non linear thinking are everywhere in the literature of the Islamic world.

In other words, you have no clue about the Qur’an. I’m not even remotely interested in engaging with someone who confuses vague speculation with knowledge.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

The Qur'an was delivered to/authored by (pick one based on your belief) Mohamed for the sole purpose of creating and defining Islam. It is Islam's founding document, it's constitution, its manifesto, its user's manual. We know that because it says so from cover to cover. So, no. Islam is the Qur'an. Period.

The Quran was authored over a thousand years ago. Lots happened between then and now, and no religious text that old can seriously be taken as significant to the needs of a modern population.

Personally, I am happy many Muslims choose a peaceful interpretation.

 

[Augustus]

The Quran was authored over a thousand years ago. Lots happened between then and now, and no religious text that old can seriously be taken as significant to the needs of a modern population.

The thing is its status, role and interpretation have been contested since the very beginning.

Early exegetes don’t really know how to interpret much of the Quran, suggesting a lot of knowledge about the earliest proto-Islamic communities was lost.

Orthodox Islam emerged 200-400 years later, amid power struggles between numerous competing groups with very different views on how the religious doctrines should be formulated.

The victorious sects relied on hadith and prophetic biography to interpret and contextualise the Quran, but much of this literature was fabricated in the first couple of centuries after Muhammad.

None of this should be remotely surprising to anyone who understands that religions evolve and adapt rather than emerge fully formed from a bottle.

The only person who seems to find such a history difficult to conceptualise is @stevecanuck

 

[stevecanuck]

The Quran was authored over a thousand years ago.

1400 years to exact.

Lots happened between then and now,

Not to the Qur'an. It is written in stone.

and no religious text that old can seriously be taken as significant to the needs of a modern population.

That doesn't factor into the thinking of the Islamic fanatic.

Personally, I am happy many Muslims choose a peaceful interpretation.

Me too. The problem is that gun-toting Muslims are the ones we have to worry about. There is currently Islamic insurgency going on in many parts of the world. And it's all because they believe they're following the wishes of their god as described in the Qur'an.

 

[Sargonski]

To be honest, I would be weary of this. For not everything is love. God isn't just love. It is almost as if they are trying to promote it like the Christians do "God is Love" bit. When we know very well, God has a vengeful and wrath side to him. Afterall, he created the hellfire. In Islam, he will seek justice.

Be careful of innovative matters into the religion.

The Prophet pbuh told us that: “Every innovation is going astray, and every going astray will be in the Fire.” Narrated by Muslim (867) and an-Nasaa’i (1578)

and it is not like there is some lack of xenophobic hatred in the Bible .. as we are reminded of in recent times .. Amalek "From the River to the Sea" --The "Cleansing" of the land .. so polypornographic and disturbing they edited it from the Bible in 700 AD.. Deut 32:43.

and wouldn't you like to see both versions

 

[Guitar's Cry]

That doesn't factor into the thinking of the Islamic fanatic.

Maybe not. But that's true of any fanatic. Folks don't need a holy book to kill each other.

Me too. The problem is that gun-toting Muslims are the ones we have to worry about. There is currently Islamic insurgency going on in many parts of the world. And it's all because they believe they're following the wishes of their god as described in the Qur'an.

So why insist on the violent interpretations and outright reject those who glean peace from the text? Ought we be encouraging those folks?

 

[stevecanuck]

Maybe not. But that's true of any fanatic. Folks don't need a holy book to kill each other.

Strawman.

The Qur'an says to kill people. Muslims kill people while openly boasting that they're obeying their God. What do you think all those shouts of "allahu akbar" are about? Do you not know that HAMAS is an Arabic acronym for 'Islamic Resistance Movement'?

So why insist on the violent interpretations

There's that word "interpretations" again. Simple reading of verses that command killing is not "interpretation". You have no idea what you're talking about.

and outright reject those who glean peace from the text? Ought we be encouraging those folks?

Since you haven't read the Qur'an, I'll splain it to you. There are almost no verses that could be taken as on-going calls for peace.

 

[stevecanuck]

It probably needs to be said again, so I'll do it now while I have the time:

The Qur'an can be considered from two diametrically opposed viewpoints. 1) the Muslim who believes it's a verbatim sermon from Allah passed on to Mohamed via Gabriel, and 2) the infidel pig-dog who thinks that Mohamed was just making it up as he went along (that would be me).

When there appears to be confusing or conflicting messages, the latter simply understands that 22 years worth of man-made make-believe is bound to be imperfect, whereas the former is not allowed to consider such a thing and therefore has to come up with rationalizations as to why his 'perfect god' can't seem to keep his story straight the whole time.

In either case, both know that Allah stated ad naseum that the Qur'an is perfect and complete. In the study of hadiths, the Qur'an should be used to explain why Mohamed did and said the things he did, and not that the hadiths explain what 'Allah really meant' in the Qur'an. Those who use hadiths to explain the Qur'an are doing it backwards.