Challenge: Should the Koran be taken literally or NOT?

[Aamer]

If you have take the time to read the Quran you would understand this
Wrong: Muslim scholars translated bad. IS only kills because Muslim scholars have been teaching violence [by misinterpretation]. That is the truth, that is the problem. Natural "non-muslims" read Koran to understand and protect themselves. If you provide faulty translations, please don't blame us. Your translation, your responsibility. Read Koran verse 5:48. It very clearly states "God willed many nations. He tests you. Do good and return to God, all together. And He will tell you whereon you were at variance". So not even needed to be a Muslim. "Do good" is the key. So "Do good translation". Then I will "Do good reading". If you know "wrong interpretation/translation causes IS, don't you want to cure the cause?".

I love verse 5:48 [I wish the Bible had such a good verse, no need to become Christian to be saved]

IMHO

Yes most of the English translations of Quran are biased and meant to mislead. This is mostly the fault of the pig faced Saudi Government which funds the printing of over 60% of Islamic literature that goes out to the world today. They have a Wahhabi agenda that I think is more concerned with politics than truth. This is a BIG problem for "Islam."

But unfortunately, Christians face a similar problem. Just like Islam has been hijacked by Luciferian Saudis... Christianity has been hijacked by Luciferian Romans. They have you believing that the cross represents Christ. Just like so many brainless Muslims wear the crescent moon and star on their necks... So many Christians wear the cross on their necks.

What if I were to tell you that both symbols represent Lucifer?

Does the Quran mention a moon and star logo?

Does the Bible mention a cross? (Wait for it...)

So many Muslims have a pagan Luciferian idol in their homes of the Kaaba (black cube of Saturn)

Does the Quran mention this black cube? Nope!

Both Muslims and Christians ignore study of their scriptures and blindly follow popular belief.

There is no mention of a cross in the Bible.

What is WRONGLY translated as cross in the widely accepted KJV translation of the bible is the Greek word "Stauros"

Stauros means STAKE not CROSS.

The Romans never used crosses to kill insurgents. They used stakes.

The Kaaba that Muslims bow down to 5 times a day is actually the Black Cube of Saturn. It represents Saturn, the dark star, Lucifer.

The Cross is the Black Cube of Saturn folded out. It has nothing to do with Jesus (his name was Yehoshua btw... NOT Jesus)

The "Star of David" is the 3D version of the. Same cube. David would probably spit on that flag!

Yet all 3 religions have these Luciferian symbols plastered all over all their houses of worship throughout the world.

Duped by Lucifer. Unknowingly sending him the energy he feeds off of.

Wake up Monotheists. Your birth religion was full of lies.

Stick to your scriptures and give up your priests, imams, pastors and rabbis.

Let go of the attachments you hold to Luciferian symbolism.

Don't believe me? Do a little bit of research.

The truth is obvious if you're brave enough to seek it.

Purify your heart. Let go of attachments and seek truth, even if the truth is uncomfortable.

Peace and Blessings of the Almighty to all that deserve them.

Aamer.

 

[stvdv]

Yes most of the English translations of Quran are biased and meant to mislead.

Thank you for this one. I would never have thought about that they were "meant to mislead". But how you explain it now it does all make sense. Thank you for being so honest about that, giving your view.

I agree with your view on Christianity. They made same mistake, and still do. Power, money and control still run religion. And even if someone blames Islam I always say "Christianity was first, so if anything is wrong with Islam, I guess you better point first at Christianity". Crusaders were not too nice Christians

thanks also for your quotes "to think about".

The Quranic Arabic Corpus - Translation
Sahih International

What do you think of Sahih International. Can I trust that one [as given on this website?]
If not, which english translation [on the web] would you suggest as being truthworthy?

 

[Aamer]

No my dear.
It's not "El 3Arab" it's "El A3rab"

There was the arabs who lived in cities : Mecca , Medina and those who lived outside "the bedouins".
It was about those ones in particular.



In many threads some people "quoted" verses of the Quran (in fact it was more a copy/past from anti-islam sites) and concluded/made interpretation around those isolated verses.

Even if a word is not translated as it should be, you can understand (most of time) when reading the whole Book that it's about a particular context.

In fact you just did the same while proposing this verse about not being friends.
If you have take the time to read the Quran you would understand this.

ARABS are prone to hypocrisy. Not BEDOUINS. Nowhere does it say Bedouins. This is just wishful imagination. Now I'm not saying ALL Arabs are hypocrites. Like everyone else, they have free will to choose their own paths. But Arabs are prone to hypocrisy. This is not my opinion. This is what the Almighty says in the Quran.

And btw.. There was no such city as Mecca at the time of Quranic revelation. Have you studied ancient trade maps or are you just relying on Abbassid lies (Hadith)? Hadith are NOT historically accepted literature

Aamer.

 

[Aamer]

Thank you for this one. I would never have thought about that they were "meant to mislead". But how you explain it now it does all make sense. Thank you for being so honest about that, giving your view.

I agree with your view on Christianity. They made same mistake, and still do. Power, money and control still run religion. And even if someone blames Islam I always say "Christianity was first, so if anything is wrong with Islam, I guess you better point first at Christianity". Crusaders were not too nice Christians

thanks also for your quotes "to think about".

The Quranic Arabic Corpus - Translation
Sahih International

What do you think of Sahih International. Can I trust that one [as given on this website?]
If not, which english translation [on the web] would you suggest as being truthworthy?

Hey Brother. Sahih International is one of the most Wahhabi biased translations you will find. Funded by pig faced Saudi kings.

Try:
Abel Haleem
Or
Rashad Khalifa

Rashad Khalifa is a bit controversial because he claimed to be a messenger. Btw I'm NOT a follower of his sect. But his translation is easy to understand and true to the word. Just ignore anything in brackets, his footnotes or his appendices and read ONLY the translation. Abdel Haleem is more accurate word for word but loses something in translation.

Peace and may the Almighty bless you my friend.

Aamer.

 

[stvdv]

Wake up Monotheists. Your birth religion was full of lies.

Stick to your scriptures and give up your priests, imams, pastors and rabbis.
Let go of the attachments you hold to Luciferian symbolism.
Don't believe me? Do a little bit if research.
The truth I'd obvious if you're brave enough to seek it.
Purify your heart. Let go of attachments and seek truth, even if the truth is uncomfortable.
Peace and Blessings of the Almighty to all that deserve them.

Thank you. Wonderful. This feels very comfortable to me. Let go of false attachments, when still under illusion, indeed is very uncomfortable. Very wise words here. IMHO. Thank you for sharing your candid words and ideas.

Namastee

 

[Rival]

Yes most of the English translations of Quran are biased and meant to mislead. This is mostly the fault of the pig faced Saudi Government which funds the printing of over 60% of Islamic literature that goes out to the world today. They have a Wahhabi agenda that I think is more concerned with politics than truth. This is a BIG problem for "Islam."

But unfortunately, Christians face a similar problem. Just like Islam has been hijacked by Luciferian Saudis... Christianity has been hijacked by Luciferian Romans. They have you believing that the cross represents Christ. Just like so many brainless Muslims wear the crescent moon and star on their necks... So many Christians wear the cross on their necks.

What if I were to tell you that both symbols represent Lucifer?

Does the Quran mention a moon and star logo?

Does the Bible mention a cross? (Wait for it...)

So many Muslims have a pagan Luciferian idol in their homes of the Kaaba (black cube of Saturn)

Does the Quran mention this black cube? Nope!

Both Muslims and Christians ignore study of their scriptures and blindly follow popular belief.

There is no mention of a cross in the Bible.

What is WRONGLY translated as cross in the widely accepted KJV translation of the bible is the Greek word "Stauros"

Stauros means STAKE not CROSS.

The Romans never used crosses to kill insurgents. They used stakes.

The Kaaba that Muslims bow down to 5 times a day is actually the Black Cube of Saturn. It represents Saturn, the dark star, Lucifer.

The Cross is the Black Cube of Saturn folded out. It has nothing to do with Jesus (his name was Yehoshua btw... NOT Jesus)

The "Star of David" is the 3D version of the. Same cube. David would probably spit on that flag!

Yet all 3 religions have these Luciferian symbols plastered all over all their houses of worship throughout the world.

Duped by Lucifer. Unknowingly sending him the energy he feeds off of.

Wake up Monotheists. Your birth religion was full of lies.

Stick to your scriptures and give up your priests, imams, pastors and rabbis.

Let go of the attachments you hold to Luciferian symbolism.

Don't believe me? Do a little bit of research.

The truth is obvious if you're brave enough to seek it.

Purify your heart. Let go of attachments and seek truth, even if the truth is uncomfortable.

Peace and Blessings of the Almighty to all that deserve them.

Aamer.

You do know that Lucifer doesn't exist either, right?

 

[A Spirit Runs Through It]

you clearly haven't read the many verses in the Quran and narrations about mercy,forgiveness and love. Here are a few of them.

True mercy, forgiveness and love?

Where in the Quran does it say that God loves you for the sinner that you are? It does not – anywhere. This is the measure by which we deem something truly merciful, forgiving and loving.

"We have not sent you except as a mercy to the worlds."

( 21:107)

Muhammad, a mercy? Please.

Where was the mercy for all those people who were the victims of Muhammad’s violence, whether personally or by his command?

Say: O My slaves who have transgressed against themselves (because of sins), do not despair from the mercy of Allah. Verily, Allah forgives all sins. Verily, He is All-Forgiving, Most Merciful." [Al-Qur'an 39:53]

Not every sin is forgiven, only those sins which have not challenged the supreme authority of Muhammad. For example, idolatry is unforgivable; and those who declare Jesus to be God’s Son and the King of Kings are not forgiven. This verse is more double-talk.

“Truly God forgives not that any partner be ascribed unto Him, but He forgives what is less than that for whomsoever He will, for whosoever ascribes partners unto God has surely fabricated a tremendous sin. (Q. 4:48)”

"...Allah loves those who are just" (5:42).

More double-talk. What is justice to one person might not be justice to another. Yet, what is justice to all persons is verily justice.

Those persons who did not find Muhammad’s justice to be just, they were indeed condemned as transgressors.

The prophet Muhammad said: Allah is gentle and loves gentleness. He gives to those displaying gentleness what he does not give to those displaying violence" (Ibn Majah)

More double-talk.

I am an apostate; would Muhammad be gentle with me? Or would his gentleness consist of not burning me alive, and instead, merely murdering me?

“Some people apostatized after accepting Islam, and so, ‘Ali burned them alive. Ibn ‘Abbas said: ‘If it had been me, I would not have burned them. God’s Messenger [Muhammad] said: ‘No one should be punished with the punishment of God. But, if it had been me, I would have killed them. For whoever changes his religion, kill him.’”
(Sunan an-Nasai)

The prophet Muhammad said: Those who are merciful will be shown mercy by the Most Merciful. Be merciful to those on the earth and the One in the heavens will have mercy upon you.”

As we can see in that hadith which I cited above, Muhammad’s sense of mercy and justice is perverted. It is praiseworthy that a person convert to Islam, but it is intolerable that they apostatize. A clear double-standard.

The prophet muhammad said: Allah will not be merciful to those who are not merciful to the people.

And we are to behave (as much as is possible) as Allah behaves?

“If you love only those who love you, what reward do you have? Don’t even the tax collectors do the same? And if you greet only your brothers and sisters, what more are you doing? Don’t even the Gentiles do the same? Therefore, just as your heavenly Father is complete in showing love to everyone, so also you must be complete.”

Wise words are these. You see? It is precisely that, we must be merciful to those who are NOT merciful to us.

Long live the King of Kings!

 

[stvdv]

Hey Brother. Sahih International is one of the most Wahhabi biased translations you will find. Funded by pig faced Saudi kings.

Try:
Abel Haleem
Or
Rashad Khalifa

Rashad Khalifa is a bit controversial because he claimed to be a messenger. Btw I'm NOT a follower of his sect. But his translation is easy to understand and true to the word. Just ignore anything in brackets, his footnotes or his appendices and read ONLY the translation. Abdel Haleem is more accurate word for word but loses something in translation.

Peace and may the Almighty bless you my friend.

Thank you my friend, you made my day.
This was the Koran I was looking for. Few replies back I wrote "they should put a positive verse on the first page". And this Koran exactly did. Thank you so much.
[And the oxford version of Abel Haleem I also downloaded; I should be oke now]

[http://www.quranalone.com/media/quran-english.pdf]. I just Love the first page saying:
Surely, those who believe, those who are Jewish, the Christians, the converts; anyone who

(1) believes in God, and
(2) believes in the Hereafter, and
(3) leads a righteous life,

will receive their recompense from their Lord; they have nothing to fear, nor will they grieve [ 2:62, 5:69 ]

 

[A Spirit Runs Through It]

@stvdv

The best translations of the Quran, in my opinion:

1) The Study Quran: A New Translation
* includes commentary

2) The Qur‘an by Tarif Khalidi
* no versification

3) Holy Qur‘an by Ali Quli Qara‘i
* Shiite translation

 

[Faithofchristian]

Yes most of the English translations of Quran are biased and meant to mislead. This is mostly the fault of the pig faced Saudi Government which funds the printing of over 60% of Islamic literature that goes out to the world today. They have a Wahhabi agenda that I think is more concerned with politics than truth. This is a BIG problem for "Islam."

But unfortunately, Christians face a similar problem. Just like Islam has been hijacked by Luciferian Saudis... Christianity has been hijacked by Luciferian Romans. They have you believing that the cross represents Christ. Just like so many brainless Muslims wear the crescent moon and star on their necks... So many Christians wear the cross on their necks.

What if I were to tell you that both symbols represent Lucifer?

Does the Quran mention a moon and star logo?

Does the Bible mention a cross? (Wait for it...)

So many Muslims have a pagan Luciferian idol in their homes of the Kaaba (black cube of Saturn)

Does the Quran mention this black cube? Nope!

Both Muslims and Christians ignore study of their scriptures and blindly follow popular belief.

There is no mention of a cross in the Bible.

What is WRONGLY translated as cross in the widely accepted KJV translation of the bible is the Greek word "Stauros"

Stauros means STAKE not CROSS.

The Romans never used crosses to kill insurgents. They used stakes.

The Kaaba that Muslims bow down to 5 times a day is actually the Black Cube of Saturn. It represents Saturn, the dark star, Lucifer.

The Cross is the Black Cube of Saturn folded out. It has nothing to do with Jesus (his name was Yehoshua btw... NOT Jesus)

The "Star of David" is the 3D version of the. Same cube. David would probably spit on that flag!

Yet all 3 religions have these Luciferian symbols plastered all over all their houses of worship throughout the world.

Duped by Lucifer. Unknowingly sending him the energy he feeds off of.

Wake up Monotheists. Your birth religion was full of lies.

Stick to your scriptures and give up your priests, imams, pastors and rabbis.

Let go of the attachments you hold to Luciferian symbolism.

Don't believe me? Do a little bit of research.

The truth is obvious if you're brave enough to seek it.

Purify your heart. Let go of attachments and seek truth, even if the truth is uncomfortable.

Peace and Blessings of the Almighty to all that deserve them.

Aamer.

The black stone in the Kaaba, Muhammad went into goddess Diana temple in Ephesus, and destroyed all the pagan statues, But kept the rock which fell from heaven and Muhammad put it in the East corner of the Kaaba in Mecca.

Muhammad is said to have walk around the Kaaba 7 times then kiss the rock which he calls the god that takes away all sins.
And gives salvation to all who kisses the rock which fell from heaven.

The crescent moon and star were carried on the head of Osiris the golden calf and in the middle of the head of the golden calf is the crescent moon and star and You will find the serpent which is according to the Bible
Rev 12:9, is Satan that old serpent and Satan the Devil.

This symbol, Crescent moon and star, is found on every Muslim Mosque.

In Hebrew its translated
Heylel Ben Shachar = Lucifer son of the Dawn.

In Arabic Hilal = Crescent moon.
When putting it all together it simply means = Heylel Ben Shachar Crescent moon. son of the morning star or the Dawn

Crescent and morning Star ( Lucifer)
Rising with Dawn, This has become the symbol of Muslims Allah and Islam.
Crescent moon and star repsents Lucifer, Satan himself.

In the book of Acts 7:43, They are called,
Moloch - Rephan the star of your god, And the images you made in order to worship them. Acts 19:29-37.

In Egypt they were called the god of
Osiris - ISIS
In Assyria - Assur - Ishtar
Babylon - Bel - Belit
Persia - Mithra - Anahita
Greece - Helios - Artemis
Rome - Apollo - Diana - goddess

Unto which all these gods fell under one banner the Crescent moon and star.

In the Bible they are called ( Baal)
Ashtcroth - Ashtoreth = Queen of heaven.

Moloch tent of the star of Moloch.
Acts 7:40-43
Amos 5:26
Jeremiah 25:9-17


Ashtoreth - Ashteroth the goddess of heaven
Acts 19:35
Jeremiah 7:18 - 44:17
Zephaniah 1:5-18, 2:11
Deuteronomy 4:19, 6:14,15
1st kings 11:33

 

[stvdv]

“Truly God forgives not that any partner be ascribed unto Him, but He forgives what is less than that for whomsoever He will, for whosoever ascribes partners unto God has surely fabricated a tremendous sin. (Q. 4:48)”

Truly God forgives not that any partner be ascribed unto Him
But this is not too bad. I met quite a few narcissists who really saw themselves as God, but acted very arrogant. Also many people now read advaita teaching "Only God exist", and then they proclaim "I am God", and think they can do whatever they like "sex and drugs and rock'n roll", because "they are God". I think it is good that humans have some reverence to God. And if God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent who could claim in their right mind "I am God". So this verse is just a "sane" statement. My master always said "There is bhakti (devotion), service and jnana (wisdom). Many people think in their arrogance that jnana [wisdom] is the highest. But I tell you ParaBhakti is the highest. So the real wise will never forget this". I feel this is similar to what is meant above.

IMHO

 

[stvdv]

The best translations of the Quran, in my opinion:

1) The Study Quran: A New Translation
* includes commentary

2) The Qur‘an by Tarif Khalidi
* no versification

3) Holy Qur‘an by Ali Quli Qara‘i
* Shiite translation

Thank you for the recommendations. I checked them. They were not free downloads. And I am careful now, since I already had 7 translations that had 5:51 false translated. And fromt this experience the remark from Aamer really does make sense. Above that, just yesterday the newspapers in Holland made headlines "Dutch government finally admits that millions of dollars from Middle East were given to Mosques in Holland to radicalize Islam in Holland". Proving Aamer's claim was spot on !!!

So I am now very careful which edition to use. The 2 editions Aamer recommends are free downloads and verse 5:51 at least was well translated. And the first page is really good. So I start with this one. And "Oxfort" translation sounds good to me [sayak83 also quoted from this]. Anyway I have my own discrimination, so as I am very allergic to wrong translations I will notice mistakes, but I prefer reading "without mistakes".

 

[stvdv]

“Truly God forgives not that any partner be ascribed unto Him, but He forgives what is less than that for whomsoever He will, for whosoever ascribes partners unto God has surely fabricated a tremendous sin. (Q. 4:48

Joining partners with Him, I don't see Idolatry in that way. In India they have many gods. But this has nothing to do with Idolatry. They symbolise aspects of the Divine. They are not Brahman. That is a misconception many Christians have.

Joining partners with Him, would be someone claiming "God told me to tell you that ........". Even my master was very clear about that. God never works that way. If God wants a message conveyed to someone He doesn't need you as a medium/mediator to tell the other "God told me to tell you"

So for me this is actually a very good verse. I agree that "partners with God" is kind of "not done". And all the other sins are forgiven. Good deal for me. Only not for the ones who believe they are a "partner with God". And scientifically, linguistically seen that is not even a problem. They see themselves as God (or partner with God), so for them "needing to be forgiven" is kind of silly, as they are partner themselves. So they can forgive themselves.

So actually the Koran forgives everyone, according to this verse IMHI+IMHO

IMHO

 

[A Spirit Runs Through It]

Joining partners with Him, I don't see Idolatry in that way. In India they have many gods. But this has nothing to do with Idolatry. They symbolise aspects of the Divine. They are not Brahman. That is a misconception many Christians have.

Joining partners with Him, would be someone claiming "God told me to tell you that ........". Even my master was very clear about that. God never works that way. If God wants a message conveyed to someone He doesn't need you as a medium/mediator to tell the other "God told me to tell you"

So for me this is actually a very good verse. I agree that "partners with God" is kind of "not done". And all the other sins are forgiven. Good deal for me. Only not for the ones who believe they are a "partner with God". And scientifically, linguistically seen that is not even a problem. They see themselves as God (or partner with God), so for them "needing to be forgiven" is kind of silly, as they are partner themselves. So they can forgive themselves.

So actually the Koran forgives everyone, according to this verse IMHI+IMHO

IMHO

Here is the commentary from The Study Quran on verse 4:48 —

“The sin of shirk, ascribing partners to God in worship or in His role as Creator, is considered to be the only sin God will not forgive (see also v. 116). Although this term is often associated with idolatry in the crass form of worshipping humanly constructed idols and indeed mushrikūn, the active participle from the same root, is often translated “idolaters” it can also refer to those who worship human authorities, false deities, angels (see 17:40c; 53:26 –27), jinn (6:100; 34:41), or natural phenomena (6:76 –78) as having independent influence and authority over the world or human destiny. The sin of shirk could also be broadened to include subtler ways of setting up “equals” with God, such as loving or fearing anything but God. The present verse compelled many to examine their own hearts and excise all such forms of “hidden shirk ” (Aj, Qu). Some say that this verse was revealed, in part, to clarify the assertion in 39:53 that God forgives all sins, making an exception for shirk ( Ṭ ). However, the possibility of forgiveness for shirk is precluded only for one who dies unrepentant (Z; see 67:10 –11c). The verse does not guarantee forgiveness for sins other than shirk, but allows for its possibility ( Ṭ ). ʿ Alī ibn Abī Ṭ ālib reportedly said that this verse gave him the greatest hope (Q), and Ibn ʿ Abbās considered it one of the eight most important verses about forgiveness (see 4:26 –28c). Some have seen this verse as a continuation of the warning issued to the Madinan Jews in v. 47 and even claim that it indicates that Jews can be considered mushrikūn, although this has never represented the general opinion among Muslim scholars. Nonetheless al-Rāzī argues syllogistically that since v. 47 warns that the Jews’ failure to believe in the message of the Quran will bring certain punishment, this failure to believe is de facto an “unforgivable sin”; since the only unforgivable sin is shirk, their failure to believe in the Quran is tantamount to shirk . However, this interpretation collapses the categories of shirk and kufr into one, whereas the two are distinct in the Quran and Islamic Law. In the Quran, Jews and Christians are clearly identified as religious practitioners separate from the mushrikūn (see 22:17; 98:1c), even if it sometimes suggests they might be guilty of something that approximates shirk (cf. 5:72; 9:30). In other places Jews and Christians are explicitly included in the category of “those who believe in God and the Last Day” and who may, therefore, enjoy a blessed Afterlife (2:62; 5:69). This clearly shows that Jews cannot be considered to be mushrikūn that is, those who take partners unto God in worship since that unforgiveable sin would necessarily bar them from such blessings in the Hereafter. This verse can also be read as a mitigation rather than an intensification of the threat to the Madinan Jews: if v. 47 threatens punishment for the Jews’ failure to believe in the Quranic message, v. 48 could be read as offering hope that all other sins perhaps even a failure to believe in the Quran and the Prophet on the part of the Jews (essentially kufr, or disbelief, but short of shirk ) are open to possible forgiveness. It is only shirk, theologically and legally distinct from kufr, that cannot be forgiven. Most early commentators read this verse as a general statement of hope to the believers concerning God’s willingness to forgive rather than as a particular threat to the Madinan Jews. Ibn ʿ Umar reports that upon the death of a fellow Muslim who he and others knew had committed a great sin, they bore witness that he was among the people of Hell. When this verse was revealed, they ceased to do so, as they realized that even great sins were open to Divine Forgiveness (Th).”

 

[LuisDantas]

@Aamer , would you be willing to talk a bit about your understanding of the meaning of the claim that God has no partners?

What would a partner be in that context, and why is it significant that there is none?

 

[stvdv]

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/berei****-genesis-chapter-1

Here is the commentary from The Study Quran on verse 4:48 —

“The sin of shirk, ascribing partners to God in worship or in His role as Creator, is considered to be the only sin God will not forgive (see also v. 116). Although this term is often associated with idolatry in the crass form of worshipping humanly constructed idols and indeed mushrikūn, the active participle from the same root, is often translated “idolaters” it can also refer to those who worship human authorities, false deities, angels (see 17:40c; 53:26 –27), jinn (6:100; 34:41), or natural phenomena (6:76 –78) as having independent influence and authority over the world or human destiny. The sin of shirk could also be broadened to include subtler ways of setting up “equals” with God, such as loving or fearing anything but God. T

Thank you. This gives me a good idea of shirk.
I must say that Koran is quite difficult to understand and get the full picture. Must be a tough life to be a Muslim and having to understand all these verses. I am glad I met a Master who explained it all very easy to me. I do like to know a little of Koran, but I just take out the verses that fit into my belief-system. Thanks to your explanations I do have a little broader view now. And can understand you moved away from Islam now.

 

[LuisDantas]

Here is the commentary from The Study Quran on verse 4:48 —

“The sin of shirk, ascribing partners to God in worship or in His role as Creator, is considered to be the only sin God will not forgive (see also v. 116). (...) The sin of shirk could also be broadened to include subtler ways of setting up “equals” with God, such as loving or fearing anything but God. (...)

This reminds me of a doubt that I have.

How exactly do Muslims tend to interpret such a goal? Indeed, how literally?

How often, if at all, is it claimed that loving one's spouse, parents and children (for instance) is or could become shirk? Or, for that matter, fearing a rampaging lion ahead of one?

Surely those count as "not God"... or do they?

How often is it possible or necessary to clarify that?

How much of an actual controversy there is within Muslim communities on this matter, I wonder?

 

[MonkeyFire]

Why would God even fight he has the authority to manipulate. That's why I dissagre with the violence of the Koran, especially when it can be non-violence.

 

[stvdv]

Why would God even fight he has the authority to manipulate. That's why I dissagre with the violence of the Koran, especially when it can be non-violence

I found a few human-unfriendly verses:
“I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent.”
“Do not allow a sorceress to live.”
“Happy is he who repays you for what you have done to us; he who seizes your infants and dashes them against the rocks.”
“Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord.”
“Slaves, submit yourselves to your masters with all respect, not only to the good and gentle but also to the cruel.”

 

[A Spirit Runs Through It]

This reminds me of a doubt that I have.

How exactly do Muslims tend interpret such a goal? Indeed, how literally?

How often, if at all, is it claimed that loving one's spouse, parents and children (for instance) is or could become shirk? Or, for that matter, fearing a rampaging lion ahead of one?

Surely those count as "not God"... or do they?

How often is it possible or necessary to clarify that?

How much of an actual controversy there is within Muslim communities on this matter, I wonder?

Perhaps you were yet speaking to @Aamer, so please excuse me if that is the case.

I think that shirk is generally taken to mean, a belief in some entity which can override the will of God, or whose will can contend with his. Although, it is my opinion, the concept of shirk was propagated by Muhammad and directed primarily at Christians, whose headstrong belief in the divinity and authority of Jesus presented an obstacle against the directives of Muhammad.

I do not think that shirk has much to do with anything – especially for Muhammad and the nascent movement – beyond worship and the bestowing of authority above that of Allah’s, and by extension, Muhammad’s.

Notice, here, these verses from the Quran. They lump together the notions of God having a child, and God having a partner. In my mind, these verses suggest that Muhammad attempted to tackle the problem of disloyalty, among those individuals who at first pledged allegiance to Muhammad but then conscientiously objected in carrying out his directives, on account of their faith in Jesus’ teachings, as found in the gospels.

“And say, ‘Praise be to God, who has no child! He has no partner in sovereignty; nor has He any protector out of lowliness.’ And proclaim His Greatness! (Q. 17:111)”

“He unto Whom belongs sovereignty over the heavens and the earth, and Who took not a child, and Who has no partner in sovereignty, and Who created everything, then measured it out with due measure. (Q. 25:2)”

“[...] so we believe in it and will ascribe none as partner unto our Lord. And He – exalted be the Majesty of our Lord – has neither consort nor child. (Q. 72:2-3)”