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

[stevecanuck]

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.

You didn't explain why. You said, "Because I do not believe that the root cause of bigotry in societies is religion".

That's just a stand-alone claim minus any explanation.

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?

I'll let Sayyid Abul Ala Maududi splain it to you:

In his tafsir of surah 9, Sayyid Abul Ala Maududi (https://www.englishtafsir.com/Quran/9/index.html), summarizes "the problems that were confronting the [Islamic] Community at that time" thus:

- to make the whole of Arabia a perfect Dar-ul-Islam [abode of Islam],
- to extend the influence of Islam to the adjoining countries,
- to crush the mischief of the hypocrites, and
- to prepare the Muslims for Jihad against the non- Muslim world.

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?

Strawgiant. How many times do you need to be told I'm taking about Islam rather than Muslims per se?

 

[stevecanuck]

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.

And ad homs aren't arguments. You don't seem to understand that.

 

[stevecanuck]

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.

I didn't miss it. It's right there. What I did do was correct you by showing you the actual translation.

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.

Why do you bother telling a lie that is so easily exposed? Here's the opening of the OP.

Verse 4:140 of the Qur'an states:

Yusuf Ali: Already has He sent you Word in the Book, that when ye hear the signs of Allah held in defiance and ridicule, ye are not to sit with them unless they turn to a different theme: if ye did, ye would be like them. For Allah will collect the hypocrites and those who defy faith - all in Hell.

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.

Please show where I said, "Insult and ridicule". Thank you in advance.

 

[firedragon]

I didn't miss it. It's right there. What I did do was correct you by showing you the actual translation.

No you missed it and focused on one cherry picked word.

Verse 4:140 of the Qur'an states:

Yusuf Ali: Already has He sent you Word in the Book, that when ye hear the signs of Allah held in defiance and ridicule, ye are not to sit with them unless they turn to a different theme: if ye did, ye would be like them. For Allah will collect the hypocrites and those who defy faith - all in Hell.

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.

Please show where I said, "Insult and ridicule". Thank you in advance.

You didnt say "Insult and ridicule". You gave a verse. I gave you a word and what it means. "Insult, mock, ridicule".

In your OP you are saying that Muslims should abide by this verse with people like you. Which means you are "Insulting, mocking or ridiculing" and Muslims should basically not "sit with you".

Thats the whole point of your OP.

 

[stevecanuck]

No you missed it and focused on one cherry picked word.



You didnt say "Insult and ridicule". You gave a verse. I gave you a word and what it means. "Insult, mock, ridicule".

In your OP you are saying that Muslims should abide by this verse with people like you. Which means you are "Insulting, mocking or ridiculing" and Muslims should basically not "sit with you".

Thats the whole point of your OP.

Nope. You keep pretending that the conjugation of KFR isn't there. No matter how many times I show you, you just dust off your favorite blanket-denial vocabulary. "Cherry pick", "cut and paste". But you go right ahead. This time I'll just leave you to it. Bye.

 

[firedragon]

Nope. You keep pretending that the conjugation of KFR isn't there.

I am not pretending the Kafir word is there. I am also not pretending you dont even know the meaning of that word.

I am only projecting to you that you missed the word Hazaa which is right there after the word Kafara.

So the problem lies in you cherry picking a verse, then cherry picking within that verse ignoring everything else.

Hope you can try and understand that flaw.

 

[stevecanuck]

From the OP - "deny AND ridicule". End of conversation.

We can add one more who disobeys the verse. Allah will not be happy.

 

[firedragon]

From the OP - "deny AND ridicule". End of conversation.

We can add one more who disobeys the verse. Allah will not be happy.

Thats cute.

But see, in the same verse you cut and pasted, you can see "ridicule" very clearly. Even in the English translation.

I just gave the arabic word therein because you cut and pasted an arabic word which is actually an action, not really the word.

So as I said already, you in your OP said that Muslims should not engage with people like you. And the verse you quoted speaks of ridicule.

That means you are just here to ridicule, and Muslims should not engage with you because that's what you do.

So what you are basically saying in your OP is that Muslims as per the Quran should not engage with those who reject and ridicule, and that's what you do so by default, Muslims should not engage with you since you are here to ridicule.

 

[Kooky]

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?

Are you an alternate account of @stevecanuck ?
If not, then why are you responding to a post that was specifically responding to one of his arguments?

If you're so eager for a discussion, then why don't you start by engaging with posts I made in response to your arguments instead?

 

[Kooky]

And ad homs aren't arguments. You don't seem to understand that.

Would you please point out whereI have attacked your person or your character, rather than your argument?

 

[Kooky]

Strawgiant. How many times do you need to be told I'm taking about Islam rather than Muslims per se?

If the Quran doesn't make anybody more bigoted than they already are, then that proves my point re: religion not being the root of bigotry. I'm glad that we're in agreement here at last.

 

[Left Coast]

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.

The Islam of the 7th century isn't any more "real" than the Islam of the 21st century. Religions change with time. If we care about human rights, liberal values and so on, we should be happy that religions have grown to align more with those values.

 

[stevecanuck]

Are you an alternate account of @stevecanuck ?
If not, then why are you responding to a post that was specifically responding to one of his arguments?

If you're so eager for a discussion, then why don't you start by engaging with posts I made in response to your arguments instead?

Anyone can respond to any post they want to. Take what I'm doing now for example. Do you really think an invitation is needed?

 

[stevecanuck]

Would you please point out whereI have attacked your person or your character, rather than your argument?

Surely you jest.

"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".

Dismissing my criticisms as bigotry rather than addressing the point made is the very definition of an ad hom.

 

[stevecanuck]

If the Quran doesn't make anybody more bigoted than they already are, then that proves my point re: religion not being the root of bigotry. I'm glad that we're in agreement here at last.

That's your assessment, and yours alone. We are in agreement about nothing.

 

[stevecanuck]

The Islam of the 7th century isn't any more "real" than the Islam of the 21st century. Religions change with time. If we care about human rights, liberal values and so on, we should be happy that religions have grown to align more with those values.

Or, you could actually address the point I made. That would make a welcomed change on this forum.

 

[Left Coast]

Or, you could actually address the point I made. That would make a welcomed change on this forum.

Well I did, but you're welcome to clarify if you think I missed your point.

 

[KWED]

Yes .. you confirm your intention of promoting hate.
It is you who quote verses of scripture,

You seem confused. I am merely quoting the Quran. If you consider quoting the Quran to be "spreading hate", then the problem is with the Quran, not me.

that are clearly those that apply to war...or are you suggesting that ordinary peaceful Muslims should be attacking all non-Muslims according to their religion?

Verse 60:4 makes no mention of war. It simply says that "Enmity and hatred towards people until they accept Islam" is a good example to follow.

 

[KWED]

You mean, something like Christian fundamentalism in the US, which instead of being condemned and banned, is actually a strongly influential player in state politics there?

I was thinking of the UK, but I'd be interested to see just how violently intolerant the manifestos of these political parties you refer to are.

 

[KWED]

Aren't Atheism people "ignorant", as Atheism requires no knowledge, please? Right?

You seem somewhat confused here. Atheism is a single issue position on accepting the existence of gods, nothing more (often based on evidence and rational argument)..
There are atheists who are very highly qualified and extremely knowledgeable in many different fields.
Ironically, religious belief requires no knowledge, merely the uncritical acceptance of claims.