The attack Quran thread

[FearGod]

Dear firedragon

Thank you for your kind reply and for bearing with my ignorance in this most sensitive of matters.

I think, I was referring to honour-related crimes and I am very glad to know that they have nothing to do with the Qur'an, because I’d been trying to understand it from a spiritual perspective and was really struggling.

It is a pity when people - of any faith - claim to do the things they do in [their] God’s name; when really it is done in name of their own personal egos.

Humbly
Hermit

Honor killing was the work of ancient times and unfortunately some are still doing it,
Islam and the quran has nothing to do with it and many victims have died and
mostly it's crime using the honor as excuse to be free of punishment and that is evil indeed.

 

[Samantha Rinne]

Thats not my comment.

No, it wasn't. But for some reason, you defended it, and called me a strawman.

 

[firedragon]

It is not righteousness that ye turn your faces Towards east or west; but it is righteousness to believe in God and the Last Day, and the Angels, and the Book, and the Messengers; to spend of your substance, out of love for Him, for your kin, for orphans, for the needy, for the wayfarer, for those who ask, and for the ransom of slaves; to be steadfast in prayer, and practice regular charity; to fulfil the contracts which ye have made; and to be firm and patient, in pain (or suffering) and adversity, and throughout all periods of panic. Such are the people of truth, the God-fearing.

• Quran, 2:177

Okay. So here, you are quoting a verse that says "spend money to free a slave" as "condoning slavery".

How could "spend money to free a slave" be "condoning slavery"? Isn't this a set of rules on "AL BIrr" or "What is to be a Muslim" in perspective?

I know there are some websites who try to twist it to mean condoning slavery. Absolutely not. This is telling you that to be a Muslim, you have to spend money to free a slave. Its part of the creed. Its called Al Bir in the verse you have quoted.

Also the word Riqab means "someone under observation". So it could have many meanings but generally its referring to a person who is under purview, suppression, oppression, observation. Could be a slave, modern day slavery, and many things but bottomline is this person is in need of help.

So there is no way this verse is "condoning slavery".

 

[firedragon]

No, it wasn't. But for some reason, you defended it, and called me a strawman.

Nope. I didnt defend it.

 

[DagonVarunaMitraApolloZan]

There are many many evidences for many things. Just that one has to be neutral or at least try to be neutral in empathising with a language.

In the language of arabic, if you know the language as a layman, it is truly truly silly to argue that the word Dharb cannot mean to go away. The classical meaning of the word is to strike. The problem is most people who think from the English languages point of view are arrogant enough to think that English is the only language in the world and English is the yard stick. Thats not the case. To understand a language first you have to empathise with the language.

In English, the word strike means to protest. But since the head is in the game of "hitting a woman" it immediately moves to comprehend it as "hit a woman". Why? Because its a woman. Well, not really. The word strike means to protest.

So maybe the word Dharb would be better represented as a base meaning by a word like strike. But not in the hitting sense because the tense here in Arabic is called "faala amr" and its intransitive unlike any other usage where an object is designated to hit or scourge. To argue against this with the type of arguments we have seen here is quite silly when you think of from the language of arabic. But I understand it because the people who argue like this dont know the language so its fine.

So far the people who argued that a man can hit the woman or beat her slightly or hard have not argued linguistically the way we have seen in this thread because its absolutely silly to argue with grammar or language. Everyone knows that Dharb means to travel. And everyone knows the sense of the word even in the modern days standard arabic. Even if you want to and are hellbent in turning out to beat a woman, still you would see that the word means to put up a protest. Thats the sense of the word in modern day arabic.

You should know that the word Awful 300 years ago meant to be "full of awe". A great king is called an "awful king".

Now it means the exact opposite.

So it is only our own blindfold that keeps us from not going to the classical meaning of words because we are simply ignorant that 300 years ago the word awful meant "awesome".

This is why we study the Fusha Atthurath which is the classical language of the Quran. Not the language that emerged 200 years after the prophet Muhammed, and definitely not the language that exists now. In olden days English the word "Art" meant "are". So you would say "where art thou" to mean "where are you". If you go insisting art means art as in Picasso's work its rather silly. Its just ignorance. A little bit of humility is needed to empathise with any language.

The arguments of the Arabic translators always has been not from the linguistic point of view, their arguments have been from thafsir which is exegesis. Exegesis is based on a concept of verses being revealed piecemeal. One situation, one verse. This is a much later emerging concept. Its not an early concept. There are no records of this being an early concept. So what their mind tell them is that this verse was given to one particular situation, so they do not take the rest of the Quran into context. Thus, about 200 years later, according to legend someone made up a story that says a woman should be beaten with a toothbrush so as to not hurt but as a symbolic reprimand.

This story flew like wild fire and that's how the Arabic speaking proponents of "beating" translations argue. Not with the arguments we have seen in this thread which are absolutely absurd. But at least one person has asked some pertinent questions in the midst of some ad hominem and genetic fallacies. So even if the argument is silly, we can try to explain. But if you give those arguments to the translator of any arabic work he will probably shrug it off as laughable.

The word Dharb is just a word like Get. Im not saying it means "get", but its just like that. When you say get away it means something else, when you say get up, get going, get hit, get sick, get lucky based on the word after "get" the meaning of the sentence changes. The word Dharb is just like that.

In this verse the word Dharb doesnt have any handler. Like a woman, stone, drum, chest, road, or anything. Do you understand? It just ends there with Dharb. Thats it. So its like a sentence ending with "get". Its an intransitive verb. So no one with the right mind would argue that it means to hit. Unless you believe a story that was actually written about 500 years after the Quran which says one verse for each situation and in this situation it was said that a man should beat his wife with a toothbrush, not leave a mark, as a symbolic reprimand to show that you are displeased. This is the only argument there is. Not linguistically. Especially not the way we have seen in this thread. In the classical language, even as Edward Lane in his lexicon explains, the intransitive verb of Dharb, idhriboohoo means to just "leave".

Peace.

So the translators, by choosing the tafsir over what it clearly says, and those choosing the tafsir as well in opposition to what things clearly says, have misled generations of people. Do you think that hell will be their home for what likely amounts to a tremendous and hideous crime against humanity by twisting the words and meanings of Allah's communication? It must also be unlikely then that this is the only instance of this criminal deception, and that they have committed this crime throughout their interpretations, exegesis, and translations of the Qur'an.

I think since you know enough about Arabic and are maybe a Muslim as well, that it is incumbent upon you, your duty and responsibility, and one that will generate and accumulate more merit for you, if you go through every verse of the Qur'an and carefully correct and translate and give all senses and meanings and reveal the truth for each and every verse. Writing this version on your computer, in a thread on here, and then putting it up on a free website and making it available to any person who wants to read a genuine effort at seeing into the true language and all proper ancient senses and themes associated with words to give us the best picture possible, so a translation and extensive verse by verse explanation of every word. It may mean nothing to anyone else, but it will benefit people like myself if you were to put such an effort towards such a thing, and one would believe at least that a huge amount of benefit will be derived from such for you as well.

I don't even think its really that overwhelming of a task, especially if done bit by bit so as to be thorough, its only some 6230 something verses or whatever. If your parents are Muslims, even they will be tremendously proud of your great work, if Allah gives you the strength to do it. In doing so, you can also put a thorough end to all the evils perpetrated by these liars and myth-makers.

As for the arguments people bring against the Qur'an, they seem to me to be in vain largely, since they likely don't care about toothbrush beatings as much as they already don't believe in the very basic starting point of the possibility of the Qur'an being a true and real and legitimate message from any God. It almost seems deceptive to me, how people might just to defamation based on certain verses, rather than attacking the whole premise and idea and concept in the first place, the whole notion which they reject as impossible and absurd and ridiculous. I'd prefer if they went to the heart of the matter or the jugular (life artery), and strike at the stem, the root, the core of the matters and their objection rather than the plastic matters of appearance, because if a real God had commanded the gouging out of the eyes of wives, "or else" then this would be a matter to take seriously no matter how terrible it seemed even.

So the real question they should be asking probably is, "Why should we even pay attention to any scripture, all clearly man-made, or believe in God or the possibility of revelation from something we do not know or believe exists? What then excludes numerous other possibilities even if there were something special regarding some scripture, which we don't believe there is?".

In the meantime, they will likely perish in their doubt and surety regarding things, and according to the Qur'an, this is as it should be. In the meantime, if you take my suggestion, you will begin work on producing both a masterful authentic translation, a thorough interpretation, and comprehensive linguistic explanation for every verse and word and sense and context of the Qur'an, established clearly, and light (noor) will be bestowed upon you, and even me, so please do it if you can, and I will learn from it and use it also and bring it to people to learn from. I have some people who I am ready to show it to once you get started and I can even get them to follow it as you progress. Your mind will be tested, your ego, all sorts of things in the process, but if you stay true to the linguistic truth and do not get tempted by anything else like making things try to sound good or whatever has tempted and led astray all these other translators and tafsir using liars and deceivers, then you will put forth a great thing, insha'Allah!

 

[DagonVarunaMitraApolloZan]

Dear @firedragon & company,

I have a question but am unsure of whether this is a good place for it. Forgive me in advance, if it is not.

I struggle to understand the concept of honour that at times, leads people of faith (different faiths, I’m sure) to do awful things to others.

I’d be interested in hearing from those who have been overcome by such emotions and could shed some light on the faith-based thought-process behind their actions in relation to “threats” to their honour.

Humbly
Hermit

Hello, I think you are trying to bring up or talk about "honour/honor killings" and other similar crimes committed in the name of "honor", right? These can be considered something particular to certain cultures, and not entirely something which is based on the Qur'an or the recommendations of the Qur'an. These are also acts committed by people who under other conditions, would likely do similarly harmful and callous things, in other words, they can be put aside as psychopaths and criminals with mental disorders and issues making them prone to commit these horrible acts, and according to the Qur'an they will be judged for it, and likely burn in hell also, regardless of how much they might yell "Allah" or "Allah Hu Ackbar!".

Now, here is what the concept of honor means in these contexts. Honor can in a way be considered related to the "Maintenance of Order" and "Correcting Wrongs" which threaten the balance of their family order, and the cultural or societal order they think they need to protect or correct course for by taking certain actions. When a person is perceived as having done something which shows them as being out of control and not in accordance with the ideals or picture that the family wants for themselves and their reputation and thus their status in the culture or society, they take some extreme measure to correct this. Like in Japan, they would sometimes have to stick a sword into their stomach and make their guts fall out in order to correct things and save their family from shame and losing as much status and rank and consideration in their societies. So in the modern "honor killings" most of the stories presented or related to the term seem to be about "loose women" or fearing the conduct of women or girls, and murdering them or melting off their faces or doing other horrible things which some think might have to do with correcting or maintaining control, order, whatever, or inhibiting the women from further acts or the threat of such acts which might shame and degrade their family status or bring gossip which lowers their status or whatever, even though the truth is they are just criminal scum anyway. I think that is what it is about though, and the Qur'an doesn't seem to have too much of this, but does have ideas like punishment for adultery in the form of lashings, deterrents and correctives, the idea of shame and decency and right conduct and shameful conduct, stuff like that, butno

 

[DagonVarunaMitraApolloZan]

Weird, its not letting me edit or correct or complete or space my paragraph again. Anyway, the Qur'an or its apologists excuse it from such things as mutilations, since it doesn't seem to ever suggest to anyone to do such things, and is overall in analysis much gentler than the very popular Holy Bible as well in most every way.

 

[Hermit Philosopher]

Dear @The Artis Magistra

Thank you for taking the time to respond so thoroughly to my question. It is most appreciated and, again; I am glad to know that it has not to do with the Qur'an.

Humbly
Hermit

 

[Rival]

PLEASE KEEP IN MIND RULES 1 AND 9.
THANK YOU.​

 

[firedragon]

So the translators, by choosing the tafsir over what it clearly says, and those choosing the tafsir as well in opposition to what things clearly says, have misled generations of people. Do you think that hell will be their home for what likely amounts to a tremendous and hideous crime against humanity by twisting the words and meanings of Allah's communication? It must also be unlikely then that this is the only instance of this criminal deception, and that they have committed this crime throughout their interpretations, exegesis, and translations of the Qur'an.

Brother. With all due respect, I will not even think a member of the satanic church will go to hell. Its a faith matter and I have faith that I am not God to make that claim. We are hear to analyse and criticise. Quranic criticism is probably the oldest criticism that exists as a scientific approach. Way back when people like Ibn Hajar al Asqalani was born the science was thriving and people took an academic approach. So let that be an academic exercise, not a faith based approach damning people to hell. Hope you understand.

I think since you know enough about Arabic and are maybe a Muslim as well, that it is incumbent upon you, your duty and responsibility, and one that will generate and accumulate more merit for you, if you go through every verse of the Qur'an and carefully correct and translate and give all senses and meanings and reveal the truth for each and every verse. Writing this version on your computer, in a thread on here, and then putting it up on a free website and making it available to any person who wants to read a genuine effort at seeing into the true language and all proper ancient senses and themes associated with words to give us the best picture possible, so a translation and extensive verse by verse explanation of every word. It may mean nothing to anyone else, but it will benefit people like myself if you were to put such an effort towards such a thing, and one would believe at least that a huge amount of benefit will be derived from such for you as well.

Brother. This exercise that you are speaking of that I should do has been done by many and is already there. Its just that a lot of people are not interested in it. Because people generally claim to hypocrisy. You understand? I mean to say that when people translate it according to language alone without tradition in their minds, like lets say Laleh Baktiar, Edip Yuksel, Ayman, Layth, Martha, etc etc etc, what most people do just like in this thread is not understand their linguistics but attack them personally by claiming they are lying, they are hypocrites, they are trying to white wash, and all sorts of personal attacks. This is the ad hominem fallacy. You will see that approach even in this thread. People question the persons intention. Its almost as if they hate anyone who wants to do the right thing by going back to the original language and not be bogged down by inherited tradition.

But I must tell you that its already done by many many scholars around the world. I have given you a few names. Try them.

Peace brother. I appreciate your gentlemanly approach, even in your criticism or appraisal.

 

[firedragon]

nd likely burn in hell also, regardless of how much they might yell "Allah" or "Allah Hu Ackbar!".

Its truly curious that you brought this up.

You know in the Qur'an there is a phrase that define these people who kill innocent people shouting "Allah Akbar". They are called "Al Fasadhin Fil Ardha". The corruptors of the land.

They are called "Kaaloo thakaa samaa biullah" word by word in the Quran which means "kill mentioning the name of God". Samaa biullah. Name/attribute of God. So those who murder by saying Allahu Akbar are cited extensively in the Quran.

Also you should note that these people are called mosquitoes. They are despised specifically. They are especially mentioned for death penalty.

Salam.

 

[firedragon]

Now, here is what the concept of honor means in these contexts. Honor can in a way be considered related to the "Maintenance of Order" and "Correcting Wrongs" which threaten the balance of their family order, and the cultural or societal order they think they need to protect or correct course for by taking certain actions. When a person is perceived as having done something which shows them as being out of control and not in accordance with the ideals or picture that the family wants for themselves and their reputation and thus their status in the culture or society, they take some extreme measure to correct this. Like in Japan, they would sometimes have to stick a sword into their stomach and make their guts fall out in order to correct things and save their family from shame and losing as much status and rank and consideration in their societies. So in the modern "honor killings" most of the stories presented or related to the term seem to be about "loose women" or fearing the conduct of women or girls, and murdering them or melting off their faces or doing other horrible things which some think might have to do with correcting or maintaining control, order, whatever, or inhibiting the women from further acts or the threat of such acts which might shame and degrade their family status or bring gossip which lowers their status or whatever, even though the truth is they are just criminal scum anyway. I think that is what it is about though, and the Qur'an doesn't seem to have too much of this, but does have ideas like punishment for adultery in the form of lashings, deterrents and correctives, the idea of shame and decency and right conduct and shameful conduct, stuff like that, butno

I hope you dont mind responding to you though you didnt address me.

Honour is Akram. But you should note that this is not what an English speaking person would understand it as. It also means "Generous". So there is no divide in Arabic between honour and generosity. Do you understand? When you say honour, it is also generosity.

Thus, the whole concept of honour killing is complexly an English concept, its not even related to the linguistics and hermeneutics of the Quran.

Peace.

 

[DagonVarunaMitraApolloZan]

I hope you dont mind responding to you though you didnt address me.

Honour is Akram. But you should note that this is not what an English speaking person would understand it as. It also means "Generous". So there is no divide in Arabic between honour and generosity. Do you understand? When you say honour, it is also generosity.

Thus, the whole concept of honour killing is complexly an English concept, its not even related to the linguistics and hermeneutics of the Quran.

Peace.

That is truly awesome, and yeah I agree that "honour killing" is an English concept or description that they seem to like to impose frequently these days upon people from Muslim backgrounds or cultures from countries that are predominantly Muslim or linking it to Islam one way or another, which always looks like more propaganda and polemical type attacks against Islam, which ends up leading to a portion of people becoming curious about the religion and sometimes reading the Qur'an and liking it and becoming Muslim in some fashion. I personally really despise the term, as no honor is gained by anyone as far as I am aware for the murder or mutilation of their friends, wives, daughters, sisters, women, children, whatever.

 

[FearGod]

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

God didn't ask us to punish those who wish to eat pork or to drink wine, it is only haram,
similar to eating a chicken which is not slaughtered according to Islamic law, but
eating non halal chicken doesn't deserve punishment, it's only haram, it's something between
God and the believer, no earthly punishment is required.

Slavery doesn't exist anymore, it was regarded as good deeds to free them
and hence I believe slavery was treated in a wise way.

What their right hand possess is different than slaves, it's what you own by
paying money for, for example if I said this is my maid, it doesn't mean I own
her as a slave but as a maid ....etc

 

[Samantha Rinne]

Nope. I didnt defend it.

See, the topic is not "who wrote the Quran". Its also not if the "Quran is the inerrant word of God". The topic is "attack the Quran". Who ever wrote it, the book is available to read, so please do read it, and attack it with substance. Thats the whole thread about. Strawman argument.

Hope you understand.

If you had read this in context, you would understand that attacking the legitimacy of the Quran is also attacking by what right they have to do as they do (the entirety of Sharia, including their treatment of women and those not of their faith).

If the Quran is not from Allah (to me, it wouldn't matter if it was, because Allah is not God) and not delivered by his messenger Muhammad, then the premise "there is no god but Allah, and Muhammad is his messenger" that the Muslims see as a key belief suddenly falls flat.

 

[firedragon]

If you had read this in context, you would understand that attacking the legitimacy of the Quran is also attacking by what right they have to do as they do (the entirety of Sharia, including their treatment of women and those not of their faith).

If the Quran is not from Allah (to me, it wouldn't matter if it was, because Allah is not God) and not delivered by his messenger Muhammad, then the premise "there is no god but Allah, and Muhammad is his messenger" that the Muslims see as a key belief suddenly falls flat.

Not relevant to telling me falsely that I said "the men who wrote the Quran", then when you were told you were reading another persons statement you said that I defended his position that "men who wrote the Quran" was correct etc. Just be candid and say you made a mistake.

 

[DagonVarunaMitraApolloZan]

Its truly curious that you brought this up.

You know in the Qur'an there is a phrase that define these people who kill innocent people shouting "Allah Akbar". They are called "Al Fasadhin Fil Ardha". The corruptors of the land.

They are called "Kaaloo thakaa samaa biullah" word by word in the Quran which means "kill mentioning the name of God". Samaa biullah. Name/attribute of God. So those who murder by saying Allahu Akbar are cited extensively in the Quran.

Also you should note that these people are called mosquitoes. They are despised specifically. They are especially mentioned for death penalty.

Salam.

I despise them as well, I'm even gentler with mosquitos. That was great showing how the Qur'an has mentioned them, I remember those verses or mentions, but I hadn't fully remembered or connected them, so thank you for bringing it up again here! As for who goes to hell or not, I don't know what Allah will ever do really for certain, but hope that whoever I'd like to burn, burns, and that I'm saved, and I think most people (even regardless of their religion) probably feel the same way, like even if they aren't really certain if the rapist will go to hell, they say that they probably will, and that probably means they earnestly hope they probably will, for example, and I feel like that too. I can not even pretend to have any kindly wishes for people I perceive is wicked and destructive, and it could be said that some of the people who are bigoted or hate Muslims might view them as evil and dangerous people, so hate them, both fearing them as a threat, and despising them for what they imagine are their evil works, but the funny (and sad) thing is that their hatred also extends to the vast majority of mainly innocent and kind Muslims who get jumbled in with the rest, and I can relate to this malice as well, since I have ill will towards people who are even noisy or obnoxious drug users in the night here or making a big ruckus, my heart is filled with hatred, so I can relate a lot with hate-filled people.

It is frustration, hatred, and many other factors which may drive those who kill and do wrong and try to cover themselves by the names of Government, God, Survival, Wealth, Family, or whatever else, and so luckily the Qur'an provides the salve, in the very least in words providing hope, that God sees and knows and will be the the most precise arbitrator and decider, and correct all that we see as so wrong and upside down today.

Those are great efforts put forth by the authors and academics you mentioned, but you could also do it, just like they and we all say our prayers, doesn't mean someone else doesn't have to also or shouldn't because they or we are already doing it. What you seem to have behind you is this great knowledge, one which can bring up things like those people who fight using God's name for example, so if not only a translation, I think that what people might really benefit from is your clear and complete and thorough commentary on all 6000 whatever verses. I'd love it anyway, but its ok if you don't feel up to it and feel you do more good by engaging these people who don't even believe in Allah instead of helping people like me who worship Allah by making available in English more in depth and thorough knowledge and commentary on every word and verse in transliterated versions and English, I haven't found anything like that yet from someone I can trust who isn't maybe so accepting of the old tafsirs, even though that one guy from Free-Minds probably is but they kicked me off that website for saying that Allah is responsible for every nuance of everything.

Do you happen to know about the Islamic scholars who rejected the idea that "The Qur'an co-existed with Allah and was not created by Allah" and about those who promoted the idea of immediate generation of experiences, Occasionalism? Also the names of the rationalists, or others who affirmed strongly that nothing, good or bad, occurs except that Allah has decided it, made it, and brought it about as it is, and none have an influence upon Allah, but Allah is the influence behind everything?

Even if these ideas are not emphasized in your commentaries, I would love for your in-depth analysis on every word and verse of the Qur'an, yours, not Aisha or Layth. Does that seem like it would be un-enjoyable work? I think if you make a thread and start doing so here, it would assist many people, also the believers tremendously, and then you can take those contents and promote them, even anonymously if you wish, or just leave them up here on this website made for those interested in religions. If someone asked me to do it, I would probably want to, but excuse myself, and it would basically come down to me being lazy, and that laziness would also perhaps turn into an assessment of myself as greedy, and even go so far as to turning into me being hostile, because of the hatred I mentioned which has year by year increased inside me as I deteriorate with age, I find my goals, dreams, and ambitions fading and sometimes even being frightened away, and I mainly lost interest in helping people, since perhaps hubristically, I seem to enjoy it much more to think that I have a special knowledge and relationship with The Master, and that these people who know little or nothing in my view (I look down upon them, however I might smile), are meant to suffer in ignorance, and are likely to be led to their destruction.

Even when I do teach people, though I have that annoying old habit of getting excited when someone seems just slightly interested (which turns into an almost immediate flipping or betrayal on their part, likely what was experienced in episodes of the Qur'an), I mainly end up finding my only pleasure being in getting people (perhaps like you are doing in this thread by inviting kaffirs to make their attacks) to incriminate themselves, enjoying (the perhaps fantastical, but at least somewhat, if not strongly believed notion) that they are cursing themselves by their exposure and actions, while I imagine gaining some sort of magical power or credits, so that when improbably good things happen to me, I perceive it (likely wrongly) as gifts for my good work, as an Agent of Allah, spreading the Truth and getting evildoers (yeah, even these people who seem to have basically done nothing and would not be considered evil on the surface) to gain enough bad credit that they might get destroyed, either now or later.

So, you can see perhaps, with an analysis of the psychology behind however such has occurred to me, the Qur'an can be said to be behind producing the bottom-line concepts which might end up fostering this kind of misanthropic worldview finding its home and becoming exasperated, even promoting paranoia, for example when it says things like "if you knew what was in their hearts" which it says is basically or implies that its really gross and hideous, which I totally believe, considering the depravity I've seen and been exposed to myself. Everything the Qur'an says has me completely convinced, and it leaves me not being very much in love with the world, but it only seems to be available to further enhance and encourage my already supremely judgmental and negative attitude. The Qur'an, as far as I can see, does not present a flowery view of things, nor does it present utter depravity as normal or acceptable in the way the Bible seems to normalize the most despicable filth as just what anyone would do or what the role-models or their children would be doing or capable of doing.

 

[DagonVarunaMitraApolloZan]

So it could be said (as a requested attack) that the Qur'an is either unbelievable (if you don't already believe in the possibility of God or Prophets), or is so dangerously and insidiously believable that it is capable of brainwashing people so much (because of how much it seems to match up with how things are or seem to be) that it can make them paranoid of most people (especially non-Muslims, Jews, Polytheists, and confirms this bias in my experience of each), and generally alienated feeling from modern (disbelieving) society in some ways, then alienated also from the Muslims who do not seem to be following the Qur'an and the others who are delusional extremists, making for a very bitter recluse. I think I would not want anyone to become like that, and that Islam is almost too dangerous for what it can make people, to tell people they should get involved with it, except with so many caveats and precautions and ongoing guidance. Then again, even the simplest thing as someone religiously ceasing the consumption of intoxicants can really benefit their lives seemingly. I'd love to know what you think about these various ideas I've presented here, as a sort of free play with thinking openly. I don't think the usual comments or what people talk about are usually very honest or intellectually stimulating anywhere I look, and I think they have no reason to be shy, what I really love exploring sometimes is the truth of the thinking in individuals, not how they might want to be perceived, as if they can deceive God (by not believing in such) as easily as they think they can deceive me or others!

This thread is good in that it hopefully encourages people to be free with at least their genuine impressions about things and concerns regarding the Qur'an. In my view, the Qur'an is not a book of good for the evildoers, it is a curse upon them, and one which will only bring them harm, that they should treat like black magic, that if they read it and reject it, it will be all the more a cause of destruction for them and fire heaped on them in this life and the next. Furthermore, the Qur'an is unlikely to be a book that improves the integration of people into their communities or society, but rather (if accepted) leads to their increased alienation from popular ways of thinking and "having fun". This makes most people who become Muslim actually very happy and relieved according to their own accounts (something I don't know about from personal experience, since I've never lived life in the manner of a disbeliever).

I think the Qur'an can be said to be influential upon the minds of people one way or another, and one of the ways it may influence people is by making them arrogant and haughty, even though it of course speaks directly against such behaviors, the arrogance being in the belief that we have been chosen and are more aware of the truth, and that we are cleaner, better, and more superior to the kaffirs and jahil people and whatever in every sense.

Like the complaints of the Sodomites ("These are those who want to remain clean/pure") or whatever, the Muslim is pressured by the Qur'an to extract oneself from the norms of today's society, such as in involving oneself in social bonding through consumption of alcohol and drugs, free and irresponsible sex acts with new acquaintances, and whatever else it is that is common and accepted for the people. Furthermore, it suggests to the mind of the believer that the government, particularly a government made up of hell-bound evildoer shirk-loving kaffirs, can not really be trusted to administer justice and should be viewed with suspicion (as confirmed by the media and many accounts and scandals which only seem to confirm the paranoid worldview presented by the Qur'an of evil plots and unbelievable but true wickedness behind closed doors). Furthermore, a major issue arises with conducting oneself in relation to the modern banking industry and business, full of its interest and what amounts to usury, however people may try to deny it. Then there is the writing regarding the corrupt Jews, who show up on the media or in the names of celebrities as responsible for atrocious productions such as films spreading vile corruption or involved in a variety of scandals such as among the Hollywood Elite or other big business people running evil and predatory networks. Then it speaks against the polytheists, who it says hate the Muslims, and we see the acts of those in India, and Burma and wherever in the world the Muslims are being oppressed and massacred at large, while still every manner of propaganda insults and calls for all the more killing of every poor village Muslim in the world.

So, one isn't left in a very good position mentally or in the modern world, if one wants to live in an ignorant bliss or enjoy the fruits of modern sacrilegious living.

The Qur'an states something like even the Prophets were tested (or basically tortured) until they cried out.

"
Do you think you will be admitted into Paradise without being tested like those before you? They were afflicted with suffering and adversity and were so ˹violently˺ shaken that ˹even˺ the Messenger and the believers with him cried out, “When will Allah’s help come?” Indeed, Allah’s help is ˹always˺ near.
"

2:214

 

[DagonVarunaMitraApolloZan]

Here's another lie.

Slavery is alive and well within Muslim countries.

Black Slavery Exists Today in Muslim Nations - Geller Report News

Christianity abolished slavery, only for it to be replaced by things like internships (which frankly are a worse deal, as they don't even guarantee room and board). Muslims on the other hand still have actual slavery going on. Zero reparations are paid by any Muslims, ever.

If you were told your ancestor, or all your ancestors were evil pieces of garbage, but you had very little wealth yourself, and you were told that you owed someone today something yourself for something that they heard happened to their ancestor which your piece of garbage (this is just an example, not about your actual ancestors) ancestors did, would you feel like you were maybe being unfairly asked for payment from someone trying to rip you off for things you didn't do, to people you didn't know, from someone you don't know, who also didn't know their ancestor?

 

[DagonVarunaMitraApolloZan]

The media is lying and you wish to believe their lies, and why Africa.
Can I have slaves in Saudi Arabia, if yes then prove it but not by an anti Islamic media.

You can have slaves though, the Qur'an makes moves that seem to encourage the freeing of slaves and the freeing of slaves to be a good deed, but it doesn't seem to go all out and ban slavery, so you can by the Qur'an seemingly possess and own slaves, even now. If you had lots of money, wouldn't it be nice to have some kind of control over people that do things for you? It seems that the Qur'an does not say that a person can not be a Muslim while also owning slaves.