Hate speech in the Quran and Bible. Should it be tolerated/accepted?

[stevecanuck]

What is this. Appeal to authority or ad populum?

Anyway, I think I remember you. You are the person who pretended to be an expert in Arabic Hilarious isn't it?

Rather than doing cut and paste jobs, after making such a big blunder, try to use your intellect and analyse.

Just pointing out (again) that you refuse to answer the most simple of questions.

 

[KWED]

See, that is the most nonsensical, childish, ignorant statement one could make. Your statement is similar to 'the book uses "Do" instead of "doing"'.

Hardly, as different derivatives of the root have fully different meanings. Different participles of a verb do not.

A better analogy would be something like bicycle and biped, or psychology and psychiatry. Same root, different meaning.

To give simple examples of how this most famous and used word similar to "get" is used in the earliest arabic books ever produced.

But you didn't provide any examples. You just asked if I had read it, and then refused to explain why you asked.

No. You just made that up. If you want the usages, I will give you. See, others are not like you, they have done the research already. They actually know what they are talking about.

travel/leave/get out: 4:101, 73:20, 2:273, 5:106, 3:156, 38:44
ignore/take away: 43:5
Set forth: 14:25
give/Put forth: 14:24,14:45; 16:75, 16:76, 16:112; 18:32, 18:45; 24:35; 30:28, 30:58; 36:78; 39:27, 39:29; 43:17; 59:21; 66:10, 66:11, 17:48
seal/cover/draw over: 18:11
condemn: 2:61
cover: 24:31
strike: 2:60, 2:73, 7:160, 20:77, 24:31, 26:63, 37:93, 8:12, 47:4
set up: 43:58; 57:13
explain: 13:17

I have never claimed that words from the root "daraba" can only mean strike/hit. Only that the context, other usage of the same form, and scholarly explanation shows that in 4:34 it can only mean "hit/strike".
BTW, your definitions/numbers are inaccurate. For example you claim that in 24:31 it means "cover", when it actually means "stamp (their feet)", so another context of physically hitting something. You claim 2:61 means "condemn - but it actually means "brought down on"/"stamped upon", so another context of imposing something on another. Did you just copy that list from an apologist website without checking it?
The majority of instances are either "present" or "hit/strike".

Also, interesting that you haven't included the one particular usage in question here, 4:34. Which meaning do you think applies to that instance?

See, that's a lie. When did I accept that?

So why do you keep avoiding the issue? If you thought it meant something other than "hit/strike", you would have said so. But you haven't. You keep dancing round the houses with your straw man made from red herrings.
You may not have actually said "I accept that "waidribuhumma" in 4:34 means "and hit/strike them" - but we both know that is what you think.

 

[Praise Jah]

Christianity , like Islam, are very bigoted Religions that display/portray the epitome of hatred for infidels/heretics/pagans/unbelievers etc. (At least , total hatred for them if they die in that state without converting). You don't torture people forever and ever, unless you severely hate them.

It's why I left Christianity. I saw the bigotry and hate constantly. Just go to a Christian website and tell them you pray to the "Queens of Heaven", and see what some of the responses are, about the Kami I cherish being Demons.

Look at all the Biblical verses where God justifies complete genocide against people based on ethnicity or different Religious beliefs.

It's just wrong and goes against my conscience!

Threatening to torture people for ever, most of the world even, is worse than any form of hate speech, and it is very intrinsic to the nature and essence of Christianity.

To what extent should good people who don't like hatred and bigotry, take a stand against the hate-speech and bigotry in the Bible and Quran?

A lot of people are unaware of it, until it is brought to their attention. Some of the gruesome tortures amputations of limbs, crucifixion, and mutilations in the Quran and burning of infidels are so bad, it fills me with darkness to read them.

If you want the quotes and verses, I can provide them, or you can Google it.

I consider Muhammad and his daughter Fatima , peace be upon them, to be my close friends, but I can't object more to some of what is attributed to the Prophet, and his violent aggressive lifestyle, where he personally decapitated people and destroyed everything sacred to Polytheists, repeatedly condemning them to eternal torture in Quranic verses, destroying their shrines that are sacred to them, robbing people of basic liberties, and beyond.

Saudi Arabia, the Capitol of Islam, is run by an extremely bigoted regime where you won't find a single synagogue, Church, or Polytheist temple. It's forbidden and outlawed.

Jewish (as well as Christian and other non-Muslim) religious services are prohibited from being held in Saudi Arabia. That is total tyranny and bigotry!

I believe the Prophet was an orphan with a tough life who had nobody, and did indeed love God, and I love him, I just disagree with some of his behaviors.

I have met many orphans growing up and as an adult in jails, institutions, and ghettos, and they can be very violent angry people compared to those who had parents who nurtured, cared for, and gave them a healthy environment , with good role models.

But should we really be tolerant of pure hatred, bigotry, and hate-speech in the Bible and Quranic text??

The only thing necessary for hatred and bigotry to triumph in our world is for good people to remain silent, passive , and do nothing. Is that right or wrong?

In the poll, please choose the answer that you lean most towards.

Jehovah is the true God of the Bible, the Creator of all things. (Revelation 4:11) He is the God, not just of one people, but of “all the earth.” (Psalms 47:2)

Hell is simply the grave, not a place of fiery torment. Even Jesus went to hell when he died. However, “he was not kept in hell,” because God resurrected him. (Acts 2:31-32)

All of Jehovah’s activities are perfect in that he expresses his attributes of justice, wisdom, love, and power in perfect balance; all being based on principle dictated by his right to exclusive devotion and his constancy in upholding truth; it is governed by his love for righteousness and for those practicing righteousness.

Jehovah sees all the issues involved in a matter and has complete, entire knowledge of a situation. (Hebrews 4:13) He reads the heart; he notes the degree of ignorance, negligence, or willful sin; and he acts with impartiality. (Deuteronomy 10:17-18; 1Samuel 16:7; Acts 10:34- 35)

 

[KWED]

I did not make the claim that any of these translations are not the most widely used.

You certainly implied it.
I said...
"This Quran resource uses 6 of the most widely used and accepted translations."
You replied to that specific statement...
"Err. Dont make things up. As usual."

If you accuse me of "making things up" when I state X, then you are clearly implying that X is not true.
So anyway, you now accept that those 6 translations are amongst the most widely used and accepted?
As they all translate "waidribuhunna" as "and strike/hit/beat them", you presumably now accept that as well?

So again, which logical fallacy are you committing? Ad populum or appeal to authority?

Jeez, it's like a foreign language to you, isn't it? This has already been explained to you in simple terms.
You clearly are trolling now.

Ironically, in your attempts to deflect attention from the Quran's promotion of domestic violence, you have actually shone a bright spotlight on it. For several pages.
Well done you!

 

[IndigoChild5559]

You don't have to edit, just realize which verses are not useful.

If you kick any verses out of the published text, then you have edited it.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Not true. There are/were just as many Christians who use the Bible for their racist views. Different denominations have different interpretations. There was a big backlash against the Social Gospel, and there are Christians who are against using any pain relief during childbirth because of the Bible. Christianity is no one monolithic thing. Heck, Jesus wasn't trying to start a new religion, just making Judaism more people friendly.

Yes, there were Christians who used the Bible to justify slavery. Still, the abolitionist movement was also promoted by Christians who were using the Bible to end slavery. You still have to give credit where credit is due.

 

[firedragon]

You certainly implied it.

No.

So anyway, you now accept that those 6 translations are amongst the most widely used and accepted?
As they all translate "waidribuhunna" as "and strike/hit/beat them", you presumably now accept that as well?

Lol. of course. Most translations have that word "beat, strike".

Jeez, it's like a foreign language to you, isn't it?

You mean English? Or Arabic?

Mate. When you dont address someones point, but appeal to authority, without knowing their methodology, that's a logical fallacy. When you appeal to majority that is a logical fallacy.

So far, you have not addressed a single point but only resorted to use ad hominem, ad populum, ab auctoritate. I dont expect you to engage in any kind of decent conversation. But honestly, I am learning from you. Now there is another person who has joined the bandwagon with the same cut and pastes and the same fallacies I see. I will learn a lot from you.

Keep going.

 

[firedragon]

I have never claimed that words from the root "daraba" can only mean strike/hit. Only that the context, other usage of the same form,

Tell me. What form is that word used there?

Faala Laazimun?? Since you said you know the form, you should answer this. I asked you several times.

Psst. You won't answer it. Because you have no clue.

Keep going.

 

[KWED]

No.



Lol. of course. Most translations have that word "beat, strike".



You mean English? Or Arabic?

Mate. When you dont address someones point, but appeal to authority, without knowing their methodology, that's a logical fallacy. When you appeal to majority that is a logical fallacy.

So far, you have not addressed a single point but only resorted to use ad hominem, ad populum, ab auctoritate. I dont expect you to engage in any kind of decent conversation. But honestly, I am learning from you. Now there is another person who has joined the bandwagon with the same cut and pastes and the same fallacies I see. I will learn a lot from you.

Keep going.

Does the word "waidribuhunna" used in verse 4:34 of the Quran mean "and beat/hit/strike them"?
Yes or no?

 

[KWED]

Tell me. What form is that word used there?

Faala Laazimun?? Since you said you know the form, you should answer this. I asked you several times.

Psst. You won't answer it. Because you have no clue.

Keep going.

Does the word "waidribuhunna" used in verse 4:34 of the Quran mean "and beat/hit/strike them"?
Yes or no?

 

[firedragon]

Does the word "waidribuhunna" used in verse 4:34 of the Quran mean "and beat/hit/strike them"?
Yes or no?

Nope.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Oh, is that you again spewing out your hypocritical anti-hate speech, with nothing but vitriol towards the Bible?
Why have you not ever acknowledged the countless acts of mercy, kindness, forgiveness, compassion, tolerance and patience, love and salvation, exuded by God throughout the entire Bible, despite man's incessant defiance and contempt towards Him? Name me one character or group in the Bible that God was cruel towards, that were guiltless - who did not sacrifice their children in the fire, who did not practice the most shameful and disgusting acts of lust and hedonism, who did not murder and rape, or treat their neighbour with cruelty and contempt?
It is you who is the only troublemaker around here, constantly causing dissention and hatred, by perpetually and ignorantly attempting to denigrate the Bible.

How about the babies' whom this God supposedly told his followers to dash against the rocks?
Or all the poor people bought and sold into slavery, with God's endorsement and instruction?
How about the virgins whom God supposedly told his invaders to keep for their own?

 

[firedragon]

Does the word "waidribuhunna" used in verse 4:34 of the Quran mean "and beat/hit/strike them"?
Yes or no?

See, since you are an expert, why not answer this simple question. You spoke of form.

Is the word Faala Laazimun? Tell me oh great one.

 

[firedragon]

Does the word "waidribuhunna" used in verse 4:34 of the Quran mean "and beat/hit/strike them"?
Yes or no?

You know what? Let me ask you another question. What is the word for "wife" in the arabic language? You can of course google it.

 

[Spiderman]

Peace be upon them, my ***.

The Bible doesn't have hate speech. It is Christians including myself that are guilty of hate speech. But the Bible has history events where people were consumed with hatred and said or did harsh things. But its core teaching is to love those who hate you.

The Quran is filled with large sections telling not to associate with Jews, or to strike off the neck of unbelievers. By this standard, only the Quran should be banned.

Muhammad didn't have a "rough life". He was a trader's son, and could have made a living this way. Instead, he performed an enormous con job on the people of Mecca. He got some old woman to back him, but this wasn't enough for him. He prophesied for like 12 years in Mecca, creating a public nuisance and disrupting the tourism of a town that apparently had plenty of visitors from all religions. Basically Mecca had the ideal of religioys tolerance, and they tolerated him for years and years, even though he was openly hostile to them. They finally tossed him out on his ear. He went to Medina, where he wrote that "divine revelation" had shown him that his followers could be violent. It also later showed him that his followers could raid and pillage, like common thieves. This is the Islam you praise. So this man goes and sacks a town because they didn't put up with his crappy message. And then he goes and sacks other towns, becoming very rich, but eventually being poisoned.

He didn't have a rough life. He got what he deserved.

Thank you. I appreciate your post. But Jesus did say to love your enemies. That includes Muhammed.

I think Muhammad did what he believed was right. I cannot disagree more with what he did, but I still love him

He would have decapitated me back then. I believe he has been fully enlightened now.

Yes, that is disgusting that Polytheists were tolerant of him for so long and then he didn't show them the same mercy.

I said the Quran fills me with darkness. You said I praised Islam. Where did I praise Islam?

 

[SkepticThinker]

Heaven is an eternal reward, you need to smarten up SW and quit being so shallow by wallowing about your life on earth so much, and start appreciating the big picture. We all suffer, and there are probably very few who have not contemplated about giving-up, in one form or another, on many occasions. Jesus saw many suffer and die, but he knew that God will wipe away all their tears. Jesus spoke against this world, whereas you seem to glorify it as being the 'be all, and end all' of human existence. You should know better, but your interpretation of Scripture is just skewed.

In my opinion, this kind of thinking is cruel and evil. It tells people that their lives here on earth, right now, the only life we know we get for sure, is worthless. That there's some better life waiting for them later on. It tells people that the way we treat people in this life doesn't really matter, good, bad, whatever. It doesn't matter because one day you'll have a great life, if you only believe in ancient stories. What this does is prevents people from trying to improve the lives of everyone on this planet, because, oh well, God will sort it all out some day and all will be well. I reject that and I find it harmful.

You're too angry to win this argument, your understanding of Scripture is too shallow. Ask Pharaoh who hardened who's heart. Or, ask yourself who hardened yours. ...there's more than one correct answer, if you understood God's sovereignty and man's autonomy...

God hardened his heart. It says right there in the text.

 

[KWED]

Nope.

Finally!
That wasn't too bad, was it?

So, what does it mean, in that particular verse, in that context?

 

[RabbiO]

There should be an option for "there is no hate-speech in the Scriptures," for I can not vote for any of these options. At least hate-speech in your definitions here. I am referring to the Bible.

Interesting that the website that you used for this -Letter of St. Athanasius on the Psalter (pray it daily, using an LXX/Vulgate Psalter) - is filled with anti-Semitic bovine excrement.

 

[Spiderman]

There should be an option for "there is no hate-speech in the Scriptures," for I can not vote for any of these options. At least hate-speech in your definitions here. I am referring to the Bible.

There is absolutely hateful speech in Scripture

Jesus said that those who don't eat his flesh and drink his blood are dead with no life in them. John 6, That is bigotry.

The New Testament says repeatedly people will be thrown into the darkness where there will be wailing and gnashing of teeth and torment that lasts forever and ever. Those not written in the book of life will be thrown into a lake of fire. That is pure hatred because it is pure cruelty, and the epitome of cruelty. In my opinion, extreme forms of sadistic cruelty = hatred!

 

[Lain]

Interesting that the website that you used for this -Letter of St. Athanasius on the Psalter (pray it daily, using an LXX/Vulgate Psalter) - is filled with anti-Semitic bovine excrement.

Yeah the FishEaters folks can be kind of wild, but they have many good sources on the spiritual life, hence the link.