-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Isn't anti-religion just as hateful as they make religion out to be?
- Thread starter 1137
- Start date
Slaedi7324
Member
Yes, there are. Almost all of those verses you quoted were fabricated or greatly misquoted.
That is not what is being addressed in the passages.
What is being discussed in context:
"Fight in the cause of God against those who fight you, but do not transgress; for God loves not transgressors."
The verse clearly states to fight those who fight you, yet do not transgress limits. "Fight those who fight you" is quite explicit when you read further....
"And kill them wherever you overtake them and expel them from wherever they have expelled you.."
This will assume that they would have expelled you, first, before YOU expel them. The verses cannot be more clearer. This is an eye for an eye.
"and (because) fitnah is worse than killing."
Fitnah is defined as "persecution" or "oppression" in this context, it refers to the reason why the unbelievers shall taste justice.
"And do not fight them at al-Masjid al- Haram until they fight you there. But if they fight you, then kill them. Such is the recompense of the disbelievers."
Muslims are forbidden from fighting unbelievers around the Holy Mosque in Mecca unless the unbelievers attack first, in which case Muslims are to fight "until there is no more persecution (fitnah)."
What is being addressed is quite clear and you shouldn't misrepresent it differently to fit your wrong beliefs. It's without doubt a defense.
False. Cause of God is what he has commanded you to, these are submission to Him, charity, fasting, humility, etcetera. Nowhere in Islam is the cause of God to spread Islam. Thus, your claim is dismissed.
This is an example of a partial quote.
Full quote: "Fighting has been enjoined upon you while it is hateful to you. But perhaps you hate a thing and it is good for you; and perhaps you love a thing and it is bad for you. And Allah Knows, while you know not."
Again, your "spread Islam" has been debunked, since Quran explicitly promotes religious pluralism.
If you are speaking about Quran, a perfect nonviolence cannot happen without violence.
We must embrace this world as it is, the world is full of misery and to achieve peace is not by denying the violence, but to embrace it and fight against it. Fire against fire. Quran teaches that here:
"Fighting has been enjoined upon you while it is hateful to you. But perhaps you hate a thing and it is good for you; and perhaps you love a thing and it is bad for you. And Allah Knows, while you know not." [Q, 2:216]
In order to achieve peace, you must fight the bad. That is called for "Jihad," which means a spiritual struggle against oneself and cleans yourself from evils.
I also, told you the definition of "fighting" in verse 2:244, do you deliberately not listen?
Yet another partial verse:
"They ask you about the sacred month - about fighting therein. Say, "Fighting therein is great [sin], but averting [people] from the way of Allah and disbelief in Him and [preventing access to] al-Masjid al-Haram and the expulsion of its people therefrom are greater [evil] in the sight of Allah . And fitnah is greater than killing." And they will continue to fight you until they turn you back from your religion if they are able. And whoever of you reverts from his religion [to disbelief] and dies while he is a disbeliever - for those, their deeds have become worthless in this world and the Hereafter, and those are the companions of the Fire, they will abide therein eternally."
Nowhere does it say to fight them. It says God will punish them, but not instructing us to fight them. Thus, your claim is invalid.
The verse afterwards: "But as for those who believed and did righteous deeds, He will give them in full their rewards, and Allah does not like the wrongdoers."
I've said this once and I say it again, the Islamic definition of "disbelievers," "unbelievers," "infidels" are different from the generic definitions. It does not refer to those that had disbelieved in God, but had committed bad deeds, thus wrongdoers.
The word "Unbelievers" in Quran has the same definition as "wrongdoers," "criminals."
Because the classical Arabic does not distinguish between these two, you must understand in what context it means these two things, thus, your point is invalid. God doesn't say he is going to punish unbelievers, but wrongdoers.
That whole verse is fabricated. Actual verse: "When thy Lord inspired the angels, (saying): I am with you. So make those who believe stand firm. I will throw fear into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Then smite the necks and smite of them each finger. That is because they opposed Allah and His messenger"
This is God motivating the angels to defeat the wrongdoers.
Are you deaf? Fighting in the cause of God is again to "fight" for one's rights, charity, humility, etc.
I've told you the definition of "fight" used in these verses. Your argument is dismissed.
You deliberately did not choose to include the verse right afterwards:
"Except for those who take refuge with a people between yourselves and whom is a treaty or those who come to you, their hearts strained at [the prospect of] fighting you or fighting their own people. And if Allah had willed, He could have given them power over you, and they would have fought you. So if they remove themselves from you and do not fight you and offer you peace, then Allah has not made for you a cause [for fighting] against them." [4:90]
Your argument is, thus, dismissed. The verses clearly refer to wrongdoers, while the latter for those who just disbelieve. It's apparent in this verse.
Charity, humility, literacy, religious pluralism, submission to God, against the idea to spread a religion, against murder, against lying.
But, could you post them in context and without the partial quotes, also from that website I suggested you to quote them from?
I'm not telling you "interpretations," but the clear-cut exegeses for what the verses say. You post "interpretations," I do not.
Robert.Evans
You will be assimilated; it is His Will.
@FunctionalAthiest
The opinions that are held with passion are always those for which no good ground exists; indeed the passion is the measure of the holders lack of rational conviction. Opinions in politics and religion are almost always held passionately.
― Bertrand Russell
''I care passionately about the truth'' Richard Dawkins
The opinions that are held with passion are always those for which no good ground exists; indeed the passion is the measure of the holders lack of rational conviction. Opinions in politics and religion are almost always held passionately.
― Bertrand Russell
''I care passionately about the truth'' Richard Dawkins
Robert.Evans
You will be assimilated; it is His Will.
What we see here in this universe, is the fractal action of divine-consciousness. It plays out the way it does because that is what it is. So yes, those times were far more brutal than now. It is the evolution of the human race that we see, but it is also an evolution of the divine-print that we see. It is what it is. Was it good that he would do that? no. What else can I say. This, by the way, was in Africa, black Africa. By the time it played out in the middle east with who we think of as the Jews, it was not a sacrifice of his son, but rather of the phalic.
It would take me back to what I first said. Let me put it this way, What do you call mentally stable? Perhaps in years to come we will look at women as being mentally unstable for putting their children in childcare. The question might well be, Would you have done that to your children? Would you have to be mentally unstable to do that. But at the moment, women want to work, so are prepared to do it, and the government want them working to tax them and stop them having kids. So what do we now ask of Abraham? Was it right that he was prepared to kill his own child? First of all, it was not his child, but given him by God (from a priesthood of men) so it would not have been so difficult. Still a tragic thing though, right. So what then do we say? I don't know. Is it right to drop to A-bombs on Japan killing man woman child animal, all indiscriminately? You tell me. Was the US mentally unstable then?It is hard to answer your question in better than that, as it stands.
However, I can say that the OT is through the Left Hand of God, largely the first books through Africa, which has always been more on the primordial and savage side. This is why there is such a difference in the NT and OT. You should be asking the Jews really. It is a reflection of their God that you speak of, not mine. Mine is of the NT, which is ''love'' (1Jh)
Does this help or muddy the waters? I think I know the answer already haha
Ultimatum
Classical Liberal
Verily, I appreciate your interpretations. I have found fault with some of the content of your post, however.
The causes of your god, which have been listed, are certainly a deceiving claim: Charity, humility, literacy, religious pluralism, submission to God, against the idea to spread a religion, against murder, against lying.
I don't understand why Islam is a danger to many adherents, but when it comes to unbelievers, you use deception and infiltration to make them feel that the Islamic ideology is acceptable.
Islam is not just a religion, but also a political system and one no modern Western countries ever wants.
Charity: I can recall the story of Mohammed asking his followers to give him a fifth of whatever they had from a conquered population to him. This would be an unjustifiable rebuttal for charity, but what the un-charitable thing was that, being a very wealthy man, he would not leave his inheritance to his limited, restricted wives.
Humility: Mohammed was a slave owner, of which whom were made slaves from battles, had sex with them, and would trade them around. He would tell his followers that this was justifiable.
This is not showing humility, as he was very open about his dealings.
Literacy: Sure, literacy is encouraged. But dare you view your different opinions of Mohammed or Allah, you shall be executed. This ties in with freedom of expression: which, as well all know, does not exist under Sharia.
Religious Pluralism: I did laugh at this point whilst reading. This is absolutely rubbish. Allah hates Christians and Jews and Mohammed even called for the Islamic adherents to not make friends with unbelievers. This is not very acceptable. In fact, it is quite introverted and furthers the proof that infiltration is Islamic strategy.
Against the idea to spread a religion: More laughable claims. This is the point of Abrahamic religions: to spread the message that there is a higher being who is able to magically save you and grant you much sex when you die. In fact, spreading the word is a very important component in the world, whether that be in the sciences or biologically (natural selection).
If Islam were against spreading, then it would have a dwindling following: this, as we know by observing studies and statistics, is the stark opposite.
Against lying: There are two forms of lying as supported by Islam: taqiyah (denying of faith) and kitman (the more relevant, deception; used to ease others and infiltrate). This is what you are currently using.
Quote from Reliance of the Traveler:
Muslims are allowed to lie to unbelievers in order to defeat them.
Religion can - and frequently does - mask mental illness and interfere with its treatment.
At the extreme end, you have denominations that preach that all disease is a result of lack of faith. However, even mainstream religion can create issues.
It's a wine-tasting club: most people can go to one and be perfectly fine, but it isn't a healthy environment for an alcoholic. In a similar way, it's not healthy for someone with, say, schizophrenia to be in a "club" where they're constantly being told that it's a blessing to hear and follow a "still, small voice."
While there are environments and belief systems that are similarly unhealthy for mentally ill atheists, but I don't think any are exclusive to atheists.
It varies depending on religion and denomination, but it's fairly common for someone to be mentally worse off for being in a religion and very rare for someone to be mentally worse off for not being in one.
Not really.
I shun all newspapers, and all mainstream news(with two exceptions), because they're not trustworthy. They're not interested in truth; they're interested in having as many readers as possible. Therefore, they create articles and headlines on the basis of drawing readers in, not on any truth.
Non-trustworthiness does not become trustworthy in the absence of something better. In any case, actual historians are better sources, not propaganda.
We call it Valhalla.
By the way:
75. And why should ye not
Fight in the cause of God
And of those who, being weak,
Are ill-treated (and oppressed)?—
Men, women, and children,
Whose cry is: "Our Lord!
Rescue us from this town,
Whose people are oppressors;
And raise for us from Thee
One who will protect;
And raise for us from Thee
One who will help!"
Don't know what either of those are, but since they're apparently not the Qur'an, they don't matter.
Last edited:
Ultimatum
Classical Liberal
It is a wonder that you know anything. So tell me: how do you know about current events?
I don't know what books you read/ websites you visit, but articles relating to the past, verily, tend to be written bu historians, or, and more likely, written in reference to historians' works.
It seems you have a trust problem.
Careful, your ignorance is showing.