The attack Quran thread

[Estro Felino]

I do believe I will find much more misogyny in the New Testament than the Qur'an...
Seeing what Paul says about women, about their beauty, about head coverings...

 

[firedragon]

I do believe I will find much more misogyny in the New Testament than the Qur'an...
Seeing what Paul says about women, about their beauty, about head coverings...

What ever maybe Estro, I dont think the Bible is relevant here. This post was intended to act as a platform for those who attack and claim things about the Quran in other irrelevant topics, so one should try and be relevant to this topic.

No offence intended. Hope you understand.

 

[firedragon]

I do believe I will find much more misogyny in the New Testament than the Qur'an...
Seeing what Paul says about women, about their beauty, about head coverings...

By the way. Felino? Are you a lady or a guy? I have this habit of calling sisters "brother" and I am trying to avoid that embarrassment!

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Ha! I'm not too interested in attacking the Quran, but I fully support your willingness to bring this out in the open, and face such accusations head on. Bravo.

In principle, I agree.

But 10 bucks says that he's going to use his requirement number 1 of the OP as an excuse to hide behind and dismiss practically everything being presented to him at face value, claiming it doesn't meet requirement 1.

If you read it carefully, the way he worded it he can use it in such a way that is basically results in the idea that only islamic scholars who have been studying the quran for a few decades will be able to meet that requirement.

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.

 

[Estro Felino]

By the way. Felino? Are you a lady or a guy? I have this habit of calling sisters "brother" and I am trying to avoid that embarrassment!

A woman.
There is clearly written female.

 

[Fool]

This thread is opened purely to have a thread where people can attack the Quran. Prove all their claims that Quran promotes misogyny, racism, murder of innocents, etc etc that people make in threads that are not relevant to that topic.

It seems that many wish to discuss this topic in almost any thread so here is an opportunity to do that rather than derail every other thread.

With due respect to those who dont pose to be Quranic scholars, well read in the Quranic discourse etc without actually having that kind of knowledge, there are many who claim they are. So I would like to see these "lists" of verses picked up from the Quran that proves all of these accusations I cited above.

If someone who could do that has the patience to analyse one verse they bring at a time in context of the whole book, and the surrounding, one maybe able to have a fruitful exchange on this topic.

Important note though:
1. Anyone who wishes to to attack, criticise, practice criticism or engage in these accusations should typically be specific by providing a verse which they think supports their accusation and analyse that verse along with the context of the book. If not its just superficial and not objective.

2. Also if you try to avoid logical fallacies like appealing to authority, ad populum, post hoc ergo propter hoc, it would be logically sound.

Peace.

can you provide me with a passage that shows women are equal to men and can be leaders?

 

[DagonVarunaMitraApolloZan]

The biggest problem I have with the Qur'an is the claim that Muhammad is The Seal of the Prophets and the Qur'an is God's final and complete message.

It was excellent in the 7th century, but things have changed since then. Morality has become better as humans gained more experience and information. The Qur'an retards moral improvements because it's profoundly conservative.

This opinion is based far more on what Muslims have taught me about Islam than the Qur'an itself. Because the best English translation I've been given by Muslims was almost unreadably repetitious and stilted and I don't read 7th century Arabic.

As sung in the original language, it's quite beautiful. But that's not the same as true, or even useful.
Tom

Have you looked at this website that provides numerous translations of every verse? Maybe you can find a version that you prefer which isn't so stilted and strange seeming as whatever you were handed? A lot of what is on that website seems readable to me and not very strange or difficult to read. IslamAwakened The website was attacked by hackers and is now back. Here is the beginning, you can click the buttons in the corner to navigate to the next verses and keep moving through from there. If you examine each verse, along with all the other great resources all provided on a single page, you may discover a translation that offers a good balance between the literal translation of each word and flowing, comprehensible English. You might not be that interested in pursuing the matter though, but someone else reading this may. The Qur'an represents one of the very largest religions present on Earth today and has a major influence on the minds and behaviors of numerous human beings, so even if one does not believe in what it says, it still may be important and useful to be familiar with its contents. 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. What that means is that in a great many cases, you may be dealing with people with as much knowledge and access as any non-Arabic speaking person and are accessing the same English language resources, similar to how many people read the Bible in their own languages or English and are not familiar with the Greek or Hebrew versions. One of the things which might confuse people though is that Muslims say their daily prayers in Arabic, reciting verses from the Qur'an and other sources, but many of the people who recite these verses may only have a vague understanding of the meaning at the time of reciting such and rely on English translation to better understand what they are saying. I think it is highly likely that the English translation is not running consecutively after each word in their mind, and that they are actually reciting the prayers more like mantras or magical spells, confident that the meaning they have read is what they are communicating, but doing so in a language they do not normally speak or understand fluently.

The first verse Ayah al-Fatihah (The Opening) 1:1 at IslamAwakened.com and the 6 after it, considered by most as the "7 oft repeated verses", are said many times throughout the Muslim worship, Salah or Salat, which some translate as "Contact Worship" or something I've seen written. The Muslims say these things in Arabic while standing with their hands or arms held together in front of their body or chest in a fashion reminiscent of Sumerian worship statues. The belief is that the worship is a kind of communication with God which is to be performed for the benefit of the worshipper at various periods of the progressing day and night to re-align and cleanse oneself both externally and internally. If you are able to do something like this, I highly recommend it, even if you do not mention any of the Muslim or Qur'anic verses or prayers, or pray to whatever you might believe in or even nothing or nature or whatever, taking time out throughout the day to sort of "re-connect" and communicate to whatever, even to oneself, can be a meditative exercise you may notices changes the way you end up interpreting and interacting for a time after, and the Muslim method doesn't let up, since it isn't long before another session comes up and one repeats the process. If you or anyone else does try something like this, please feel free to let me know how it goes, I would be very interested in finding out.

The Islamic belief can be broken down to something extremely simple, and the first point before proceeding is to establish where one stands in the vaguest sense. One may ask themselves and ponder about the following question: Do I believe in God? If the answer is Yes, then one can proceed, if the answer is No, then the very first step in being able to understand any true believing Muslim may be somewhat blocked, because a real Muslim is basically anyone who believes in God. There may be dispute as to the nature of God and God's actions or qualities in technical detail, but at its simplest, if one generally believes in God, believes God is watching them and can be communicated to, and that God is influential upon them and their lives (and I'd go as far as to say everything whatsoever and totally, but many may start to dispute when it goes that far). That makes it so good deeds are watched over and noted and rewarded, and so that prayers can be potentially answered, making their behaviors and activities not believed to be performed in vain or pointlessly.

 

[icehorse]

This thread is opened purely to have a thread where people can attack the Quran. Prove all their claims that Quran promotes misogyny, racism, murder of innocents, etc etc that people make in threads that are not relevant to that topic.

It seems that many wish to discuss this topic in almost any thread so here is an opportunity to do that rather than derail every other thread.

With due respect to those who dont pose to be Quranic scholars, well read in the Quranic discourse etc without actually having that kind of knowledge, there are many who claim they are. So I would like to see these "lists" of verses picked up from the Quran that proves all of these accusations I cited above.

If someone who could do that has the patience to analyse one verse they bring at a time in context of the whole book, and the surrounding, one maybe able to have a fruitful exchange on this topic.

Important note though:
1. Anyone who wishes to to attack, criticise, practice criticism or engage in these accusations should typically be specific by providing a verse which they think supports their accusation and analyse that verse along with the context of the book. If not its just superficial and not objective.

2. Also if you try to avoid logical fallacies like appealing to authority, ad populum, post hoc ergo propter hoc, it would be logically sound.

Peace.

First about "derailing" other threads. A chain is only as strong as its weakest link. As of today, the Quran is an essential aspect of Islam. As of today, there is no Islam without Muslims claiming that the Quran is the perfect, timeless, unalterable word of god. That means that for almost all threads concerning Islam, the Quran is fair game.

Your point #1: Who is the authority here? You? Sunnis? Shia? Some particular scholar you like?

As you know, my approach is to take Muslims at their word, and analyze the book using the logic and critical thinking skills that you would say your god gave me. So logically, if the book is perfect as you claim (and laughingly, as IT claims ), then it's ALL perfect. As it declares itself clear and easy to understand, then no decades of scholarly analysis should be necessary.

So @firedragon, can you explain to us why you think that only scholars are qualified to understand the book?

 

[firedragon]

A woman.
There is clearly written female.

The thing is, if I tell you that for some time Ive been trying to find where the gender is mentioned you would get to know that I am ignorant.

Thus, please without me asking you directly can you tell me?

 

[firedragon]

First about "derailing" other threads. A chain is only as strong as its weakest link. As of today, the Quran is an essential aspect of Islam. As of today, there is no Islam without Muslims claiming that the Quran is the perfect, timeless, unalterable word of god. That means that for almost all threads concerning Islam, the Quran is fair game.

Your point #1: Who is the authority here? You? Sunnis? Shia? Some particular scholar you like?

As you know, my approach is to take Muslims at their word, and analyze the book using the logic and critical thinking skills that you would say your god gave me. So logically, if the book is perfect as you claim (and laughingly, as IT claims ), then it's ALL perfect. As it declares itself clear and easy to understand, then no decades of scholarly analysis should be necessary.

So @firedragon, can you explain to us why you think that only scholars are qualified to understand the book?

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.

 

[firedragon]

can you provide me with a passage that shows women are equal to men and can be leaders?

Make your accusation. Make your attack. The thread is for that. Its your opportunity. Not ask me to show something that you have not made a case of. Please respond to the OP.

If you are trying to make the thread about whats not there in the Qur'an, its not relevant. You can open a new thread for that. Call it "Things not in the Qur'an".

 

[firedragon]

In principle, I agree.

But 10 bucks says that he's going to use his requirement number 1 of the OP as an excuse to hide behind and dismiss practically everything being presented to him at face value, claiming it doesn't meet requirement 1.

If you read it carefully, the way he worded it he can use it in such a way that is basically results in the idea that only islamic scholars who have been studying the quran for a few decades will be able to meet that requirement.

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.

Well, maybe thinking others are the same as you is a habit. So you are looking for character flaws, but cannot address the topic objectively.

Great going.

 

[firedragon]

Chapter 4 verse 34 for the part specifically mentionning that men have the guardianship of women, though the idea is developped and touched on in many other verses and chapters.

Thats the first objective question in this thread so far so that's a well done.

Yes, the men are given the position of "supporter" of the household. Thats not "guardianship" as in the owner.

Kawwamun simply means the steadfast one, the supporter, the upright. Yes. The men are the responsible one to be all of that to the family. It is his responsibility to earn for the family and feed them.

 

[Nakosis]

What kind of violence and whats the justification that you are finding "disagreeable". Provide one specific example with verse and how you see it.

Cheers.

I'll assume you misunderstood my point. What is written in the Quran is not as relevant as it's perceived authority of divine will.
As far as the violence, I'd refer you to the 2015 Charlie Hebdo attack where twelve people were killed while the gunmen shouted Allahu Akbar and the Prophet is avenged.

 

[firedragon]

I'll assume you misunderstood my point. What is written in the Quran is not as relevant as it's perceived authority of divine will.
As far as the violence, I'd refer you to the 2015 Charlie Hebdo attack where twelve people were killed while the gunmen shouted Allahu Akbar and the Prophet is avenged.

With all due respect, Charlie Hebdo attack is not in the Quran because as you said it was written 1400 years ago, and not in September 2020 or any other month in 2015.

So your point is not relevant. Provide a verse in the Quran that says something not relevant to the modern times and Im sure if you do an internet search you will find plenty. And ponder over it, quote it here, and have a discussion about the book. Your case is valid to say that the book is not relevant to this day, but make your case with reference to the book, not an absolutely irrelevant Charlie Hebdo case since the Qur'an didnt print any news about it and doesnt address it.

Hope you understand.

 

[Fool]

Make your accusation. Make your attack. The thread is for that. Its your opportunity. Not ask me to show something that you have not made a case of. Please respond to the OP.

If you are trying to make the thread about whats not there in the Qur'an, its not relevant. You can open a new thread for that. Call it "Things not in the Qur'an".

you posted in the wrong forum. this is a debate thread. i wouldn't have posted at all had I known you weren't going to teach me something about the qu'ran. i'm here to learn. Not win/lose

 

[firedragon]

you posted in the wrong forum. this is a debate thread. i wouldn't have posted at all had I known you weren't going to teach me something about the qu'ran. i'm here to learn. Not win/lose

Absolutely. Its not win/lose. But there is a topic which I think is better to be relevant to. Hope you understand.

 

[Nakosis]

With all due respect, Charlie Hebdo attack is not in the Quran because as you said it was written 1400 years ago, and not in September 2020 or any other month in 2015.

So your point is not relevant. Provide a verse in the Quran that says something not relevant to the modern times and Im sure if you do an internet search you will find plenty. And ponder over it, quote it here, and have a discussion about the book. Your case is valid to say that the book is not relevant to this day, but make your case with reference to the book, not an absolutely irrelevant Charlie Hebdo case since the Qur'an didnt print any news about it and doesnt address it.

Hope you understand.

Sorry, I see little point in playing that game. What is written in the Quran can have many interpretations. Where one person sees violence another will see spiritual struggle. What is written is less relevant than how it is interpreted. Even that is less important than its assumption of divine authority. If you are not interested this discussion that's fine. I'm not interested in discussing what is in it, only what it represents.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

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:

And fight in the Way of Allah those who fight you, but transgress not the limits. Truly, Allah likes not the transgressors.

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.

And kill them wherever you find them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out. And Al-Fitnah is worse than killing. And fight not with them at Al-Masjid-al-Haram (the sanctuary at Makkah), unless they (first) fight you there. But if they attack you, then kill them. Such is the recompense of the disbelievers. Fight them until there is no [more] fitnah and [until] worship is [acknowledged to be] for Allah. But if they cease, then there is to be no aggression except against the oppressors.

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?

 

[firedragon]

Sorry, I see little point in playing that game. What is written in the Quran can have many interpretations. Where one person sees violence another will see spiritual struggle. What is written is less relevant than how it is interpreted. Even that is less important than its assumption of divine authority. If you are not interested this discussion that's fine. I'm not interested in discussing what is in it, only what it represents.

Great. Cheers.