stevecanuck
Well-Known Member
If I say anything demonstrably untrue, please inform me.
-
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!
Let's see if we can define 'Islamophobia'.
- Thread starter stevecanuck
- Start date
If I say anything demonstrably untrue, please inform me.
stevecanuck
Well-Known Member
It's a direct quote from the Qur'an, so by definition it is talking to "all Musims both then and now". That is EXACTLY what the Qur'an is meant for.
Islamophobia as defined by our new Labour government is racism,here’s an excerpt.
as:
“… rooted in racism and is a type of racism that targets expressions of Muslimness or perceived Muslimness”.
You can see the alphabet olympics to get there here,Labour's Islamophobia Policy – The Labour Party
Angela Rayner was asked directly to define Islamophobia in parliament but failed because the government know it’s a hard sell.
Yerda
Veteran Member
I've got a quibble with the way you've phrased that. You make it seem like the verse is commanding Muslims to go fight and kill or they won't get into heaven. Which seems to me like a misreading no matter which translation you read.
stevecanuck
Well-Known Member
The Qur'an negatively "targets expressions of 'Kafirness'" several hundred times. When accomodation is demanded, it's always a one-way street.
stevecanuck
Well-Known Member
Please show me how. It's really quite straightforward. A bargain requires both parties to uphold some sort of condition, and both sides are very clearly defined.
Unfortunately it is.
stevecanuck
Well-Known Member
Wrong. That is Islamophobia distorting the meaning of that verse by asserting that "they" refers to all Muslims both then and now. And it's Islamophobia because it ignores other Surah (ChaGPT: Is there a discussion of how to interpret the differences in the Quran between Surah At-Tawbah - 111 and Surah Al-Anfal - 61 Provide references if so
Surah At-Tawbah (9:111) and Surah Al-Anfal (8:61) in the Quran present distinct but related messages within the broader context of jihad and peace. The difference between these verses is often discussed in terms of the conditions and contexts they address, which are key to their interpretation.Surah At-Tawbah (9:111) is often referred to as emphasizing the concept of a binding contract between Allah and the believers, where Allah has "purchased" the lives and wealth of the believers in exchange for Paradise. This verse is generally understood to underline the duty of the believers to fight in the cause of Allah, even to the point of sacrificing their lives. The verse reflects a period during which the Muslims were engaged in significant military campaigns, particularly during the Expedition of Tabuk, and were called upon to demonstrate their commitment to the faith through physical struggle.Surah Al-Anfal (8:61), on the other hand, emphasizes the importance of seeking peace when the enemy inclines towards it. This verse was revealed during a different context, specifically around the time of the Battle of Badr, where Muslims were granted permission to fight but were also encouraged to pursue peace if the enemy was willing to do so. It suggests that Islam values peace and reconciliation, provided that it is genuine and not a tactic for the enemy to regroup and attack again.These verses are often analyzed together to understand the balance in Islamic teachings between the necessity of defending the faith and the preference for peace. Scholars argue that while Surah At-Tawbah calls for readiness to fight in the path of Allah, Surah Al-Anfal reminds believers that the ultimate goal is peace and that war is not the first resort but a response when peace is not achievable(If you're interested in a deeper exploration of these verses, you might look at classical tafsirs like those by Ibn Kathir, which discuss the historical context and the nuanced differences between these directives.
Tafsir Surah At-Tawbah - 111 - Quran.com
Read Ma'arif al-Qur'an for Ayah 111 of Surah At-Tawbahquran.com
Surah At-Tawbah - 1-129 - Quran.com
This Surah is known by two names -- At-Taubah and Al-Bara'at. It is called At-Taubah because it enunciates the nature of taubah (repentance) and menti...quran.com
Tafsir Surah At-Tawbah - 111 - Quran.com
Read Ibn Kathir (Abridged) for Ayah 111 of Surah At-Tawbahquran.com
At-Tawbah - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
I just read the Ibn Kathir tafsir. It clearly confirms what I'm saying. How does it not?
stevecanuck
Well-Known Member
Correct. Mohamed was on a campaign of conquest of the Arabian Peninsula. He attacked and conquered many a tribe/village/city.
Are you Dervish? I can't imagine spinning like that without getting dizzy.
It was the Muslims who began the fight. Had they not started attacking Mecca's caravans, there would have been no fighting in the first place.
Verse 8:61 says, "If they (the unbelievers) incline towards peace, then incline to it also". Again, we have a passage that, if taken out of context, could easily be used to claim that Muslims only fight in self-defense. However, the Muslims initiated hostilities against the pagans for the 'crime' of committing "fitnah". It would make no sense to launch an attack predicated on differences of belief, only to stop fighting without resolving the issue. Therefore, to "incline towards peace" must mean that the pagans would have had to agree to cease the activity for which they were attacked in the first place - their rejection of Islam.
As I noted, Islamophobia applies by definition because you deliberately distort the meaning of the verse which says "THEY fight" clearly referring to THEY, Muhammad's companions.
Argentbear
Well-Known Member
As you wish.
Strawman.
A strawman is a logical fallacy that occurs when someone attacks a distorted or exaggerated version of another person's argument, instead of refuting the original argument.
You didn't actually present an argument so there is nothing to distort or exaggerate. What you did do was respond to a simple question about your OP with insults and a dismissal. So your claim of a strawman is an untruth
Off-topic.
The question is very much on topic, The fact you don't like the question doesn't make it off topic, So an untruth on your part
Stupid deflection
You are the only one here who engaged in deflection. You posted a topic in a debate area of the forums and invited commentary. Recognize that when you do something like that people will respond and you may not like the fact that there are individuals who don't agree with you. Your annoyance that not every one is sharing your prejudices or praising your "clever" post is rather immature. Your inability to formulate a coherent response doesn't may mine or anyone's post "stupid" So another untruth.
Pawpatrol
Active Member
It is not limited to them.
stevecanuck
Well-Known Member
That's absurd. If that were true, then the entire Qur'an would be referring to no living person after a couple of generations.
The general, all-encompassing nature of 9:111 is the bleedin' obvious.
stevecanuck
Well-Known Member
Correct, as did when you said, "So you want different standards applied to you and yours." That is a strawgiant.
You barge into a thread and immediately change the subject, and then demand that you non sequitur be addressed. Yeah, good luck with that in someone else's threads. You're not pulling that **** in mine.
See above.
Yes, on the subject of the thread. Maybe try that next time and I'll answer you.
Argentbear
Well-Known Member
Not an exaggeration or a distortion because you are actively saying you don't want the same standards to apply to both Islam and Christianity. You have spent several posts arguing that point.
You posted an OP in a debate thread and invited comments.
I asked a question that you have refused to answer instead you have done nothing but engage in personal attacks.
If you only wanted people to affirm your position shy start it in a area designed for debate and why as for commentary?
I doubt you would ever actually do that
stevecanuck
Well-Known Member
Yes. On .... The .... Topic .... Of .... The .... Thread.
BrightShadow
Active Member
A picture speaks a thousand words!
Just put your picture next to the word "Islamophobe" and anyone who has read any of your posts over the years - will quickly understand the meaning of that word. There won't be any need to define the term with words. Your picture will suffice!
That was a joke! Don't take it seriously!
On a serious note - you are continuing to commit historical-contextomy-fallacy! In other words - you are failing to see the historical context of the verses that you are taking out from the Quran and you are taking it out of linguistic context as well!
It is a double contextomy fallacy!
Anyone can read the Quran. Anyone can excerpt some words out of the Quran. However a "fallacy" occurs when selective excerpted words are quoted out of their original linguistic context and put out in a way that distorts its intended linguistic meaning.
Now, historical contextomy fallacy is one step further! It occurs when the historical connections of the verse is ignored and the words are put "out of context" and as a general blanket statement in an attempt to show it applies to all scenarios. While in reality it doesn't!
Now to put a cherry on top - faulty reasoning and misleading notions can further occur when the difference between the sociocultural aspects are ignored or not taken into consideration at all - while looking into events of two separate eras 1400 years apart.
So, you are taking verse out of context.
You are not considering the historical connections.
You are ignoring difference between sociocultural conditions of separate eras.
And you will continue to do so until the end of times or end of you - whichever happens first!
I'll finish.
Islamophobia - fear or hate based compulsion to attack Islam publicly at any opportunity on a religious forum or elsewhere usually without cause
Not Islamophobia - Everything else
Any questions?
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
No, but there is no moral norm or anything in the OP. In a sense you are just stating (sort of) facts including that you equate certain behavior to terrorism.
What you are using as a hidden assumption seems to be that terrorists are bad or something like that. So please explain what is you seem to be assuming about terrorists.
Or how you know that it is terrorism and thus bad as it would seem.
I heard from an Islamic scholar about thirty years ago that the geopolitical ambitions of Islam encompass the exact extent of the golden era of the Prophet Muhammad, which includes the Iberian Peninsula and part of southern France. Can someone provide some insight on this? I would be grateful.