As I read the Quran, which parts should I ignore?

[muhammad_isa]

...
They declare the Quran to be from Allah, perfect, unalterable, and timeless. If you want to relax those claims concerning the Quran, then I'd say that your post makes sense. But if the Quran is as Muslims say it is, then Muslims have to understand the sometimes violent implications of those claims.

Yes .. I do acknowledge that mankind has a duty to defend their family and nation, with serious violence if necessary .. but only in defence in a last resort .. making treaties would be a better way forward.

If somebody has intention to gain power & wealth, whatever their religion, then that's their intention .. if somebody has intention to please God, then that is their intention. Just because somebody is apparently a Muslim, does not make their intentions known.
War brings death & despair, while peace brings hope..

 

[icehorse]

Yes .. I do acknowledge that mankind has a duty to defend their family and nation, with serious violence if necessary .. but only in defence in a last resort .. making treaties would be a better way forward.

If somebody has intention to gain power & wealth, whatever their religion, then that's their intention .. if somebody has intention to please God, then that is their intention. Just because somebody is apparently a Muslim, does not make their intentions known.
War brings death & despair, while peace brings hope..

I'm not sure how this post relates to the OP. Can you clarify?

 

[leibowde84]

Atheism is based on negatives, so they get everything negatives, that could be one reason.
Who decides that one is neutral and an open mind? Atheism are not a judge. Are they?
Regards

Atheists = withhold belief due to lack of evidence. Ready to believe anything that can be supported with verifiable evidence.

Abrahamic Religions = think they have all the answers from God.

Seems that the former is far more "open minded", right?

 

[muhammad_isa]

I'm not sure how this post relates to the OP. Can you clarify?

I was replying to your post, not the OP..
What did you mean by 'violent implications' ?

 

[muhammad_isa]

Atheists = withhold belief due to lack of evidence. Ready to believe anything that can be supported with verifiable evidence.
Abrahamic Religions = think they have all the answers from God.
Seems that the former is far more "open minded", right?

Not necessarily .. somebody might believe in God and be non-denominational..

 

[icehorse]

I was replying to your post, not the OP..
What did you mean by 'violent implications' ?

Many Muslims (most?), are brought up from an early age with the Quran being recited over and over again. The words in the book get "burned in" to young minds. The Quran makes it very clear that "Muslims are the best people", better than all the other people. This establishes a strong, tribal mindset, an "us vs. them" perspective on the world. 1400 years ago in the ME, this mindset was crucial to survival. You only survived if your tribe was strong and cohesive. Violence was the norm.

These same violent messages are still being learned by Muslims from an early age today.

 

[muhammad_isa]

These same violent messages are still being learned by Muslims from an early age today.

I refer to my previous post..

...

 

[Augustus]

Many Muslims (most?), are brought up from an early age with the Quran being recited over and over again. The words in the book get "burned in" to young minds. The Quran makes it very clear that "Muslims are the best people", better than all the other people. This establishes a strong, tribal mindset, an "us vs. them" perspective on the world. 1400 years ago in the ME, this mindset was crucial to survival. You only survived if your tribe was strong and cohesive. Violence was the norm.

These same violent messages are still being learned by Muslims from an early age today.

In the context of contemporary terrorist violence specifically (rather than any other perceived negatives), studies have shown that a pious upbringing and detailed knowledge of Islamic theology is actually negatively correlated with likelihood of being involved with a terrorist group. In the West, terrorists are more likely to be converts and 'lapsed' Muslims infused with a 'born again' religiosity.

For example, the Madrid bombings were carried out by criminals and drug dealers. Someone involved in the Paris bombing was a drug dealing bar manager. etc.

The view you are presenting seems logical superficially, but doesn't actually appear to match up with the evidence.

 

[icehorse]

Hi Augustus,

You brought terrorism into the discussion, not where I was headed.

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

In the context of contemporary terrorist violence specifically (rather than any other perceived negatives), studies have shown that a pious upbringing and detailed knowledge of Islamic theology is actually negatively correlated with likelihood of being involved with a terrorist group. In the West, terrorists are more likely to be converts and 'lapsed' Muslims infused with a 'born again' religiosity.

For example, the Madrid bombings were carried out by criminals and drug dealers. Someone involved in the Paris bombing was a drug dealing bar manager. etc.

The view you are presenting seems logical superficially, but doesn't actually appear to match up with the evidence.

They were also all self-confessed Muslims. Why is the fact that they're drug dealers worth mentioning when it wasn't a motive for their crimes but their religious beliefs (the primary/sole motivation) were, but are strangely deemed to not be a factor?

 

[Augustus]

They were also all self-confessed Muslims. By your logic they weren't actually drug-dealers because bombing trains isn't what a 'true drug-dealer' does.

That's not what I said or implied. The point was in a context which wasn't a 'no true Muslim' one.

It is a very common assertion that 'indoctrination' of children with traditional Islam breeds terrorism, yet most Western terrorists did not have a strict religious upbringing and weren't particularly religious. This is problematic: why aren't the 'most indoctrinated' the most violent?

I think it is a mistake to look specifically at Islamic terrorism to understand the problem, you must also look at terrorism and millenarian ideologies in general. You can learn more from books like The pursuit of the millennium - Norman Cohn, The Bullet's song - William Pfaff or The Baader-Meinhof complex - Stefan Aust than you can from looking at the Quran.

Whether it is IS or medieval Christianity (Cohn), 20th C secular utopianism (Pfaff) or 60s leftist urban guerrillas (Aust) the similarities are remarkable.

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

That's not what I said or implied. The point was in a context which wasn't a 'no true Muslim' one.

It is a very common assertion that 'indoctrination' of children with traditional Islam breeds terrorism, yet most Western terrorists did not have a strict religious upbringing and weren't particularly religious. This is problematic: why aren't the 'most indoctrinated' the most violent?

I think it is a mistake to look specifically at Islamic terrorism to understand the problem, you must also look at terrorism and millenarian ideologies in general. You can learn more from books like The pursuit of the millennium - Norman Cohn, The Bullet's song - William Pfaff or The Baader-Meinhof complex - Stefan Aust than you can from looking at the Quran.

Whether it is IS or medieval Christianity (Cohn), 20th C secular utopianism (Pfaff) or 60s leftist urban guerrillas (Aust) the similarities are remarkable.

Fair enough. My apologies for misrepresenting your position.

 

[icehorse]

Terrorism is a red-herring in this discussion.

 

[paarsurrey]

One should ignore no parts of Quran, every word is important.
Regards

 

[psychoslice]

When we read anything no matter what, we should let that absorb through our inner Being, if it doesn't connect with our inner being then we should discard that, that is the only true way of understanding, not through some ridiculers hearsay, if its not from you then drop it, its not worth a cent.

 

[psychoslice]

One should ignore no parts of Quran, every word is important.
Regards

That is ridiculers.

 

[paarsurrey]

When we read anything no matter what, we should let that absorb through our inner Being, if it doesn't connect with our inner being then we should discard that, that is the only true way of understanding, not through some ridiculers hearsay, if its not from you then drop it, its not worth a cent.

[51:22] And also in your own selves. Will you not then see?
http://www.alislam.org/quran/search2/showChapter.php?ch=51&verse=21

G-d is inside as well as outside of us, no harm in matching them. It will match, if it is truthful.
Regards

 

[psychoslice]

[51:22] And also in your own selves. Will you not then see?
http://www.alislam.org/quran/search2/showChapter.php?ch=51&verse=21

G-d is inside as well as outside of us, no harm in matching them. It will match, if it is truthful.
Regards

Whatever, as long as you are happy.

 

[paarsurrey]

paarsurrey said: ↑
One should ignore no parts of Quran, every word is important.
Regards

That is ridiculers.

Why? Please
Regards

 

[psychoslice]

paarsurrey said: ↑
One should ignore no parts of Quran, every word is important.
Regards


Why? Please
Regards

The Quran was writtern by a man, he wrtote what he thought was right, he wrote how he would see God and what his God would think. He was mere man, and all men make mistakes, you have made an idol out of your Quran just as most religion have, and because of this you will never see the truth, for you are blind to it.