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

[Kooky]

Let's see if I have this right. The Qur'an calls unbelievers names like donkeys, dogs with their tongues lolling, lost cattle, the worst of Allah's beasts, unjust, liars, and evil-doers literally hundreds of times, but that's not a root cause of bigotry.

Is there a reason you cut off the rest of my post and only responded to a half-sentence?

And no, of course a single text is not the singular root cause of all bigotry to be found within a culture.
Where did you get that idea from?

I'm willing to bet that when you started this knee-jerk defense of Islam you actually had no idea that the Qur'an contained such hatred and disdain. And now you're just digging your heels in rather than admit to Islam's innate hatred of 'al kafareen'.

Nope, but nice try.

Instead of assuming things that are not true, claiming knowledge you do not have, putting words into my mouth I never said and ascribing positions to me I never defended, you could just ask me how much I've read of the Quran and what I think of it.

But it doesn't appear like you even want to know. Are you interested in a good faith engagement at all, or did you simply call me over into this thread so you could ascribe fictitious beliefs to me to justify your dislike?

 

[Kooky]

And yet, discussion with apologists often show that they have less knowledge and understanding of holy texts than sceptics (for example, millions of Muslims have never read the Quran).
The idea that because someone is a Muslim/Christian/Hindu/whatever, they necessarily have a more rounded, objective, considered understanding of their own scripture than a sceptic is obvious nonsense.

My argument concerns religious practice, not religious texts. Nothing you say in this post even touches on that, let alone refutes what I argued.

The ability to enforce a particular reading lies in religious institutions and the institutional power they wield, and with the believers who accept certain readings and reject others; therefore is almost entirely predicated on their prejudices and their bigotry. The text by itself has little influence on what believers actually say or do - as you yourself just argued, a lot of believers aren't even particularly familiar with the sacred texts to begin with!

So argueing entirely from a sacred text conveys by its very nature a limited understanding of how a given religion is actually believed and actually practiced in factual, social reality.

 

[Kooky]

Now, I understand that many Muslims eschew such an interpretation because of the obvious implications, but it is difficult to reconcile this with the claim that the Quran is god's final, infallible, immutable guide for all people and all times, and Muhammad was the ultimate role model and moral exemplar for all Muslims to aspire to.

It's almost as if the practiced cultural behaviors of human beings are not always consistent with their publically professed beliefs. In fact, it seems strangely as if these beliefs are not even consistent with one another.

Would such a revelation shock and confuse you?

 

[stevecanuck]

Is there a reason you cut off the rest of my post and only responded to a half-sentence?

Brevity. The part I didn't quote doesn't change the part that I did post.

And no, of course a single text is not the singular root cause of all bigotry to be found within a culture.
Where did you get that idea from?

A single text, the Qur'an, is the root cause of absolutely everything Islamic. It exists for the sole purpose of creating and defining Islam.

Instead of assuming things that are not true, claiming knowledge you do not have, putting words into my mouth I never said and ascribing positions to me I never defended, you could just ask me how much I've read of the Quran and what I think of it.

I did nothing of the sort. I started that sentence with, "I'm willing to bet". I claimed, put, and ascribed nothing. I openly gave my best guess and labeled it as a guess.

But it doesn't appear like you even want to know. Are you interested in a good faith engagement at all, or did you simply call me over into this thread so you could ascribe fictitious beliefs to me to justify your dislike?

Engage away. I'm all ears.

 

[KWED]

I can see why they would be predisposed towards a less than tolerant attitude towards a society that oppresses them.

Calling an oppressed minority "intolerant"? Nice doublethink.

With that said, I would argue that the anti-Muslim discourse that dominates anglophone forums experiences very little influence or input from people who have actual real life experience with Islam as a lived religion.

One could never have even seen a Muslim and still legitimately criticise the contents of the Quran and sunnah. In fact, it would make such criticism more objective.
Also, by your logic, a Syrian Yazidi's appraisal of Islam is more accurate and reasonable than the western person who has never met a Muslim and only read Islamic scripture.

You need to try and understand the difference between an ideology and the individuals who live under it.

 

[Kooky]

Brevity. The part I didn't quote doesn't change the part that I did post.

It did, because you completely failed to pick up on my argument that the Quran is not special in its bigotry compared to other ancient religious texts and practices.

A single text, the Qur'an, is the root cause of absolutely everything Islamic. It exists for the sole purpose of creating and defining Islam.

What do you mean by that? What exactly did the Quran cause, in your opinion?

I did nothing of the sort. I started that sentence with, "I'm willing to bet". I claimed, put, and ascribed nothing. I openly gave my best guess and labeled it as a guess.

Okay. My guess is that you took it personally when I called out anti-Muslim bigotry, and are now trying your damndest to ascribe the worst possible beliefs to me out of anger or spite, while avoiding an honest engagement with my actual, publically professed beliefs.

Did I guess correctly?

Engage away. I'm all ears.

Okay. Then I suggest you read Post #142 earnestly and start engaging with the ideas I expressed there.

 

[Kooky]

Calling an oppressed minority "intolerant"? Nice doublethink.

Your consistent failure at reading in context is really starting to irritate me.
I was talking specifically about ex-Muslims who were professing strong hostility towards Islam.

One could never have even seen a Muslim and still legitimately criticise the contents of the Quran and sunnah. In fact, it would make such criticism more objective.

Do you believe that you are criticizing the Quran, or that you are criticizing the entirety of Islam as a lived, practiced religion in all its aspects? Do you believe that there is a difference between the two?

Also, by your logic, a Syrian Yazidi's appraisal of Islam is more accurate and reasonable than the western person who has never met a Muslim and only read Islamic scripture.

Perhaps it is. Have you ever entertained that possibility?

Why do you believe that a sola scriptura approach to religious criticism is uniquely fruitful and productive in engaging with a religion and its impact on wider society?

 

[firedragon]

It seems quite clear to me that when a Muslim engages in debate with the likes of me, that he/she is openly defying Allah's command to not do so.

Are you saying you insult and ridicule like the verse says?

 

[firedragon]

A single text, the Qur'an, is the root cause of absolutely everything Islamic. It exists for the sole purpose of creating and defining Islam.

Im curious. You are talking about causes. What is causing your constant hate mongering and cut and paste scholarship?

 

[firedragon]

The Qur'an calls unbelievers names like donkeys, dogs with their tongues lolling, lost cattle, the worst of Allah's beasts, unjust, liars, and evil-doers literally hundreds of times, but that's not a root cause of bigotry.

Tell e whats the word association used in which verse where an "unbeliever" by default is called "Liars and evildoers"? Do you understand the question?

A verse that says "All unbelievers are liars and evildoers because they are unbelievers".

Thanks in advance.

 

[Left Coast]

Indeed. It should be judged on the entirety of scripture. Both the Quran and sunnah contain many passages that promote or condone a whole litany of violent, intolerant, oppressive, harmful behaviour.

As does the Bible, of course. As well as many other texts written by humans, because humans are frequently violent, intolerant, oppressive, and harmful to others, for all kinds of reasons.

The issue is that it does actually contain all those passages that justify violent intolerance and oppression, so it is irrelevant if there are other passages that are not violently intolerant. A murderer is a murderer, even if they are a charity volunteer when they are not killing people.

You don't get to count only the misses and ignore the hits. You just said this above - Islam should be judged on the entirety of scripture. An objective assessment of a group of people takes both the good and bad into account. And the reality is that a) Islam motivates some people to do awful things, b) Islam motivates other people to do lovely things, and c) all Muslims don't agree with each other.

Same rules apply to all ideologies. Judge them by the content of their scriptures, not by the behaviour of individual followers.

I disagree, I think both are relevant. An ideology can't rationally just be judged by what its leaders write on paper or say in abstract. One needs to see how those ideas and principles are actually applied and lived out in the lives of its adherents.

Furthermore, I note that there is a tendency by some atheists to apply special scorn to Islam that they don't apply elsewhere.

 

[Left Coast]

Who decides which interpretation of a holy text is the correct one?

Remove the word "holy" and ask the same question back to yourself.

 

[stevecanuck]

It did, because you completely failed to pick up on my argument that the Quran is not special in its bigotry compared to other ancient religious texts and practices.

I tend to ignore whataboutism. If you want to compare the Qur'an to other scripture you should start a thread.

What do you mean by that? What exactly did the Quran cause, in your opinion?

The Qur'an created a warrior religion called Islam. It is the root of all wars and oppression perpetrate in its name.

Okay. My guess is that you took it personally when I called out anti-Muslim bigotry, and are now trying your damndest to ascribe the worst possible beliefs to me out of anger or spite, while avoiding an honest engagement with my actual, publically professed beliefs.

Did I guess correctly?

See the underlined bit? The fact that you call fact-based criticism of Islam, not Muslims per se, "anti-Muslim bigotry" shows me you're not at all interested in a proper discussion.

Okay. Then I suggest you read Post #142 earnestly and start engaging with the ideas I expressed there.

From post 142 - "And no, of course a single text is not the singular root cause of all bigotry to be found within a culture.
Where did you get that idea from?".

Which culture? Islam now has adherents from every culture/race/region in the world. In the end, their bond is the Qur'an. The infidel-hating Qur'an. The rest of us are "the worst of Allah's beasts". Have you even stopped to considered that this includes you?

More of post 142 - "Instead of assuming things that are not true, claiming knowledge you do not have, putting words into my mouth I never said and ascribing positions to me I never defended, you could just ask me how much I've read of the Quran and what I think of it".

If you've read the Qur'an and have come to a different conclusion, it would have helped it you had stated some specifics in support of your position. Please do so next time.

Last of post 142 - oops. Ad hom. I will ignore it.

 

[stevecanuck]

Are you saying you insult and ridicule like the verse says?

That's not quite what the verse says. It says "rejected (yuk'faru) and ridiculed". I fully reject the claim that there is a god of any kind that communicated with Mohamed, and therefore a Muslim who engages me based on that rejection is clearly disobeying 4:140.

 

[stevecanuck]

Im curious. You are talking about causes. What is causing your constant hate mongering and cut and paste scholarship?

Ad hom. Bye.

 

[Kooky]

I tend to ignore whataboutism.

You asked me why I am not outraged over Quranic bigotry, and I explained why.

If you don't like to hear an honest answer, then don't ask me questions.

The Qur'an created a warrior religion called Islam. It is the root of all wars and oppression perpetrate in its name.

Which wars were actually perpetrated specifically in the name of the Quran, rather than for the purposes of enrichment of the ruling class, the glorification of a ruling dynasty, the acquisition of property and slaves, conquest, or territorial defense?

Which culture?

That's the question, isn't it? Can you actually demonstrate that European Muslims are significantly more bigoted, dangerous, violent, or sexist than European Christians or European atheists?

If you cannot, then you likewise can't really argue that the Quran provably makes people more bigoted, more violent, more dangerous etc. can you.

If you've read the Qur'an and have come to a different conclusion, it would have helped it you had stated some specifics in support of your position. Please do so next time.

I already have. I consider deep exegesis of a text most believers have only loosely based their behavior on to be quite a waste of time for myself. Personally, I am more interest in factual behavior in the real world. Your mileage may vary, of course.

See the underlined bit? The fact that you call fact-based criticism of Islam, not Muslims per se, "anti-Muslim bigotry" shows me you're not at all interested in a proper discussion.

Bigotry isn't facts based, and neither is it a form of criticism.
If you can't distinguish between the two, then that's your problem, not mine.

 

[firedragon]

That's not quite what the verse says. It says "rejected (yuk'faru) and ridiculed". I fully reject the claim that there is a god of any kind that communicated with Mohamed, and therefore a Muslim who engages me based on that rejection is clearly disobeying 4:140.

While cutting and pasting arabic transliterations as if you understand any of them, how come you missed the next word mate? Hazaa? It means to mock, ridicule, insult.

How come you cherry picked from a cherry picked verse??

You said it right mate. This is what you do. Insult and ridicule. You said it in the OP.

 

[firedragon]

Ad hom. Bye.

Bye bye.

 

[KWED]

Okay, at this point, you've been extensively argueing that Muslim religion is only about holy war, force-conversion of unbelievers, and possibly conquest and oppression.

Straw man.
That is part of Islam, but not all or only Islam.
Serial killers don't murder people all the time. Does that mean they are therefore not serial killers?

 

[stevecanuck]

..... An ideology can't rationally just be judged by what its leaders write on paper or say in abstract. One needs to see how those ideas and principles are actually applied and lived out in the lives of its adherents.

Please allow me to jump in and comment on this line from your post. I think the best way to judge a new religion is to look at the actions of the first adherents. That is when the message is the most fresh and the least diluted/misunderstood.

Islam is a great example because it was created over a short period, and by only one person in a very restricted and isolated setting. In the early 600's every Muslim in the world lived in one place, spoke one language, and actually lived with the man who was creating Islam on the fly (my opinion of course - I don't believe in divine revelations).

What did they do with all this new-found "knowledge" and commands from Allah? They set out to try to conquer the known world. Real Islam is the Islam of 7th century Saudi Arabia. Now look at ISIS and AQ, etc., and tell me you don't see the parallel.