Are Muslims disobeying the Qur'an by participating in this forum?

[stevecanuck]

Fine. You are confident that you know better.
I'll stick with the Qur'an, thanks.

The Qur'an says it's permitted to have sex with female captives. Do you see that as rape? If not, why not?

Btw, how does an army that's only fighting defensively acquire female captives in the first place?

 

[Kooky]

The interpretation originates with the text. Some texts require no interpretation. This really isn't that difficult a concept to grasp.

Interpretation can only happen as an interplay between text and reader. The reader puts something into the text they are interpreting; the ideas in a text are created by the act of reading and understanding.

 

[muhammad_isa]

The Qur'an says it's permitted to have sex with female captives. Do you see that as rape? If not, why not?

It doesn't apply to me.
In fact, I don't know anybody it DOES apply to.

Most people in the west think it's alright to have marital relations outside of marriage.
As long as they are not "underage", of course.

It is not what I or you might think. It is what G-d thinks.
..and He knows why.
There isn't much point in going into detail what I think.
I don't have to justify my belief. I prefer to talk to less aggressive people.

 

[Kooky]

It doesn't take much "figuring out". There are passages that promote intolerance and dehumanisation against certain groups on the basis of their beliefs, sexuality, etc. That is pretty much the definition of bigotry.

That contradicts your earlier claims that you do not know what causes bigotry and violence in people.
So let us openly call out the conclusion you've come to: The Quran causes people to be bigoted and violent.

So does the Quran make people more bigoted and violent than other writings?
Are Muslims provably more bigoted and violent than Christians, Buddhists, Hindus, atheists, agnostics etc.?

 

[Kooky]

Of all the disingenuous responses I've read on this site

You know, I've been wondering. When you falsely accused me of responding with "ad homs", did you believe that the rules of debate only apply to other people, and that you have a blank cheque to attack and insult people any way you like?

 

[Kooky]

No idea what you are trying to say.

I am trying to say that a text does not speak. It has no agency of its own. It cannot tell people what to do.

Textual meaning originates from the act of reading. Following originates from the act of leading.
Both are intrinsically tied to the existence of someone who commits those acts.

Islam originates from institutions and communities made up of people.
Even the Quran itself - like all religious texts - postdates such a community.

 

[Kooky]

The Qur'an says it's permitted to have sex with female captives. Do you see that as rape? If not, why not?

Interestingly, countless armies all across the globe managed to come to the same conclusion without reading a single word from the Quran. I suppose that only speaks to the sinister power of Islam!

 

[KWED]

If you want to be seduced by "a devil", then there is nothing I can say.

I have no idea what you are talking about now.

You are an open adversary. I can make the occasional comment, but argument is futile.

It's called "debate". It's what this forum is designed for. We take a position, present arguments and try to refute those of others. To claim argument is futile in this context is to completely misunderstand what is going on.

After all, you misrepresent the subject of "divine ordinance", insisting that it cannot include free-will. In fact, you misrepresent practically all that I believe ..
..and yet you say you are knowledgable.

I don't "misrepresent" anything. I present an argument. You just don't agree - although you don't seem to be able to explain why in rational or non-contradictory terms.

Knowledge can be used with different intentions.
satan wants to rob me of my faith and leave me bare.
What have you got to offer but "Qurans no good"?
That's all I see from you.

Yikes!

 

[KWED]

Interpretation can only happen as an interplay between text and reader. The reader puts something into the text they are interpreting; the ideas in a text are created by the act of reading and understanding.

No. They can't "put something into the text". They can merely infer meaning from what is already in the text.
Some texts are so vague as to allow a variety of inferred meanings. Some are specific and unambiguous.

 

[stevecanuck]

It doesn't apply to me.
In fact, I don't know anybody it DOES apply to.

Nope. You're not getting off that easily. Verse 4:24 starts, "Yusuf Ali: Also (prohibited are) women already married, except those whom your right hands possess".

That means what it says, and ISIS fighters certainly had no trouble complying with it. These mujahadeen bought and sold Yazidi women and girls as sex slaves. They were only doing what the Qur'an told them they could do, and what Mohamed and the first Muslims did. The fact that YOU personally don't know anyone who does that is 100% irrelevant.

 

[stevecanuck]

Interpretation can only happen as an interplay between text and reader. The reader puts something into the text they are interpreting; the ideas in a text are created by the act of reading and understanding.

Again, wrong. Ideas are expressed by the act of writing a text. Those ideas are understood by reading said text.

You are either being disingenuous, or you have no concept of linearity.

 

[KWED]

It doesn't apply to me.
In fact, I don't know anybody it DOES apply to.

What do you mean "it doesn't apply to me"?
Either it is allowed by Allah and approved by Muhammad, or it isn't. (Hint: it is).
Do you think it is morally acceptable (in principle) to keep slaves and have sex with the female ones? It seems like a pretty straightforward question that any civilised person would have no trouble answering with a hard "no". Why are you so reluctant?

Most people in the west think it's alright to have marital relations outside of marriage.

So you are comparing consensual adult sex with using female captives for sex.
Nice!

As long as they are not "underage", of course.

Now, that really is a strange can of worms to be opening, given that you believe it is morally acceptable to have sex with a girl if she has reached puberty - which can be as young as 9 or 10.

It is not what I or you might think. It is what G-d thinks.
..and He knows why.

Yet again, the fallback to the Nuremberg Defence.
"What do you mean it's immoral to have sex with a 10 year old slave girl? Allah says it's ok!"

There isn't much point in going into detail what I think.
I don't have to justify my belief. I prefer to talk to less aggressive people.

I can imagine you prefer people who give such beliefs a free pass. May I suggest @Kooky ? While you are chatting, you can tell him exactly where you get all your ideas and beliefs from.

 

[stevecanuck]

I am trying to say that a text does not speak. It has no agency of its own. It cannot tell people what to do.

Textual meaning originates from the act of reading. Following originates from the act of leading.
Both are intrinsically tied to the existence of someone who commits those acts.

Islam originates from institutions and communities made up of people.
Even the Quran itself - like all religious texts - postdates such a community.

I assume you don't believe in torture. Can you not hear logic begging you to stop?

 

[stevecanuck]

Interestingly, countless armies all across the globe managed to come to the same conclusion without reading a single word from the Quran. I suppose that only speaks to the sinister power of Islam!

^^^ Disingenuous whataboutism on steroids ^^^.

I think I'll let you rattle on by yourself. If you ever respond without one of these stupid deflections, I'll answer. But not until then. This is where you say, "I accept your surrender".

 

[KWED]

That contradicts your earlier claims that you do not know what causes bigotry and violence in people.

When did I claim that? I suspect you probably misunderstood what I said. Wouldn't be the first time.

So let us openly call out the conclusion you've come to: The Quran causes people to be bigoted and violent.

It can do, yes.
Are you seriously claiming that it cannot and never has?

So does the Quran make people more bigoted and violent than other writings?

That is a subjective issue.

Are Muslims provably more bigoted and violent than Christians, Buddhists, Hindus, atheists, agnostics etc.?

Silly boy. How do you empirically quantify bigotry?
Most societies and cultures have their share of bigots. Whether individual cases are caused by religious texts or other means would require further work.

Look, I understand that you are desperate to label me as a bigot because I criticise Islam for the violence, intolerance, oppression, etc, contained in its holy scriptures, but as was pointed out at the beginning, it is an old and tired tactic that no one takes seriously except apologists who have run out of arguments and hand-waving virtue-signallers.
The fact that you can't point to anything I've said that remotely resembles "bigotry" just demonstrates this further.
It's been fun though.

 

[KWED]

I am trying to say that a text does not speak. It has no agency of its own. It cannot tell people what to do.

You seem to misunderstand the nature of some texts. If a religionist genuinely believes that a text is the infallible, literal, revealed word of god then yes, that text does "speak to them", it does "tell them what to do". Much of it is written as commands that the religionist believes are directed at them personally.
It's probably a good idea to have a basic grasp of the subject matter before attempting to sound authoritative on it.

Islam originates from institutions and communities made up of people.
Even the Quran itself - like all religious texts - postdates such a community.

You are talking about historical Islam, not theological Islam. Muslims often reject the very concept of historical Islam. One just said so to me in a post this evening. Perhaps you should read the Quran and talk to some actual, practicing conservative Muslims before trying to tell them what they believe. Just a thought?

 

[KWED]

Interestingly, countless armies all across the globe managed to come to the same conclusion without reading a single word from the Quran. I suppose that only speaks to the sinister power of Islam!

The difference is that it is now universally considered to be rape by international law. Yet some Muslims still defend the concept purely because it is permitted by Allah in the original ideological texts.

Also noted that you declined to confirm your condemnation of the practice. Of course, you don't have to. It's not like anyone might infer anything from refusing to condemn the principle of using female captives for sex.

 

[stevecanuck]

you misrepresent practically all that I believe ..
..and yet you say you are knowledgable.

No, he makes claims about what the Qur'an says, and then he provides the verses that support his claims.

Linearity wins every debate.

 

[stevecanuck]

However, Muhammad conquered half of Arabia, fighting many battles beyond the borders of the Medina area.
So, how did he do it if he only ever fought in "self-defence"?

Fast-forward 100 years and ask the same question. Only this time, insert 'France' instead of 'Arabia'.

 

[stevecanuck]

No idea what you are trying to say.

He seems to be trying to sneak in a literal interpretation of the word 'speak'. Books don't talk you know....