The Hijab Problem

[Remté]

I'll give you one example from the poll I already sent you a link to:

The Quran and the Hadith both tell Muslims that Islam is not just a religion, it is a total way of life. In other words, Islamic scripture promotes theocracies. The poll I linked to (and you can find other such polls), indicate that at least half of the world's Muslims think Sharia should be the law of the land.

That is false. And really doesn't even make sense.

So here is one example (there are many more) of a strong correlation between what a simple reading of the Quran teaches, and what Muslims believe.

Theocracy is not demanded in the Quran.

 

[stvdv]

No matter how many times you repeat it doesn't make it true.

@icehorse gives good points a few times. You are the one repeating non-logical replies, no proof whatsoever, just belittling us, non Muslims

1) That's nice, but reading the Quran once and claiming to understand it is absurd.
2) It is complicated and the fact that you have no awarness of that is enough evidence that you don't understand its message.

1) That again is non-logical. Some people might have better reading skills than you have and reading once is sufficient. But if I read correctly @icehorse has 3 different versions of Koran. so again belittling him AND even wrongly belittling him
2) I gave you already verse 3:07, Koran verses are not complicated, if you leave out the allegorical ones

The term everday Muslim is nonsensical.

That again is belittling and is a non-sensible remark

 

[stvdv]

No, they are not like Koans.

you missed the point obviously

 

[Remté]

Can you acknowledge that I'm not claiming to be an Islamic scholar, but that instead I'm talking about what large percentages of Muslims believe, AND, that most Muslims are not scriptural scholars?

Sure, but I'm also aware that you don't have a clue of what "large percentages of Muslims believe".

 

[stvdv]

You misunderstand the verse.

Why is the nuke an issue? It was an extremist who mentioned it, not just Muslims in general. Should they defend themselves because one among them speaks this way?

You misunderstand the verse

You did not read the article obviously ... thousands were on the streets

Why is the nuke an issue?
Are you from ISIS?

 

[Remté]

In general I would agree with you EXCEPT, the book declares itself to be BOTH perfect AND easy to understand.

What does perfect mean? Did you mean to say clear or complete?

 

[Remté]

WRONG !!! According to all 7 english translations given by @Subduction Zone

The 7 english translations do not yet the context is war at the time of Muhammad. say this. And I see at least 3 Muslim names who translated this. So how you come to this convenient translation, while these 7 english translations clearly tell a completely different story?

I will make it simple by going line by line:
1) They wish you would disbelieve as they disbelieved so you would be alike.
No real problem yet (except it seems like reverse evangelism). Non Muslims are said to want Muslims to become Non Muslims
How it is written does not seem to be violent, they just want them to "be alike", I see no hostility here.
2) So do not take from among them allies until they emigrate for the cause of Allah
Clearly this is all about evangelizing. Non Muslims should become Muslims otherwise stay away (don't become allies). Fair enough.
3) But if they turn away, then seize them and kill them wherever you find them and take not from among them any ally or helper.
So IF they turn away from Islam THEN kill them. Seems to me a lot of violence IF they want to leave Islam
It is not about them going to war with Muslim, they just leave Islam. The word used is "renegades" those leaving Islam, not about war at all. And it is know in Islam that they are not to friendly towards apostates. Another word used is "enmity" meaning opposition, meaning leaving Islam. Another word used "if they turn back" that is too obvious to explain. And another says "if they turn back (from Islam)" that is even more obvious.

Islam does not impose Islam on non Muslims, BUT it imposes Islam on Muslims, meaning you are not allowed to leave Islam.
Clearly this is mentioned by this verse. It is not at all about war.
YES THEY CALL THIS "minor jihād" in some articles I read

Now you will tell me, you should have read the context. So let me assure you that I did read it. And this was very simple:
a) The verses before tell us that if Allah has decided that they don't want to become Muslim, you as a Muslim should not have the arrogance to believe that you can impose Islam on them. So this is definitely not talking about war, nor talking about evangelizing (Muslim should not do this)

b) The verses after clearly talk about war. And here you make the big mistake. The verses 4:90 and following talk about war. But verse 4:89 is very specific talking about people who converted to Islam, and when they want to leave Islam then you can kill them, because apostacy is not allowed. Islam does not impose Islam on non Muslims, but once you are Muslim you are not allowed to leave Islam

So you are totally wrong that verse 4:89 is about war. It is NOT. It can be called "minor jihād", but not the war that you implied. This is about "personal" war (leaving Islam)
Proof that I am right here, is that the first 2 lines clearly do not talk about any violence of non Muslims towards Muslims. They just wish you were non Believers as they are.

Spoiler: Koran verse 4:89

Sahih International: They wish you would disbelieve as they disbelieved so you would be alike. So do not take from among them allies until they emigrate for the cause of Allah. But if they turn away, then seize them and kill them wherever you find them and take not from among them any ally or helper.

Pickthall: They long that ye should disbelieve even as they disbelieve, that ye may be upon a level (with them). So choose not friends from them till they forsake their homes in the way of Allah; if they turn back (to enmity) then take them and kill them wherever ye find them, and choose no friend nor helper from among them,

Yusuf Ali: They but wish that ye should reject Faith, as they do, and thus be on the same footing (as they): But take not friends from their ranks until they flee in the way of Allah (From what is forbidden). But if they turn renegades, seize them and slay them wherever ye find them; and (in any case) take no friends or helpers from their ranks;-

Shakir: They desire that you should disbelieve as they have disbelieved, so that you might be (all) alike; therefore take not from among them friends until they fly (their homes) in Allah's way; but if they turn back, then seize them and kill them wherever you find them, and take not from among them a friend or a helper.

Muhammad Sarwar: They wish you to become unbelievers as they themselves are. Do not establish friendship with them until they have abandoned their homes for the cause of God. If they betray you, seize them and slay them wherever you find them. Do not establish friendship with them or seek their help

Mohsin Khan: They wish that you reject Faith, as they have rejected (Faith), and thus that you all become equal (like one another). So take not Auliya' (protectors or friends) from them, till they emigrate in the Way of Allah (to Muhammad SAW). But if they turn back (from Islam), take (hold) of them and kill them wherever you find them, and take neither Auliya' (protectors or friends) nor helpers from them.

Arberry: They wish that you should disbelieve as they disbelieve, and then you would be equal; therefore take not to yourselves friends of them, until they emigrate in the way of God; then, if they turn their backs, take them, and slay them wherever you find them; take not to yourselves any one of them as friend or helper

It is about war in the time of Muhammad. There was extreme hostility in between people and it wasn't safe to mingle with whosoever. So it was advised Muslims stick with Muslims, help Muslims.

Perhaps you never got to ayat 4:90?

"Except those who join a group between whom and you there is a treaty (of peace), or those who approach you with hearts restraining them from fighting you as well as fighting their own people. If Allah had pleased, He could have given them power over you, and they would have fought you: Therefore if they withdraw from you but fight you not, and (instead) send you (Guarantees of) peace, then Allah Hath opened no way for you (to war against them)." 4:90​

 

[icehorse]

What does perfect mean? Did you mean to say clear or complete?

The Quran declares itself to be perfect and clear. As I've said many times now.

 

[icehorse]

That is false. And really doesn't even make sense.

Please explain what's false, thanks.

 

[Remté]

You did not read the article obviously ... thousands were on the streets

Like I said before - perfectly understandable. It is a serious matter. Very important to Muslims.

 

[Remté]

Please explain what's false, thanks.

That half of Muslims think the way you said they do and also the way you got to the conclusion, I assume by yourself, is just poor logic.

 

[icehorse]

No matter how many times you repeat it doesn't make it true.

I gave you a link to a large poll. Did you even glance at the poll? Are you claiming that the poll is lying?

 

[Remté]

The Quran declares itself to be perfect and clear. As I've said many times now.

Where? Arabic is a very different language from english. I don't find it incredible some translator would fit it there somewhere, but I'm sure it could easily be replaced with some other word. So where did you read that and why is it an issue?

 

[icehorse]

That half of Muslims think the way you said they do and also the way you got to the conclusion, I assume by yourself, is just poor logic.

But I based my conclusion on the results of a large poll, AND I gave you a link to the poll.

As for the second part, would you agree that a society that uses Sharia as the law is a theocratic society?

 

[icehorse]

Where? Arabic is a very different language from english. I don't find it incredible some translator would fit it there somewhere, but I'm sure it could easily be replaced with some other word. So where did you read that and why is it an issue?

The translation I read cover to cover was the result of years and years of work by several noted scholars. The other two translation I have were also the result of years and years of hard work. Why should I take your word over the words of many top Islamic scholars?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Like I said before - perfectly understandable. It is a serious matter. Very important to Muslims.

Understandable does not mean excusable. I take that sort of reaction as a sign of a weak faith, not a strong one. Those Muslims are not secure in their beliefs and have to attack anything that threatens them.

 

[Remté]

I gave you already verse 3:07, Koran verses are not complicated, if you leave out the allegorical ones

You cannot go about trying to justify everything you say with one ayat. Or I suppose you can, but how could you assume you will succeed? The matter is just not that simple.

 

[Remté]

The translation I read cover to cover was the result of years and years of work by several noted scholars. The other two translation I have were also the result of years and years of hard work. Why should I take your word over the words of many top Islamic scholars?

Why should I assume you reading a translation - if it was by - a good scholar means you have now all their knowledge and understanding?

 

[icehorse]

Why should I assume you reading a translation - if it was by - a good scholar means you have now all their knowledge and understanding?

You're nimble, I'll grant you that.

But unless you can stick to the point, I don't have any more time for this.

OTOH, I hope you will stick to the point, because I'm sincerely interested in how you think about these ideas. But so far, you haven't really answered any of the questions I've asked you.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Why should I assume you reading a translation - if it was by - a good scholar means you have now all their knowledge and understanding?

Now you are applying a false standard. Why would one need to understand everything that the scholars understood? If the translation is clear then understanding everything that the scholar knew should not be necessary. To know how to add one does not need to understand tensor calculus if one's teacher also understood tensor calculus. And demanding that one understands the Arabic is also a false standard if you want to claim that it comes from God. God is rather incompetent if his message can only be understood in one language. Why not use English? Everyone understands English as long as you speak slowly enough and loudly enough (preferably in a Southern accent).