Let's see if we can define 'Islamophobia'.

[stevecanuck]

That you are incapable of grasping your own fallacious reasoning does not make it fallacious to point it out.

Your argument: "when the Qur'an doesn't give historical context, it's not needed"

This is objectively false per all significant Islamic schools of thought (as you well know).

Okay, show me how that works. I'm saying that if Allah needed Muslims to know all about Tabuk before 9:111 was revealed, he would have included the necessary historical context. He didn't, and since he's 'perfect', he wouldn't have made such a glaring omission.

Now, using Tabuk as the background, how does that change what 9:111 is so clearly stating?

 

[Augustus]

Okay, show me how that works. I'm saying that if Allah needed Muslims to know all about Tabuk before 9:111 was revealed, he would have included the necessary historical context. He didn't, and since he's 'perfect', he wouldn't have made such a glaring omission.

I think it is a man made text that is far from perfect, so much so that early Muslims had to invent multiple genres of literature to explain the Quran and how to interpret it.

Muslims clearly believe context matters, and that is what matters in our discussion though. So your opinion is irrelevant to this question, and any argument based on this assumption tells us nothing about Islam as practiced by actual Muslims.

Now, using Tabuk as the background, how does that change what 9:111 is so clearly stating?

As I said: Fighting and martyrdom in a suitably just cause is noble and is one way to heaven (the idea that fighting and martyrdom in a just cause is noble is hardly unique to Islam or even religion in general though)

Anyway, in Islamic theology, verses don't exist in isolation, they are interpreted and contextualised based on a wide variety of factors that vary from Muslim to Muslim. You know this.

The key thing in this case would be what counts as a suitably just cause, and there would be a very large range of opinions on this among Muslims, as you also well know.

 

[BrightShadow]

Ya know, if you're going to pretend to miss the point by that much, there's just no reason to keep going.

You ducked my question! I predicted it. Read the last line of my last post (post #66)
The question was...
Kids are brainwashed from their childhood by terrorist leaders because they need new recruits to fight for their cause. Their "cause" has nothing to do with Islam but it is all about the oppression and occupied territory. They hate Israel and anyone who supports Israel! In order to brainwash their kids - they purposely misinterpret some verses from Quran.
So, that's their reason for talking the way they do!

What is your reason to misinterpret the Quran?

Almost 2 billion Muslims in the world. 99.999999% are peace loving, living in harmony with other religion believers and they have done so for centuries!
If you want to put the blame on Quran - it is your prerogative but that would be wrong and foolish because you are avoiding the elephant in the room and the elephant is occupying most of the room.
The conflict in the Middle east (where your terrorist are emanating from) is not a religious conflict! You know it and your neighbors and friends know it.
It is disingenuous to blame Quran and avoid the real reason. If Quran did say to kill or be killed in the manner you are suggesting then history would not show that Muslim ruled land were safe haven for other faith systems for centuries! Muslim men are allowed to marry Christian or Jewish women who could keep practicing their religion and not required to convert to Islam. That alone shows how wrong you are!
So, stop ignoring the elephant that is sitting right next to you. It is eating up all your food just to exist! Even a duck may not be able to duck forever. Truth never lies!

 

[BrightShadow]

Okay, show me how that works. I'm saying that if Allah needed Muslims to know all about Tabuk before 9:111 was revealed, he would have included the necessary historical context. He didn't, and since he's 'perfect', he wouldn't have made such a glaring omission.

Now, using Tabuk as the background, how does that change what 9:111 is so clearly stating?

I am responding to this even though it was not addressed towards me.

What is a tafsir:
A Quranic tafsir attempts to provide elucidation, explanation, interpretation, context or commentary for clear understanding and conviction of God's will in Islam. Principally, a tafsir deals with the issues of linguistics, jurisprudence, and theology.

Why tafsir is need while reading the Quran:
Learning Quran Tafsir is important because it provides insights into the Quran's deeper meanings, historical context, and intended messages, ensuring a more accurate understanding of the text.

Which tafsir is good? Check these recommendations by Dr. Zakir Naik
here is a link...

Quran was revealed to Muhammad over a period of 23 years. Many revelation came as a 'need to know' basis. It was easy for Muhammad's immediate followers to understand the context because they were there and they were dealing with the issues at hand. Just like we understood the context of President Bush's speech (as I mentioned earlier in my previous post).
If Muhammad's immediate followers didn't understand the context then Muhammad was there to explain it to them. Tafsir is basically explanation in a similar form. Centuries later now - to understand when the verse was revealed and why it was revealed is crucial because that is the only way to understand proper meaning of the verse and the context of the verse. Otherwise people will be interpreting like you and get the wrong implication of a said verse.

If you want to know about the verse in question (your OP) then google the campaign of Tabuk (it turned out to be basically an expedition of Tabuk). But it was a crucial one because it stopped an invasion before it could start. I pointed you to the proper direction to do your research in my post # 53. You are the one who pointed out the verse - so, if you sincerely wanted to know the background of the verse - you could have checked the net. But obviously you didn't do any research and that is why you are asking your quoted question. Without knowing when and why the verse was revealed - you won't understand the significance and relevance of the verse.

Let me rephrase what I wrote earlier a little bit in my post#53. Maybe you didn't get it.
The verse was revealed when Muhammad and his men were facing a significant threat from two combined enemies who had at least a 33 times bigger army (romans empire and Christian governor of Busra). At the face of the threat the believers (Muslims) were having doubts about whether or not they can prevail such an encounter and some were looking for excuses to not participate in the defensive war and they were acting like hypocrites and that was weakening the morale of the remaining army as well and thus as a result "truth" that Muhammad was delivering was in danger from not getting it roots established -so, encouragement, affirmation and warning were needed for the probable deserters among the believers to stay the course and protect the truth from getting lost or overrun! In the end - the show of force of just 30,000 men (in the name of defense was suffice) against a potential army of over at least 200,000. No war was fought in this particular instance! But who knows - history could have been written differently if the war did take place!

In the past - the "truth" was corrupted repeatedly after the departure of other prophets! It was corrupted after Moses left, it was corrupted after Jesus left. It was our last chance. Truth had to prevail among at least some believers so that it could be passed on to the future generations! Quran needed to be compiled. Muhammad had to finish delivering the message.
Now Quran is delivered. Islam is well established. It will prevail whatever is thrown at it. So, no more worries!

 

[stevecanuck]

Therefore, it is simply an assertion of your personal opinion on how you think Muslims should practice their religion, even though you are aware that it is not how Muslims themselves actually practice their religion. You are thus attacking something that you invented - a straw-Islam.

Your entire line of reasoning is based on a false premise that renders it totally irrelevant when discussing the beliefs of Muslims as opposed to discussing the personal beliefs of Steve off the internet.

Nope. I'm well aware that Muslims look at context. I look at context. I helps to understand WHY a verse is revealed. No disagreement there.

What historical context does NOT change is the meaning of the verse.

Get it now?





Didn't think so.

 

[stevecanuck]

You ducked my question! I predicted it. Read the last line of my last post (post #66)
The question was...
Kids are brainwashed from their childhood by terrorist leaders because they need new recruits to fight for their cause. Their "cause" has nothing to do with Islam but it is all about the oppression and occupied territory. They hate Israel and anyone who supports Israel! In order to brainwash their kids - they purposely misinterpret some verses from Quran.
So, that's their reason for talking the way they do!

What is your reason to misinterpret the Quran?

Okay, here's my answer:



That was a stupid example of trying to pass off a 'when did you stop beating your wife' question as being legitimate.

 

[stevecanuck]

@Augustus

Still having trouble picking a lane? You have spent very many posts denying the accepted version of early Islamic history, yet now you've switched to using it as the basis for a pretend 'gotcha'. And not a very good one.

 

[stevecanuck]

What about it?

"God has bought from the believers their selves and their possessions against the gift of Paradise; they fight in the way of God; they kill, and are killed; that is a promise binding upon God in the Torah, and the Gospel, and the Koran; and who fulfils his covenant truer than God? So rejoice in the bargain you have made with Him; that is the mighty triumph."

Fighting and martyrdom in a suitably just cause is noble and one way to heaven (the idea that fighting and martyrdom in a just cause is noble is hardly unique to Islam or even religion in general)

Your point being?

If you want to trivialize a command to kill and die for Allah, then fill your boots.

The "just cause" is by definition the spread of Islam. That's what "fight in the way of Allah" means. And that's what jihad has been about for 1400 years.

There are currently dozens of jihad groups fighting "in a way of Allah". The flag of Hezbollah sums it up a succinctly as possible.

What part of Allah, a machine gun, a globe, and the Qur'an confuses you?

 

[stevecanuck]

to understand when the verse was revealed and why it was revealed is crucial because that is the only way to understand proper meaning of the verse and the context of the verse.

Then Allah FAILED to provide the ingridients to bake this cake. He used 6,236 verses to NOT tell you everything you need to know. Brilliant argument. Just frigging brilliant.

 

[stevecanuck]

I assume you are living in a free world with internet access to the ocean of knowledge and yet you are comparing yourself to politically controlled, intellectually deprived, mentally manipulated folks who are brainwashed from pre-school into believing these false narratives and misinterpretations because it is what their leaders want so that they could be recruited by these organizations to further their cause. A "cause" that has nothing to do with Islam but all about oppression, occupied territory (basically all about land)!

And what's the excuse for the previous 1300 years? What was an invading Muslim army doing in France in 732?

 

[stevecanuck]

The conflict in the Middle east (where your terrorist are emanating from) is not a religious conflict!

Below is a link to the 1988 founding charter of Hamas, which is an Arabic acronym for 'Islamic Resistance Movement' as opposed to 'Palestinian Resistance Movement'. It is stated as such 49 times. This distinction alone shows that religion rather than politics is at the heart of their desire to destroy Israel. However, that will become blindingly obvious as you read the charter, as the words 'Allah, Islam(ic), Koran, Moslem(s), and Jihad' appear a combined 290 times, while 36 verses of the Qur'an and 4 hadiths are quoted. The charter was revised in 2107 to, in my opinion, sanitize it for consumption by the West after Hamas realized that it shouldn't have said the quiet part out loud.

The Avalon Project : Hamas Covenant 1988

Here is some Islamic love and tolerance from the charter:

• Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it.
• Our struggle against the Jews is very great and very serious.
• The Movement's programme is Islam.
• the Prophet is its example and the Koran is its constitution.
• The Day of Judgement will not come about until Moslems fight the Jews (killing the Jews), when the Jew will hide behind stones and trees. The stones and trees will say O Moslems, O Abdulla, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him.

Not a "religious conflict"?????

You lie, and lie, and lie with every post.

 

[stevecanuck]

Almost 2 billion Muslims in the world. 99.999999% are peace loving, living in harmony with other religion believers.

Utter BS.

Every heard of Asia Bibi?

The vast majority of Pakistani Muslims were fine with the fact that she was sentenced to death for blasphemy. She was lucky to even reach the courts, as many never even get that far. Instead they are beaten to death by Muslim mobs.


Your propaganda BS will never go unchallenged. Best just leave now.

 

[Augustus]

What historical context does NOT change is the meaning of the verse.

Get it now?





Didn't think so.

What do you think is the "objective" meaning of the verse?

Strangely enough, after living half my life in the Muslim world, I miraculously survived the endless stream of of jihadi fanatics insistent on killing me to to reach heaven.

The idea that its noble to fight and die for a noble cause is ubiquitous to human societies. What constitutes a noble cause changes depending on many factors regardless of the religion or lack thereof in said society.

Still having trouble picking a lane? You have spent very many posts denying the accepted version of early Islamic history, yet now you've switched to using it as the basis for a pretend 'gotcha'. And not a very good one.

You really are unable to understand that humans are capable of differentiating between theology and history, and discussing each in different contexts? That explains a lot.

If you need a refresher, I don’t think the Islamic theological narrative reflects historical fact and is largely an exegetical fabrication. For example I don’t think Muhammad split the moon or flew on a donkey.

I also don’t think Jesus walked on water, raised Lazarus or returned to life after being crucified.

Using your logic, I either must "pick a lane" and choose to accept that those things are indeed factual history, in which case I can discuss the theology of what Christians believe. Alternatively, I can accept they are myths, but can never comment about the beliefs of Christians.

You make a lot of terrible arguments, but the idea one can only ever discuss one of theology or history is by far the stupidest.

If you want to trivialize a command to kill and die for Allah, then fill your boots.

The "just cause" is by definition the spread of Islam. That's what "fight in the way of Allah" means. And that's what jihad has been about for 1400 years.

Yet over the last few millennia years, Muslims have been no more violent than assorted pagans, Christians or atheists.

It’s not like there were peaceful Romans and Persians minding their own business until some mean Muslims appeared from nowhere and started killing them for no reason.

Roman and Persian Arab mercenaries simply decided they no longer needed to be vassals as their overlords were weak and could be conquered. It’s exactly what happened a century or 2 earlier in the western Empire with the Germanic tribes.

Even if we just take the modern period, they have an exponentially lower body count than Europeans and their offshoots in the Americas.

If you wish to claim that the Quran is so uniquely terrible that it makes Muslims more violent than non-Muslims, that would require some empirical data to support, rather than your typical feeble whining assertions borne out of prejudice.

All societies are violent, saying "buuuut there are violent Muslim groups!!!! Big scary Muslims!!" is not a case that they are more violent now or historically.

Can you make a rational, evidence based argument to support your case? My guess is "No, of course not. You will just whine a bit more about your personal opinions on how a book should be read".

 

[paarsurrey]

Let's see if we can define 'Islamophobia'.

What did the friends conclude about the definition of " Islamophobia ", please, right??

Regards
__________________
9:107
Cherry Picking from page-1

Should we be comparing your "Not Islamopobia" to the biblical command that those of different religions are to be slaughtered?

So you want different standards applied to you and yours.

Luke 19:27 “But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them—bring them here and kill them in front of me.”

Exodus 22:20 "“Whoever sacrifices to any god other than the LORD must be destroyed."

2 Chronicles 15:12-13 They entered into a covenant to seek the Lord, the God of their fathers, with all their heart and soul; and everyone who would not seek the Lord, the God of Israel, shall to be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman.

I have zero confidence in your capacity to address the question without prejudice.

From other pages:

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

A quote from the Quran can only be in the Arabic language. If it's English it's not a quote from the Quran, rather it's an interpretation and translation of the meaning.

 

[firedragon]

I think it is a man made text that is far from perfect, so much so that early Muslims had to invent multiple genres of literature to explain the Quran and how to interpret it.

Why do you think that? Based on what kind of analysis?

 

[firedragon]

Strangely enough, after living half my life in the Muslim world, I miraculously survived the endless stream of of jihadi fanatics insistent on killing me to to reach heaven.

Which world is that?

 

[Augustus]

Why do you think that? Based on what kind of analysis?

To start with the least likely origin for any text is god.

As a result, it would take remarkable evidence before that is more likely than being if human origin. No such evidence has ever been presented, just subjective and unfalsifiable claims.

Beyond that I wouldn’t expect an eternal, Divine text to read like it was written by a human with human concerns in the Late Antique Middle East and that contains a no material that could not have been written by a man from such an environment.

I wouldn’t expect his to paraphrase a Syriac text about Alexander the Great that makes him a pious monotheist (although a man in Late Antique Arabia might well…)

Also the proto-Islamic community seems to have forgotten how to interpret parts of the Quran and then invented lots of fabricated stories about Muhammad to explain bits of it.

Which seems incongruous with truly Divine origins.

It’s supposed to be a pretty eloquent text in Arabic, but it didn’t stand out as being beyond human capabilities to many of its contemporaries.

Why do you believe it is? What makes it probable?

Which world is that?

It’s a common shorthand for the countries that have a Muslim majority population regardless of geographic location.

 

[stevecanuck]

What do you think is the "objective" meaning of the verse?

I asked you first. In post#81. Here it is again:

Now, using Tabuk as the background, how does that change what 9:111 is so clearly stating?

 

[stevecanuck]

The idea that its noble to fight and die for a noble cause is ubiquitous to human societies.

Ummmm, okay. I think we all know that. The differentiation we're looking for lies in the definition of "noble". According to the Qur'an fighting and dying "in the cause of Allah" is the most noble thing that one can do. The many dozens of currently operating jihadi groups provide us with examples every day.

 

[stevecanuck]

You really are unable to understand that humans are capable of differentiating between theology and history, and discussing each in different contexts? That explains a lot.

Nope, that's you. I've been stating all along that the Qur'an (that would be "theology" bit) can be read and understood almost entirely free of historical context. In fact, I've stated as much dozens of times. But, you know that. You're just playing a game of seeing if you can trip me up. I hope you don't think that I didn't figure that out a long time ago.