Cooky
Veteran Member
I just attack all extracts period. But sometimes I will throw extracts at fundamentalists for fun.
-
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!
I just attack all extracts period. But sometimes I will throw extracts at fundamentalists for fun.
Faithofchristian
Well-Known Member
If you had notice in your reading the Qu'ran..
Allah doesn't say a word..
But it's always Muhammad that does the talking...putting words in the mouth of
Allah..
As in everything that you have in your thread above.. not one time does Allah say anything..but it's all Muhammad doing the talking and saying Allah said this or that.
But nothing Allah said himself.
Only Muhammad saying this or that.
But nothing being said by Allah himself.
For example----"Fight those who do not believe in Allah or in the Last Day and who do not consider unlawful what Allah and His Messenger have made unlawful and who do not adopt the religion of truth from those who were given the Scripture - [fight] until they give the jizyah willingly while they are humbled'
As you can see there's nothing there that
Allah said himself..but Muhammad saying everything himself.
So it is that Muhammad putting words in the mouth of Allah..but nothing that Allah actually said himself.
Therefore when you read the Qu'ran notice that Muhammad is doing all the talking and nothing that Allah actually saying himself.
Where as in the Bible you'll find God and his Prophets talking to each other. and not just the Prophets doing all the talking...As where Muhammad doing all the talking but noting that Allah actually said himself.
Thank you and hope this helps you...
Last edited:
I think that a whole lot of history is being ignored when judgements are made.
Mecca was a financial hub for tributes to about 360 gods. When Muhammad arose and said there was only one God this alarmed the Meccans and at first they offered Him position, power and bribes to withdraw His beliefs but Muhammad stood firm on His right to freedom of belief. Tributes to only one God instead of 360 would have meant a loss of profit if too many became Muslims so they began persecuting them.
Thus began 13 years of persecution by the Meccans involving, torture, banning trade with Muslims and murder. This caused the Muslims to flee Mecca being denied freedom of belief. The Meccans pursued them to Abyssinia where a Christian King Negus gave them refuge and then they went to Medina. The warring tribes there could not settle their disputes so asked Muhammad to intervene as His qualities as a Statesman were renowned. When He did unite them and told them His Message they accepted Islam.
The Meccans still pursued the Muslims intent on murder and genocide of the small community.
At that time Muhammad received Sura 2:190 and I’ll include a few translations as it was made explicitly clear that battle was restricted to certain circumstances. As there were no courts, jails, prison so it was always a fight to the death if one was attacked.
2: 190 And fight for the religion of GOD against those who fight against you; but transgress not by attacking them first, for GOD loveth not the transgressors.
George Sale
2:190 And fight for the cause of God against those who fight against you: but commit not the injustice of attacking them first: God loveth not such injustice:
J M Rodwell
2:190 Fight for the sake of God those that fight against you, but do not attack them first. God does not love aggressors.
N J Dawood
The Quran clearly forbids unprovoked aggression, violence, murder and killing. There is nothing more clear than this. All the battles fought were because the Muslims had been attacked and denied the basic human right of freedom of belief.
They fought and died for the freedom of belief we all enjoy today.
After Muhammad died, the Caliphs began to disobey this fundamental law creating ‘hadiths’ or fabricated stories of Muhammad approving conquering and aggression.
The Quran is the only true authority in Islam but priests have used fabricated stories to justify political ambitions.
If you look closely at terrorist groups they use Hadiths and avoid the Quran except taking bits out of context because there are many other suras that clearly forbid terrorism however with fabricated Hadiths the sky’s the limit as far as murder is concerned.
The reason why the majority of Muslims are peaceful is because the Quran teaches peace. Fanatics and extremists always use false Hadiths to justify their violence but those who know the Quran and history well can easily discern the truth.
There are also insidious websites like Jihad watch which quote things like ‘kill them wherever you find them’ but deliberately leave out the verse before it which says ‘do not attack unless attacked first’. When I quoted Sura 2:190 one person was shocked and almost couldn’t believe it came from the Quran.
There are haters who paint 1.7 billion good peaceful Muslims with one terrorist brush.
Be vigilant and just and don’t just blindly believe them because they, like terrorists are able to fool the ignorant. The Quran instructed Muslims to fight for freedom of belief if attacked.
The Quran prevented genocide and established freedom of religion in the Arabian Peninsula as well as uniting the warring tribes into one great nation.
Muslims are very good people but terrorists are Muslims in name only as they go against the explicit laws of the Quran not to attack the innocent.
Mecca was a financial hub for tributes to about 360 gods. When Muhammad arose and said there was only one God this alarmed the Meccans and at first they offered Him position, power and bribes to withdraw His beliefs but Muhammad stood firm on His right to freedom of belief. Tributes to only one God instead of 360 would have meant a loss of profit if too many became Muslims so they began persecuting them.
Thus began 13 years of persecution by the Meccans involving, torture, banning trade with Muslims and murder. This caused the Muslims to flee Mecca being denied freedom of belief. The Meccans pursued them to Abyssinia where a Christian King Negus gave them refuge and then they went to Medina. The warring tribes there could not settle their disputes so asked Muhammad to intervene as His qualities as a Statesman were renowned. When He did unite them and told them His Message they accepted Islam.
The Meccans still pursued the Muslims intent on murder and genocide of the small community.
At that time Muhammad received Sura 2:190 and I’ll include a few translations as it was made explicitly clear that battle was restricted to certain circumstances. As there were no courts, jails, prison so it was always a fight to the death if one was attacked.
2: 190 And fight for the religion of GOD against those who fight against you; but transgress not by attacking them first, for GOD loveth not the transgressors.
George Sale
2:190 And fight for the cause of God against those who fight against you: but commit not the injustice of attacking them first: God loveth not such injustice:
J M Rodwell
2:190 Fight for the sake of God those that fight against you, but do not attack them first. God does not love aggressors.
N J Dawood
The Quran clearly forbids unprovoked aggression, violence, murder and killing. There is nothing more clear than this. All the battles fought were because the Muslims had been attacked and denied the basic human right of freedom of belief.
They fought and died for the freedom of belief we all enjoy today.
After Muhammad died, the Caliphs began to disobey this fundamental law creating ‘hadiths’ or fabricated stories of Muhammad approving conquering and aggression.
The Quran is the only true authority in Islam but priests have used fabricated stories to justify political ambitions.
If you look closely at terrorist groups they use Hadiths and avoid the Quran except taking bits out of context because there are many other suras that clearly forbid terrorism however with fabricated Hadiths the sky’s the limit as far as murder is concerned.
The reason why the majority of Muslims are peaceful is because the Quran teaches peace. Fanatics and extremists always use false Hadiths to justify their violence but those who know the Quran and history well can easily discern the truth.
There are also insidious websites like Jihad watch which quote things like ‘kill them wherever you find them’ but deliberately leave out the verse before it which says ‘do not attack unless attacked first’. When I quoted Sura 2:190 one person was shocked and almost couldn’t believe it came from the Quran.
There are haters who paint 1.7 billion good peaceful Muslims with one terrorist brush.
Be vigilant and just and don’t just blindly believe them because they, like terrorists are able to fool the ignorant. The Quran instructed Muslims to fight for freedom of belief if attacked.
The Quran prevented genocide and established freedom of religion in the Arabian Peninsula as well as uniting the warring tribes into one great nation.
Muslims are very good people but terrorists are Muslims in name only as they go against the explicit laws of the Quran not to attack the innocent.
ManSinha
Well-Known Member
@loverofhumanity
I see a problem with that being in a book revered as "word of god" - now being "attacked" means different things to different people
To those that stormed the offices of Charlie Hebdo - an attack was drawing cartoons of the prophet
Another may take an adverse social media post as an attack
Neither does the Quran state that retaliation is only permissible for intentional life threatening attacks eg a person on a busy subway in a big western city unknowingly bumps into a muslim lady and her companion - the companion decides that was an "attack" on his companion's honor and takes retributive action.
Also the US or another Western country imposes economic sanctions on Iran or any other muslim theocracy - certain elements decide that this is an attack (which in a sense it is an economic attack) - and decide to do harm to innocents in the West - all taking their permission from those verses
Why is the "word of god" so unclear that any one can (and many have) twisted it - to meet their needs in the moment? If Allah sanctions this in his book then Allah has the responsibility to stop misuse of the verses - if that does not happen - the possible choices are:
Allah does not exist
Allah is powerless to affect what humans do in his name
What is your answer to these dilemmas? And do not give me the party line that these are "bad muslims" or that "they do not understand the book"
Too many lives have been lost and untold damage caused for that excuse to hold good
As one person said - what is the percentage of "bad muslims" ? Is it 2%, 1% or 0.1%?
When you consider greater than a billion muslims that still adds up to 100 to 1000 million undesirables
I am sorry - that is simply not acceptable
I see a problem with that being in a book revered as "word of god" - now being "attacked" means different things to different people
To those that stormed the offices of Charlie Hebdo - an attack was drawing cartoons of the prophet
Another may take an adverse social media post as an attack
Neither does the Quran state that retaliation is only permissible for intentional life threatening attacks eg a person on a busy subway in a big western city unknowingly bumps into a muslim lady and her companion - the companion decides that was an "attack" on his companion's honor and takes retributive action.
Also the US or another Western country imposes economic sanctions on Iran or any other muslim theocracy - certain elements decide that this is an attack (which in a sense it is an economic attack) - and decide to do harm to innocents in the West - all taking their permission from those verses
Why is the "word of god" so unclear that any one can (and many have) twisted it - to meet their needs in the moment? If Allah sanctions this in his book then Allah has the responsibility to stop misuse of the verses - if that does not happen - the possible choices are:
Allah does not exist
Allah is powerless to affect what humans do in his name
What is your answer to these dilemmas? And do not give me the party line that these are "bad muslims" or that "they do not understand the book"
Too many lives have been lost and untold damage caused for that excuse to hold good
As one person said - what is the percentage of "bad muslims" ? Is it 2%, 1% or 0.1%?
When you consider greater than a billion muslims that still adds up to 100 to 1000 million undesirables
I am sorry - that is simply not acceptable
exchemist
Veteran Member
No, what you find in the bible are reports, written by some human being, of God talking.
Cooky
Veteran Member
"People of the book"... it's a problematic phrase in itself.
I'm not a person of any book. I'm a person of the conscience... And the spirit.
Islam has laws concerning warfare and the use of violence, you know. That's why things like killing civilians and suicide attacks are completely rejected by the vast majority of Muslims. Need I remind you that Muslims are the number one victims of the takfiri terrorists. They're also the ones doing the most to fight them.
ManSinha
Well-Known Member
Yes and no - even in remote Indian villages - it is taught that Muhammed recognized "Kitab ke log" - the people of the book - of course those are meant to be the Bible and the Torah - I am unsure whether Muhammed was aware of the Vedas or the Upanishads
If you have any level of faith in the Bible @Landon Caeli
- then you may be classified as a "person of the book"
ManSinha
Well-Known Member
I am not gainsaying that - my issue is entirely different - the ones who do commit the heinous acts justify them using Qu'ranic verses. And where does Allah factor into it - your reply focuses on us humans and our interactions - where is the god who is thought to have given the word in all of this?
Cooky
Veteran Member
Yes and no - even in remote Indian villages - it is taught that Muhammed recognized "Kitab ke log" - the people of the book - of course those are meant to be the Bible and the Torah - I am unsure whether Muhammed was aware of the Vedas or the Upanishads
If you have any level of faith in the Bible @Landon Caeli
I realize many Muslims, through Islamic texts, falsely try to classify me as such. But I'm no fundamentalist, and have no preferential relationships towards "Abrahamics" or "people of the book" - both fostering exclusive, and not inclusive traits.
I fully reject both terms.
Last edited by a moderator:
What is it that you expect God to do? Deranged and extremely desperate people misuse anything to commit outrageous deeds. These fanatical Islamic militant groups are the result of widespread civil and social turmoil. Extremist groups always bloom like flowers after a storm in such conditions, regardless of ideology.
Cooky
Veteran Member
It's all the work of scriptural fundamentalists, through and through. No escaping it.
The replacement of the conscience with recited words and phrases by the obsessed.
At a certain level, Islamic views of God are very similar to how Hindus view Brahman, which is something I always found interesting. Judaism is the same there.Yes and no - even in remote Indian villages - it is taught that Muhammed recognized "Kitab ke log" - the people of the book - of course those are meant to be the Bible and the Torah - I am unsure whether Muhammed was aware of the Vedas or the Upanishads
If you have any level of faith in the Bible @Landon Caeli
ClimbingTheLadder
Up and Down again
Yes, I would add that the Bible does tend to have a less forgiving form of morality when it comes to war (the book of Joshua for instance is completely against Islamic morality). That horse doesn't need beating though.
As far as the Mahabharata, a lot of Islamic morality, philosophy and war ethics shares a lot in common with many of the overarching concepts presented in that epic. Certainly the Mahabharata is an underappreciated gem (despite the Bhagavad Gita being very popular).
One thing that instantly comes to mind is Prophet Moses/Musa in Surah al-Kahf who undergoes an experience with Khidr that teaches an understanding of 'cause & effect' that matches a lot of the incidents of morals and justice presented in the Mahabharata, things that are very strange, allusive and even abominable but when in the context of their Dharmas are completely in place and considered moral. etc.
Last edited:
ClimbingTheLadder
Up and Down again
Make what?
ClimbingTheLadder
Up and Down again
Firstly, the Qur'an (not "koran") is not the "standard for sharia law" (and it's not called "Sharia Law" either, it's "Sharia"). Sharia is Torah. Torah is Sharia. Sharia and Torah are Dharma. et al.
Sharia is 'way of life', not a legal system of any kind.
As for Sola Scriptura, as far as the Bible is concerned I definitely agree. However the closest you will get to such a thing in Islam would be "Quranism" (Quran-alone), which is of a completely different disposition to the Protestant sola scriptura. Also unlike with what happened to Protestants who still believe most Catholic doctrines, the Quranists challenge all Islam in it's entirety and base their view of things through a different praxis.
e.g. Protestants in the majority still believe in the Trinity, even though it's entirely absent from the New Testament and Jesus' own teachings according to those texts affirm that he believed in the Jewish Shema.
One of the primary concerns that significantly differentiates them is that the Qur'an itself is literally the word of God (God speaking directly) rather than merely 'inspired' writings by people about events in history (aka, the Bible).
Along with this 'word of God' view which is integral to the Qur'an, the text of the Qur'an heavily emphasizes the intellect and the obtaining of knowledge. The concept of salvation in the Qur'an and in Islam as a whole (except for Salafism) is one based in not "belief-alone" but of what we do. Islam is very serious about the consequence of our actions, the Qur'an does often make specific distinctions between a true believer, a hypocrite and a disbeliever, it does not equate stating that you believe something as being sincerity, as the Qur'an is very aware that people are insincere and use religion as a crutch for egotistical and material gain.
In fact there's a whole Surah (#63, al-Munafiqun) named after this.
On belief itself, as the Qur'an says in ayats 2-4 in Surah 29:
Do men think that they will be left alone on saying "We believe" and not be tried?
And certainly We tried those before them, so Allah will certainly know those who are true and He will certainly know the liars.
Or do they who work evil think that they will escape Us? Evil is it that they judge!
And I will add regarding Sharia, that Ijtihad (reasoning) was the predominant form of jurisprudence in early Islam (and in fact it stayed strong through the first 500 or so years). The trends you may observe in the present climate in the mainstream Islamic world is not indicative of Islam historically (of which has always been incredibly diverse from the offset).
ClimbingTheLadder
Up and Down again
The Bible is (for the most part, with exceptions such as books like Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes and the Epistles) a collection of books of narratives "so and so did this" and "so and so said such and such to so and so". The Bible is not revelation, it is (claimed to be) historical recording of events long after they happened. And therefore the Bible is to be understood on those merits
Um no, the Qur'an talks to Prophet Muhammad. If you want to hear Prophet Muhammad talking, here is an example of a Hadith of Prophet Muhammad:
Jabir reported that the Prophet Muhammad (may Allah bless him and grant him peace), said:
"Every act of kindness is sadaqa. Part of kindness is that you offer your brother a cheerful face and you pour some of your bucket into his water vessel."
As far as the Qur'an is concerned, it's revealed to Prophet Muhammad by the angel Jibreel (Gabriel), the same angel reported to have appeared to Daniel and Mary in the Bible.
The term "Qur'an" means recitation, as that is it's initial form of revelation. The Qur'an is not addressed solely to a single person because it is addressed to all mankind. However it's initial context was to Muhammad, the second context is to the early Meccans/Medianites and the final context is to all mankind.
The linguistic tense in the Qur'an changes depending on what it is saying. For instance, some verses (ayat) possess spiritual formulas and dialectics which are supposed to be contemplated. For instance "Allah; there is no god but he", this is a formula, but if it was addressing you directly and specifically then it would read "there is no god but we".
Also you'll notice that when it speaks of the creation of the universe in the Qur'an, in many Surahs it differs on the tense that it gives. Sometimes it's "Allah created" other times it is "I created" other times it's "we created". The idea is that there is a plurality of linguistic tense.
A person's actual reading of the Qur'an is very different to the Bible because it is a conversation between you and God, rather than simply people writing about things that happened to Prophets.
Anyway, @Faithofchristian if you want to understand the Qur'an, start with the reception of the very first Surah (Surah 96). The very first words of the Qur'an given to Prophet Muhammad by the angel Gabriel were as follows:
In the name of Allah, the Beneficent, the Merciful.
Read in the name of your Lord Who created.
He created man from a clot.
Read and your Lord is Most Honorable,
Who taught (to write) with the pen
Taught man what he knew not.
(Surah 96:1-5)
Read in the name of your Lord Who created.
He created man from a clot.
Read and your Lord is Most Honorable,
Who taught (to write) with the pen
Taught man what he knew not.
(Surah 96:1-5)
exchemist
Veteran Member
No it's not problematic at all. It is a rather charming term of respect for fellow members of the Abrahamic faiths. Personally I am all for looking for the things we have in common with these other faiths.
Last edited:
Cooky
Veteran Member
Why do you oppose Buddhism, Sikhism, Hinduism, and the array of other religions in favor of "Abrahamic" preferences? Why exclude them if they don't claim a "book" or "Abraham" ..? Do you not recognize the exclusivity in this?
...Is faith alone in a higher power not in itself a kind of spiritual magnetism from God , that we all share as human persons?