• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

The attack Quran thread

columbus

yawn <ignore> yawn
Can you give one specific example from the Qur'an? Then maybe one could look at it.

As in an example for "The Qur'an retards moral improvements because it's profoundly conservative."!

Cheers.

So your authority is the Muslims you know. That means this thread is irrelevant to you. Am I correct?
So, you're going to invoke your Article 1 to protect the Qur'an from being discussed as the foundation of Islam and Muslim culture.

Why didn't you just put this in the Islam Only DIR?

Or maybe you'll answer an honest question. Is the belief "Qur'an is God's Message and Muhammad is His Prophet" a Qu'ranic belief? Is that in the Qur'an?

Or is it just folklore?
Tom
 

icehorse

......unaffiliated...... anti-dogmatist
Premium Member
1. No debate about anything other than the topic of this thread. If I answer your question, you will respond again, and again, and it is not on topic. So I shall refrain.

2. About point one, who is the authority, the Qur'an is the authority. Just take the book as a book and make your case rather than looking for authority. Your question about appealing to authority is already answered in the OP.

3. Again, the topic is not about "Quran is perfect/not perfect". Thats a straw man.

1 - I was responding to a point you made in the OP.

2 - I'm not appealing to authority - as you well know - it's you that are implying that you have some authority. Do you think you're fooling anyone here?

3 - Can you confirm that YOU will not be making appeals to authority in this thread?
 

columbus

yawn <ignore> yawn
The vast majority of Muslims, as far as I am aware, are actually not fluent or familiar with Classical Arabic, they can't read Arabic, and some who can recite in Arabic don't even know what they are saying exactly, so they read it in their own languages or English translations very frequently.
To me, this is quite the important point!

There are many aspects to the Qur'an.

I've heard it sung by excellent singers. It's very beautiful. It's an artistic masterpiece.

There's the actual words. Obviously, I don't know a thing about those. Clunky translations into an entirely different language just don't have the same meanings. The best Chinese translator isn't going to really translate Shakespeare into Chinese either. It's just not possible.

Which is why I'm less interested in whatever someone claims the Qur'an says than how it gets put into practice. No matter what anybody tells me, if I can understand it, it's not in the Qur'an. It's what someone wants me to believe the Qur'an meant.
Tom
 

firedragon

Veteran Member
From my perspective, a lot of the controversial things I have read translated from the Quran (and this is, mind you, mostly things I have read posted BY MUSLIMS themselves in trying to defend some position they took because of the texts) reads like veiled threats, and counter-intuitive calls for peace that also mention qualifications for violence at the same exact time.

For example, verse 2:190 and 2:191:
It reads like: "Fight them, but just try to realize when you've gone too far with your methods of fighting." It is only sort of saying that "too much fighting" isn't good - but obviously condones some amount of fighting regardless. And "fighting in the way of Allah" is seen as perfectly acceptable, and even encouraged. So the takeaway here is that fighting IS ENCOURAGED in the Quran. Tell me how the words translated here as "fighting" translate to some peaceful form of fighting and I will try and listen with a straight face.

Here we have not just fighting that is condoned (or even encouraged) but killing as well. And this word "fitnah" is very vague in translated meaning. When is there no more "fitnah?" Does only the Muslim know? My point being that, from an outsider's perspective, are we just to accept any and all fighting and killing from Muslims until THEY tell us that "fitnah" is no more? It's too vague, and allows too much room for adding in any amount of justification because you can just name what you will "fitnah." And this is justification not just for fighting, mind you, but actively killing people.

And in that last sentence is exactly what I was talking about with my original sentence - talks of "peacefulness" that are laced with commands to continue to harm or kill. "there is to be no aggression"... "OH, wait, almost forgot! Silly me! Except against the oppressors - show them aggression until you don't feel oppressed anymore." Here again - do we take a Muslim's word at what they find to be "oppression" when they have committed acts that harm or even kill others?


Untruthful are those who use this little fragment of the Quran to show that Quran teaches murder and war. It is a deceitful strategy and anyone who quotes a little part of any book, completely out of context are utter and
complete hypocrites.

The minor context of this quotation
 And fight in the cause of God against those who fight you, but do not aggress, God does not love the aggressors.
 And kill them wherever you encounter them, and expel them from where they expelled you, and know that persecution is worse than being killed. And do not fight them at the Restricted Temple unless they fight you in it; if they fight you then kill them, thus is the recompense of the rejecters.
 And if they cease, then God is Forgiving, Merciful.
 And fight them so there is no more persecution, and so that the system is for God. If they cease, then there will be no aggression except against the wicked.
-Quran 2:190-193

You can see that the Quran does not tell you to be the victim but it establishes that you must not be the aggressor. You are allowed to fight back if someone aggressively fights with you. But even then, you are asked to forgive and cease fighting if the enemy seizes his fight. You are allowed to fight only until the persecution stops.

You must fight if someone is weak, being persecuted and are oppressed.
4:75 And why do you not fight in the cause of God, when the weak among the men and women and children say: “Our Lord, bring us out of this town whose people are wicked, and grant us from yourself a Supporter, and grant us from yourself a Victor!”

And 9:36.

Start from the beginning of the chapter.

9:1 A revocation is made by God and His messenger to those with whom you have made a pledge from among the polytheists.



Baraathun/revocation/a freedom of obligation/disassociation.



Why is this disassociation? Is it BECAUSE they are so called Polytheists?



9:3 And a proclamation from God and His messenger to the people, on the day of the greater Pilgrimage: “That God and His messenger are innocent from the polytheists.” If you repent, then it is better for you, and if you turn away, then know that you will not escape God. And give news to those who have rejected of a painful retribution.



Not really. This is a people who had a treaty with you and they broke it.



Then the Quran says “Except those who kept the pledges in the treaty”. Thus, none of this is about all the polytheists.



9:4 Except for those with whom you had made a pledge from among the polytheists if they did not reduce anything from it nor did they support anyone against you; you shall continue the pledge with them until its expiry. God loves the righteous.



So you give them 4 months as a period of reconciliation. They have broken the treaty, you have given them time, and there is no option but to battle.



9:5 So when the restricted months have passed, then you may kill the polytheists wherever you find them, and take them, and surround them, and stand against them at every point. If they repent, and they hold the Communion, and they contribute towards purification, then you shall leave them alone. God is Forgiving, Merciful.



Then comes the mercy if they are seeking your protection.



9:6 And if any of the polytheists seeks your protection, then you may protect him so that he may hear the words of God, then let him reach his sanctity. This is because they are a people who do not know.



9:8 How is it that when they come upon you they disregard all ties, either those of kinship or of pledge. They seek to please you with their words, but their hearts deny, and the majority of them are wicked.



They are not called polytheists because of their belief alone, it is because they are cheaters as a people. They broke a pledge and they did not keep their promises.



As long as they are upright with you, you are upright with them. 9:7.



9:12 And if they break their oaths after making their pledge, and they challenge the authority of your Dheen; then you may kill the leaders of rejection. Their oaths are nothing to them, perhaps they will then cease.



You are allowed only the leaders of the oath-breaking, aggressive nation who fought you and attacked you first. Which means those who fight you. The governance. Not every tom, dick and harry.



They are the aggressors. They attacked you first. Not that you are to go seeking all over the world and find all the polytheists and kill them. Read.



9:13 Would you not fight a people who broke their oaths, and obsessed to expel the messenger, especially while they were the ones who attacked you first? Are you concerned about them? It is God who is more deserving that you be concerned with if you are believers.





You must fight if someone is weak, being persecuted and are oppressed.

4:75 And why do you not fight in the cause of God, when the weak among the men and women and children say: “Our Lord, bring us out of this town whose people are wicked, and grant us from yourself a Supporter, and grant us from yourself a Victor!”



You must fight on behalf of the weak

4:75 And why do you not fight in the cause of God, when the weak among the men and women and children say: “Our Lord, bring us out of this town whose people are wicked, and grant us from Yourself a Supporter, and grant us from Yourself a Victor!”



Charities to be used for just cause

9:60 The charities are to go to the poor, and the needy, and those who work to collect them, and those whose hearts have been united, and to free the slaves, and those in debt, and in the cause of God, and the wayfarer. A duty from God, and God is Knowledgeable, Wise.



You cannot kill unjustly



17:33 And do not kill, for God has made this forbidden, except in the course of justice. And whoever is killed innocently, then We have given his heir authority, so let him not transgress in the taking of a life, for He will be given victory. Just cause to kill is aggression, but you are not allowed to be the aggressor.


2:190 And fight in the cause of God against those who fight you, but do not transgress, God does not like the aggressors.


2:191 And kill them wherever you overcome them, and expel them from where they expelled you, and know that persecution is worse than being killed. And do not fight them at the Sacred Temple unless they fight you in it; if they fight you then kill them, thus is the recompense of the disbelievers.


2:192 And if they cease, then God is Forgiving, Merciful.


2:193 And fight them so there is no more persecution, and so that the system is God’s. If they cease, then there will be no aggression except against the wicked.



Iqra. Read.



2:263 Kind words and forgiveness are far better than a charity that is followed by harm. God is Rich, Compassionate.


2:264 O you who believe, do not nullify your charities with insult and harm; like the one who spends his money in vanity to show off to the people, and he does not believe in God and the Last Day. His example is like a stone on which there is dust, then it is subjected to a heavy rain which leaves it bare. They cannot do anything with what they have earned; and God does not guide the rejecting people.



2:265 And the example of those who spend their money seeking the grace of God, and to save their souls, is like the example of a garden that is on a high ground and is subjected to a heavy rain, and because of that it produces double its crop. And if no heavy rain comes, then it still gives enough. And God is Seer of what you do.


Context of the book.

Cheers.
 

firedragon

Veteran Member
1 - I was responding to a point you made in the OP.

2 - I'm not appealing to authority - as you well know - it's you that are implying that you have some authority. Do you think you're fooling anyone here?

3 - Can you confirm that YOU will not be making appeals to authority in this thread?

Thanks. Not interested in this rhetorical exchange. If you wish to engage try and be objective.

Cheers.
 

firedragon

Veteran Member
So, you're going to invoke your Article 1 to protect the Qur'an from being discussed as the foundation of Islam and Muslim culture.

Why didn't you just put this in the Islam Only DIR?

Or maybe you'll answer an honest question. Is the belief "Qur'an is God's Message and Muhammad is His Prophet" a Qu'ranic belief? Is that in the Qur'an?

Or is it just folklore?
Tom

Nice. Thanks.
 

columbus

yawn <ignore> yawn
I'll keep an eye on this thread, but that is my prediction. I predict very little, if any at all, discussion about points being raised. Instead, I predict a lot of bare dismissals of such points, on the grounds of requirement 1.
You nailed it dude.

Nice. Thanks.
I won't bother you here anymore. It doesn't look like the OP was honest, just carefully protected apologetics.

But I will ask, again, what I asked in post #41.
Or maybe you'll answer an honest question. Is the belief "Qur'an is God's Message and Muhammad is His Prophet" a Qu'ranic belief? Is that in the Qur'an?

Maybe you don't think that the Qur'an is even important to Islamic culture?
Tom
 

firedragon

Veteran Member
You nailed it dude.


I won't bother you here anymore. It doesn't look like the OP was honest, just carefully protected apologetics.

But I will ask, again, what I asked in post #41.


Maybe you don't think that the Qur'an is even important to Islamic culture?
Tom

Great. Peace.
 
To me, this is quite the important point!

There are many aspects to the Qur'an.

I've heard it sung by excellent singers. It's very beautiful. It's an artistic masterpiece.

There's the actual words. Obviously, I don't know a thing about those. Clunky translations into an entirely different language just don't have the same meanings. The best Chinese translator isn't going to really translate Shakespeare into Chinese either. It's just not possible.

Which is why I'm less interested in whatever someone claims the Qur'an says than how it gets put into practice. No matter what anybody tells me, if I can understand it, it's not in the Qur'an. It's what someone wants me to believe the Qur'an meant.
Tom
Just out of curiosity though, since things like literature and comprehension and things like that matter to me, and also because the English language versions are some of the most widely read and influential (like the English Bible is more widely read and comprehended and influential than the Greek or Hebrew these days), out of those numerous translations on each page, is there one or more that you noticed after looking at it that seem like they seem less clunky and easier to read? If one were to take it just as English, which one of those do you like? I think I tended to prefer Shakir maybe, and as for the reciters or singers of the Qur'an, I like Mishary Al Afasy a lot for his recitals which are on Youtube with some videos with nice stock video imagery attached by people. Other than Shakir's English, I've extensively or completely read the Qur'an in Pickthal or Pickthall's version and Yusuf Ali, and those three I think are some of the biggest or most widely known and promoted versions, but now there are lots more. There is one that really seems to add a lot of words, but most seem to stick very closely to what the "Word for Word" translation seems to show also, and an occasional word or definition and the ideas associated with them are occasionally disputed, like when it comes to the punitive measures on wives or other things here and there, but most of the translations for the vast majority of the Qur'an seem to be very much saying the same thing, and that same thing seems to be this (over and over):
There is One God, All Powerful, and Judgment Day is Real and Coming, so Prepare yourselves by worship and good deeds such as charity, and then you will die, and be raised up again and face your Judgment by a God and a force of beings (angels) that can not be fought against, who will administer Justice and sort you and all people and other races such as the Jinn into paradise, called Jannah, which means something like the Concealed Garden (Earth 2's surface) or Jahannam (Gehenna, which seems to be inside Earth 2 and below the surface).

Since the English version is so popular these days and used by so much of the modern world and online, even by people who are trying to learn and understand Classical Arabic, it is stands as a literary piece of its own very powerful influence, possibly currently a greater influence than the Classical Arabic version and that version grows in its popularity and thus power every day in how it influences the minds and behaviors of people, both Muslim and Non-Muslim as they interact or conflict with one another. In the Islamic view, this shift or gain in power of a certain linguistic version in how it reaches people and influences their minds might be considered the work of the Islamic God (believed to be the only God), known by the Muslim's as Allah (I think its pronounced like uh-luh or uh-lah). In the Islamic view of things, Allah at the very least monitors and manipulates the lives and events on Earth, and so the English translation becoming so influential and being the source of first contact for many people and what they interact with most would be believed to be very much the activity of God presently at work.

Typically, what is expected or believed to happen is this:

A person is born into whatever conditions and grows to a certain point and then by various means receives some sort of point of contact or further contact, which they either are unable to receive or outright reject, or which leads them to begin their journey towards Islam, which one can hear on Youtube for example numerous authentic seeming accounts of people becoming Muslim through weird ways they personally believe was God manipulating events and contacting them through these means. Very often in these stories, a Muslim agent, even someone who is not particularly familiar with Islam but is associated with it or known by the term "Muslim" somehow is an early step, and then one of the more powerful steps is direct contact with a version of the Qur'an which they can read or understand, very commonly some English version.

This typically has two possible results, possibly a few more varying options, but the main two are that the Qur'an they read or whatever they read appears as incomprehensible gibberish, and this is in some cases after years where they were unable to even open it or approach it or read the copy they had access to. The Muslims believe that is miraculous activity and proof that the person is blocked from the Qur'an by God, a covering put over their senses so that its basically encrypted and the person is not permitted to comprehend it much even if they do look into it. The other option is that the person is able to read it and comprehend it, and finds themselves feeling, due to the way its written and translated, that it is speaking to them. Sometimes this turns into a conflicted battle with this book, arguing with the verses and against them as if its personally speaking to the person, and in other cases it takes a very powerful effect on the person (reading in English and never having heard it read in Arabic), where the person acknowledges or considers the content to be truly special and furthermore divine. There are also those who read it, appreciate it, but also don't care much or do anything about it, but still manage to praise it occasionally. The group that is able to get all the way to the point of reading it and thinking that its actually God talking to them through this book and that its true communication from God, often convert at some point or start practicing Islam more, which is mostly just incorporating worship into the daily activities if one can, which is probably the biggest change, otherwise people are mainly just behaving as they always did, but feeling as though they have a little extra magical advantage by having this lifeline or contact with God, perhaps giving a possible elitism, arrogance, or even humility, depending on how this notion works on the mind of a person, but I can't think that there is absolutely no influence upon the mind or behavior by thinking that one has been able to deal with something special, divine, or miraculous, which usually surrounds their contact with the Qur'an (still in English) according to many accounts I have listened to.

The Qur'an is in some senses a divisive book, in that it presents a somewhat black & white or simplistic view of things, though in many cases it is incredibly nuanced and complex in its depth, the two main factions it presents seem to be The Good Guys and The Not Good Guys, or The Believers and most particularly the Muslims and the Kaffirs, including sub-sections like the Hypocrites and Ignorant and Cruel, so varying in degrees. Yet, what people who become Muslim tend to get influenced by a lot is simply the division that is repeated frequently in the Qur'an, that there are those who are the real believers who are described in various ways and those who are not and are actually not allowed to be, while the Muslims are chosen by God to understand the message and act upon it. When a Muslim goes out into the world, they are thus quite likely to view the world or people and interactions in this dichotomous fashion, where all people are mortals, but are split into the mortals who are believers accumulating good deeds and the mortals who are disbelievers accumulating bad deeds (even by things which are normal to their non-Muslim cultures, like drinking and sexual contact outside of marriage for example).

The Qur'an also has a way of influencing the mind to think in an almost economic fashion, where deeds or conduct somehow translate into points or rewards or merits, perhaps not entirely different from some versions or understandings that the average populace may have had about karma or the accumulation of merit and its results. So, I think it is not uncommon for Muslims to almost think in numbers, and this tendency towards numbers and quantities may appear in things like reciting names, amount of prayers, amount of charity or acts of charity, things like that.

So, even if you don't end up trying to read the whole Qur'an again in any of those translations, if it isn't too much trouble, if you could read through just a little of those pages I linked to which show various translations and tell me if one of them looks sort of better or easier to read for you, it might give me an idea of which one might be a better one for people to share with people who have had difficulties with other versions like you mentioned. If not though, that is alright too, I was just curious! Anyone else can also take a look and let me know, the idea of preference in sentence structures is very interesting to me!
 

firedragon

Veteran Member
I've extensively or completely read the Qur'an in Pickthal or Pickthall's version and Yusuf Ali, and those three I think are some of the biggest or most widely known and promoted versions, but now there are lots more.

You know just a curious case? Some one above had questioned a difference between Shia (SHii) and Sunni Quranic translation and who's authority etc etc. You just mentioned Yusuf Ali. Probably the most widely read Quranic translation in the world. Most Sunni's, including Sunni mosques if they carry translations, will carry Yusuf Ali Translation.

This begs it. Yusuf Ali was a Shii. His was not Sunni. But yet, so far, his translation rests as one of the most widely read and respected ones's.

Peace.
 

A Vestigial Mote

Well-Known Member
Untruthful are those who use this little fragment of the Quran to show that Quran teaches murder and war. It is a deceitful strategy and anyone who quotes a little part of any book, completely out of context are utter and
complete hypocrites.
Islam (by its own admission) wishes to be thought of as "The Religion of Peace." However, these passages belie that sentiment, making it such that a better title for the religion would be:
"The Religion in which people are prescribed to abstain from aggression until provoked - and then they are prescribed to fight and sometimes kill"

So, one of my main objections now that you claim it is "all about self-defense" isn't with the idea of defending oneself. It sits more in the idea that you shouldn't be hypocritical and claim to be "The Religion of Peace" unless your religion is truly all about peace. It's just a bad and misleading attempt at a cover-up, honestly. When someone breaks their vow to you, find their leaders and kill them to make an example of them, and maybe the rest of them will get the hint that you don't mess around, and are willing to lean into violence quite easily and readily. That's exactly what is said by that text you quoted (9-12). Is that something you think would be promoted by someone thought, by others, to be "peaceful?" I don't think it is.

Your religion allows for a heavy dose of aggression when someone aggressive is attacking/persecuting. In principle, there aren't too many who could challenge this justifiably - so it is not a "bad" thing to have prescriptions of self-defense among your principles. Just don't try to hide behind some ameliorating title that makes it seem like you are non-violent. You ARE violent under the right conditions. You're TOLD to be. So, don't be a coward, in other words... like the religion is currently presenting itself with this "Religion of Peace" nonsense. If being aggressive in return for aggression is part of your principles, then it is. Hiding from it will only make you appear weak and dishonest when someone reads these texts. Like me. That's what I think of the religion, on the whole. It is weakly founded, and pretty well full of veiled threats and prescriptions that can lead to violence, and yet the religion says it is "peaceful." It's a dishonest title that does not fit the religion whatsoever. Call it "The Religion of Justice" if you want. That might be a bit better. But stop with the "Peace" crap. You don't have that. Don't claim it. Don't lie.
 

A Vestigial Mote

Well-Known Member
One last thing here... you slipped up a bit, and I am not entirely sure it wasn't intentional - like you were, again, potentially trying to hide from looking bad. Here's the problem:
The minor context of this quotation
 And fight in the cause of God against those who fight you, but do not aggress, God does not love the aggressors.
Note that you write above "do not aggress," but then later, in what I assume is a long bunch of copy-pasted stuff from someone else, the text is written thusly:
2:190 And fight in the cause of God against those who fight you, but do not transgress, God does not like the aggressors.
Which matches more the translation I originally provided, with the word "transgress" in the first sentence. It just makes it seem like maybe the words are "transgress" - possibly in both spots! Maybe there is contention about this piece among people who read the language? Do we know what it means to "transgress?" The other problem with the second passage is that "the aggressors" could have already been established as those being aggressive against the Muslim. As in: "God does not like those guys who were the aggressors." Rather than it being about how God doesn't like ANY initial aggressors. This is exactly the kind of stuff that makes me entirely skeptical. Best not to put too much stock in these old texts, honestly. They're old.
 

firedragon

Veteran Member
So, one of my main objections now that you claim it is "all about self-defense"

No. I didnt say "its all about self defence". Please do read my comment again.

However, these passages belie that sentiment, making it such that a better title for the religion would be:
"The Religion in which people are prescribed to abstain from aggression until provoked - and then they are prescribed to fight and sometimes kill"

Brother. I do not adhere to the religion of peace notion. Thats a whole other discussion. If one wishes, every religion is a religion of peace. Yet if one wishes, every religion can be violent. This is all human endeavours. Thus, I am not discussing religions in this thread. Forget the religion. Try to focus on the Quran as a book with many flaws and expose those flaws. Your posts are great because they have an objective air to them.

Your religion allows for a heavy dose of aggression when someone aggressive is attacking/persecuting. In principle, there aren't too many who could challenge this justifiably - so it is not a "bad" thing to have prescriptions of self-defense among your principles. Just don't try to hide behind some ameliorating title that makes it seem like you are non-violent. You ARE violent under the right conditions. You're TOLD to be. So, don't be a coward, in other words... like the religion is currently presenting itself with this "Religion of Peace" nonsense. If being aggressive in return for aggression is part of your principles, then it is. Hiding from it will only make you appear weak and dishonest when someone reads these texts. Like me. That's what I think of the religion, on the whole. It is weakly founded, and pretty well full of veiled threats and prescriptions that can lead to violence, and yet the religion says it is "peaceful." It's a dishonest title that does not fit the religion whatsoever. Call it "The Religion of Justice" if you want. That might be a bit better. But stop with the "Peace" crap. You don't have that. Don't claim it. Don't lie.

Thanks. Great to have engaged with you.

Cheers.
 

firedragon

Veteran Member
Note that you write above "do not aggress," but then later, in what I assume is a long bunch of copy-pasted stuff from someone else, the text is written thusly:

Maybe copy pasting is what you see a lot, but no, there is no copy pasting from anyones writing. So its more mature to not make assumptions. Also, its irrelevant. Its ad hominem.

Which matches more the translation I originally provided, with the word "transgress" in the first sentence. It just makes it seem like maybe the words are "transgress" - possibly in both spots! M

The word here is "Adhawa". This means showing enmity, aggression. The word combines both.

If I have a team of employees under my purview, I would like them to be aggressive. Its great to have aggressive people around you. This aggression is completely different to the Arabic word Adhawa. Thats why, both words enmity and aggression should be in mind when you read this passage. Thats why transgression and aggression both come into play.

I appreciate your analysis.

Cheers.
 

firedragon

Veteran Member
One last thing here... you slipped up a bit, and I am not entirely sure it wasn't intentional - like you were, again, potentially trying to hide from looking bad. Here's the problem:

Note that you write above "do not aggress," but then later, in what I assume is a long bunch of copy-pasted stuff from someone else, the text is written thusly:

Which matches more the translation I originally provided, with the word "transgress" in the first sentence. It just makes it seem like maybe the words are "transgress" - possibly in both spots! Maybe there is contention about this piece among people who read the language? Do we know what it means to "transgress?" The other problem with the second passage is that "the aggressors" could have already been established as those being aggressive against the Muslim. As in: "God does not like those guys who were the aggressors." Rather than it being about how God doesn't like ANY initial aggressors. This is exactly the kind of stuff that makes me entirely skeptical. Best not to put too much stock in these old texts, honestly. They're old.

Also you have missed the surrounding verses for some reason. Thats not a valid way to analyse a book. Context of the immediate verses, then chapter, then the whole book.
 

A Vestigial Mote

Well-Known Member
Maybe copy pasting is what you see a lot, but no, there is no copy pasting from anyones writing. So its more mature to not make assumptions. Also, its irrelevant. Its ad hominem.
I sort of mis-spoke, and didn't mean you had copied the whole mass of text - I more meant that the passages (translated) themselves seemed like they might be copied/pasted - which is where I suspected the difference in texts may have appeared. One word used by you when writing the first quote, and one used by another which you had potentially copied from another source.

It was not meant to be "ad-hominem" - as I was only referring to the actual Quranic quotes (and probably should have mentioned that). And that is NOT irrelevant, as SOMETHING produced the discrepancy I noted. You say it is because the word(s) mean two different things at once. To me, this presents a fundamental problem with texts like these. If you want analysis of the Quran that looks for errors or problems - there's one right there. Lack of specificity in what can sometimes be extremely important matters. Matters of life and death, in this case.
 
So, you're going to invoke your Article 1 to protect the Qur'an from being discussed as the foundation of Islam and Muslim culture.

Why didn't you just put this in the Islam Only DIR?

Or maybe you'll answer an honest question. Is the belief "Qur'an is God's Message and Muhammad is His Prophet" a Qu'ranic belief? Is that in the Qur'an?

Or is it just folklore?
Tom

I think it is actually at least implied, if not stated outright, in the Qur'anic text, when it repeatedly says things translated as "this revelation" and refers to someone who is thought to be Muhammed multiple times and seems to be speaking to him throughout the text as the receiver of the words. So when it says "this revelation" or "this book" it is believed to be be referring to the Qur'an and claims to be from God and that Muhammed or whoever is supposed to be receiving it is God's chosen human agent or herald for delivery of the message. It also treats the human messenger in some cases as entirely expendable and replaced without difficulty if necessary. The Qur'an gives me a very science fiction type vibe the way I read it.
 

A Vestigial Mote

Well-Known Member
Also you have missed the surrounding verses for some reason. Thats not a valid way to analyse a book. Context of the immediate verses, then chapter, then the whole book.
No... this doesn't matter. I was honing in on an exact passage quoted TWO DIFFERENT WAYS. Context doesn't matter in that case. It says one thing, or it says the other, or it somehow says BOTH. THAT is what I wanted to know... I didn't care about any of the surrounding text, nor was it necessarily pertinent to the issue I was highlighting, unless it somehow cleared up which of the two was correct.

The issue still stands that two separate words were substituted in a translation of the exact same, numbered verse. You say it means "BOTH" things, and that is the explanation.
 
Top