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

[BrightShadow]

MSN

I'll start.

Islamophobia - "All Muslims are terrorists."

Not Islamophobia - Acknowledging that verse 9:111 tells Muslims to fight, kill, and be killed in exchange for Allah admitting them to heaven.


Any quibbles so far?

You mentioned Asia Bibi in one of your posts on page 5.
The fact that Asia Bibi was living in a village in a 3rd world and Muslim country and was able to work prior to her being accused of making derogatory comments about Muhammad - proves your original post to be false that Quran says "to kill or be killed". Even after derogatory comments about the prophet - she was allowed to leave the country and probably lives in Canada now!

Do you agree now that Quran didn't tell Muslims "to kill or be killed" in the manner you suggested without understanding the historical context of the verse? You had no clue what the verse was about and if you didn't read my post then you still don't have any clue!

So, if this Asia Bibi example makes you understand that Muslims are not asked "to kill or be killed" because she was living in a village and working just fine until she supposedly said derogatory comments - then retract your original post and stop saying that context is not needed to understand that verse as you continue to tell everyone.
Your own example proved how wrong you were about your own OP.

 

[paarsurrey]

That’s why I use the seven translations in corpus.quran.com. For the verses I want to parse for clarity I read all seven and use them as a guide to read the Arabic.

Hasn't one observed that there is sometimes a difference of understanding of meaning by the translators of Quran (in seven translations in corpus.quran.com) and therefore difference of translation among them, please, right? If it happens what does on do, please, right?

There are about 67 translations of Quran at the following website:
Ayah al-Isra` (Children of Israel, The Israelites) 17:79
Right?

I've only found 1 or 2 out of 6,236 verses that had significant differences in translation. If you said, "It's all my fault" as opposed to "I am entirely to blame", the meaning is the same despite no two words being the same.

Friend @stevecanuck .
So, one certifies that Quran is easy to understand **, as it claims to be, and that "1 or 2 out of 6,236 * verses that had significant differences in translation " could be, and or certainly are, due to the misunderstanding of 1 or 2 and or of both the translators of the original Arabic narration/text of Quran, right, please? Right?

Yup. Pretty sure I just said that.

15:10 (Original Arabic narration/text from Muhammad's time is below)
اِنَّا نَحۡنُ نَزَّلۡنَا الذِّکۡرَ وَاِنَّا لَہٗ لَحٰفِظُوۡنَ ﴿۱۰

15:10 Verily, We Ourself have sent down this Exhortation, and most surely We will be its Guardian. Holy Quran: Read, Listen and Search

One G-d sent down this Exhortation (Quran-its original Arabic narration on the heart of Muhammad) and since then G-d has guarded it and will guard it in future, right, please?
One agrees with it, right?

Regards

 

[stevecanuck]

Remember, I am NOT the one who is derailing the OP!
You pointed out something - so I am responding. You pointed out "wife beating"!
At first I didn't realize what you were talking about but then I realized you are pointing to a verse in Quran misunderstood by critics as a golden ticket in favor of domestic violence specifically against women by their husbands. When in reality the verse in Quran is not the "cause" of domestic violence, it is not the recommendation - it is simply the "remedy" for domestic violence (something that preexisted in almost everywhere on earth and it was needed to be eradicated slowly in a way humans (new believers) would accept the change!

If you didn't want to derail your own OP - then you should have stayed on the topic and not mention "wife beating" here.

Let me educate you a bit about domestic violence and Islam:
Islam has shown the path of eradication of domestic violence in a way no other religion has done. Quran was introduced at an ancient world of 7th century in a lawless place where barbaric practices against women were going on. Many fathers didn't want a daughter - they wanted a son who can help with their hard work and their livelihood. Raising a daughter was just expensive and they needed to be protected and it costs money when it was time for them to marry them out. It was a world were women were readily mistreated because men are the stronger gender!

In a world where domestic violence against women was the norm and without consequences - Islam progressively restricted men from readily abusing women. It was an impossible task even for a prophet to do it in a single shot! Firstly alcohol was banned and then conditions were set to talk with spouse (wife) first after a dispute or quarrel. If that didn't work then it was suggested to stay away from each other in bed etc. It was a step by step process, a step by step deterrent from resorting to violence!
Do you think it was an easy job to be the prophet and tell men of that era - what they can and cannot do with their wives or to their wives?

I am sure you might agree that - Alcohol plays the biggest role in many domestic violence. After alcohol - domestic violence is usually a product of "crime of passion" or "heat of the moment of an argument". If you take away these two reasons and allow people to just cool off - then a married couple would hardly resort to domestic violence! It is that simple! Islam took away two major reasons behind domestic violence.

Is that not ingenious? Check the verse you are referring to and you may understand!

Once one realizes how domestic violence is progressively eradicated in Islam then one must realize how smart the teaching of Quran really is about every other matter. It takes an intelligent person to understand the benefit one gets from the teachings of the Quran! Are you claiming to be not intelligent enough to understand the message?

Another day, another lie from you.

Verse 4:34 does NOT give a step by step process. It says to do all three: "As for those from whom ye fear rebellion, admonish them and banish them to beds apart, and scourge them."

 

[stevecanuck]

You are told not to kill. Killing one innocent is like killing the entire humanity.

Trying to sneak 5:32 past me while pretending 5:33 doesn't finish that command - and in a way much differently than you're trying to imply? Haven't you figured out by now that you can't get away with cheap tricks like that?

Here are verses 5:32 and 5:33 in full: "Therefore We prescribed for the Children of Israel that whoso slays a soul not to retaliate for a soul slain, nor for corruption done in the land, shall be as if he had slain mankind altogether; and whoso gives life to a soul, shall be as if he has given life to mankind altogether. Our Messengers have already come to them with the clear signs; then many of them thereafter commit excesses in the earth. This is the recompense of those who fight against God and His Messenger, and hasten about the earth, to do corruption there: they shall be slaughtered, or crucified, or their hands and feet shall alternately be struck off; or they shall be banished from the land. That is a degradation for them in this world; and in the world to come awaits them a mighty chastisement."

Now that it has been shown that killing is not prohibited, but in fact encouraged, the next step is to define who qualifies for righteous slaughter. The key is in understanding the meaning of "fasad". In its various forms (verb, noun, and participle) it appears 50 times in the Qur'an, and is variously translated as "corruption", "rottenness", and "mischief". Given that the entire Qur'an is based on delineating the difference between belief (Islam) and disbelief, and given the context in which 'fasad' is used throughout the Qur'an, it is obviously a synonym for disbelief. For example:

- Verses 2:8 through 2:12 speak of "disbelievers" and call them "corrupters".

- Verse 2:26 refers to "those who disbelieve" while 2:27 defines them as those who "cause corruption".

- Verse 8:73 not only ties 'fasad' to disbelief, but makes it synonymous with 'fitnah' (oppression) - all the while driving the wedge between believer and disbeliever ever deeper, "As for the unbelievers, they are friends of one another. Unless you [Muslims] do this [unite in friendship], there will be persecution [fitnah] in the land and great corruption [fasad]".

- Verse 16:88 is another that directly links 'fasad' to disbelief, "Those that disbelieve and bar from the way of God ... they were doing corruption [fasad]".

- Verse 38:28 is a rhetorical question meant to highlight that believers (Muslims) are superior to, and the opposite of, those who commit 'fasad', "Shall We make those who believe and do righteous deeds as [equals to] the workers of corruption [fasad] in the earth?".

 

[stevecanuck]

So, hold your horses - stop - think - and realize killing is not allowed as per Quran - so don't kill - and tell anyone thinking otherwise that Quran says don't kill!
End of story!

Just how ridiculous can your claims get?

Surely you must know that I can give quotes that are direct commands to kill. Seriously, how can you tell such an easily exposed lie?

 

[stevecanuck]

God in Quran did not tell believers to kill and expand!

Yet again, you know that's simply not true. Verse 9:29 does exactly that.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Surely you must know that I can give quotes that are direct commands to kill..

Well, you are claiming that an atheist such as yourself, knows better than believers.
Most Muslims I know believe in civilized behaviour as per Qur'an .. but they are not pacifists.
They realize if they don't stand up to bullies and aggressors(as instructed), the world
will be overrun by corruption.

Perhaps you think that Hitler's policies, for example, were correct, but those with knowledge do not.

The more a 'people' are oppressed, the more aggressive they become.
Of course, some can be bought, in order to cause division. Such tactics are temporary,
as in the long run, falsehood cannot succeed .. just as gravity acts towards the earth.

 

[Augustus]

You are making a positive claim. So you should have definitive evidence to your claim.

This is the burden of proof fallacy.

Now. You made another claim.

If you want to retreat to the level of navel gazing where it is not more probable that a text is written by a human rather than being the timeless and uncreated word of god, that’s up to you.

Especially one that borrows from earlier literature, confuses a pagan with a pious monotheist, and reads like a text very much of its time and place.

You can’t “prove” that the OP isn’t the uncreated word of a perfect deity. Or the instruction booklet that comes with a pack of painkillers is not. You certainly don’t think that these are divine though.

I consider there to be sufficient evidence that it is reasonable to assume they were written by humans until demonstrated otherwise. That is the most reasonable position to assume based on a wealth of evidence.

I am highly confident that I will be right far more than I am wrong.

But perhaps we are all just brains in vats seeing we can’t prove otherwise and we are all being fooled.

So you "miraculously" escaped murder by "Muslim Jihadi Fanatics" in the "Muslim world" and it was an "Endless stream of them".

Where was that and for what?

Jesus wept

At least try to read posts wrote you hit reply.

Go back and read the whole post and, without assumptions and prejudice, do you level best to work out whether or not it is more probable in context that:

a) I was obviously being very sarcastic in response to the silliness of the poster I’m replying to.

b) I was making a serious claim about factual reality

I’ll assume a 2nd more careful reading will make your mistake obvious.

 

[stevecanuck]

You are bring up an isolated case from a 3rd world country's village.

No, it started in a 3rd world village. It ended up in the highest court in the land. Pakistan has the death penalty for blashpemy against Islam. Why? Because of verse 5:33 if nothing else. Others are currently on death row for committing "corruption on earth".

Islam is a horrid religion and the atrocities committed in accordance with commands in the Qur'an prove it every single day.

 

[stevecanuck]

Once again - the conflict in the middle east is NOT a religious conflict. If an organization is claiming it and you are believing it then they have succeeded to fool you or you have decided to remain ignorant for a different reason because it also works for your agenda!

If you ask anyone else who is neutral (your friends and neighbors) they will tell you - the middle east conflict is NOT a religious conflict!
It is all about oppression - it is all about occupied territory - and a fight to get it back what was taken from them and it is all about 3rd parties taking advantage of the conflict because war means MONEY!

You seem to be a smart guy - you have a smart device - you can type and write. Why don't you use your skills and find out the real "truth" and not the fabrication that is spoon fed to you for years?

Do you believe people represent Islam or do you believe Quran represents Islam?

You didn't you say what context they quoted Quran? You just said 36 verses were quoted!

If someone powerful pushes you out of your house and keeps you somewhere in the outskirt of you home and in an oppressive condition and if you have exhausted all means to gain possession of your house and land back - then I am sure you too would do whatever works to recruit folks to help you with your cause (especially if you can also get some donations from here and there to show that you are fighting for injustice). Am I wrong?

So, you can read the Hamas charter and still deny that its 330 references to being an agent of Islam mean nothing?

Your powers of denial are a wonder to behold.

 

[stevecanuck]

proves your original post to be false that Quran says "to kill or be killed"

Read 9:111 again. Read what I quoted again.

I did not claim it says "killed OR be killed". Your book of peace and tolerance says "kill AND be killed".

 

[stevecanuck]

Well, you are claiming that an atheist such as yourself, knows better than believers.

Nope. I'm claiming I can read. The Qur'an issues many commands to kill, and you know it. Do you deny that?

Most Muslims I know believe in civilized behaviour as per Qur'an .. but they are not pacifists.
They realize if they don't stand up to bullies and aggressors(as instructed), the world
will be overrun by corruption.

Perhaps you think that Hitler's policies, for example, were correct, but those with knowledge do not.

The more a 'people' are oppressed, the more aggressive they become.
Of course, some can be bought, in order to cause division. Such tactics are temporary,
as in the long run, falsehood cannot succeed .. just as gravity acts towards the earth.

Let me get this straight - a Christian woman in Pakistan is sentenced to death for defending her religion, but, oh wait, it's MUSLIMS who are being oppressed???

 

[muhammad_isa]

Nope. I'm claiming I can read..

..and what you understand, you don't like .. right?

You would prefer it, if G-d had instructed us to ignore bullies and aggressors .. got it.

 

[stevecanuck]

..and what you understand, you don't like .. right?

You would prefer it, if G-d had instructed us to ignore bullies and aggressors .. got it.

Nope, Muslims should not ignore bullies and aggressors. They should invade their music concerts and slaughter as many of those bullies and aggressors as possible.

 

[Augustus]

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.

Unsurprisingly, you prove you quite genuinely don’t understand the difference.

The Quran and hadith and how they should be understood are all theology. The "historical context" from the sirah is theology. The extent to which there are historical kernels of truth that underpin some of these narratives does not make them any less theological in the form we have them.

History would be identifying the kernels of historical truth that can be understood from within the hadith. It would also bee looking at how early Muslims understood the Quran, or the emergence and development of the movement that became Islam.

That you see presenting elementary explanations of what secular scholars think as “an attempt to trip you up” speaks absolute volumes of your mindset and why you have failed to understand the basics in your purported “decades of scholarship”.

What I criticised previously try to psychoanalyse a historical Muhammad, by assuming the theological narratives are true and highly accurate, except for the fact that Muhammad is entirely venal, corrupt and mendacious.

The logic you are completely incapable of understanding is that if the theological narratives are not at all accurate and, at best, relate to a highly fictionalised retelling of a loosely historical event, then they are mostly irrelevant for a historical Muhammad you are simply inventing your own form of fiction based on your prejudices. It would be like trying to psychoanalyse the leaders of of the Graeco-Persian Wars based on watching the movie 300.

You are incapable of processing this though despite it being explained in such easy to understand term.

As such, your polemics end up neither discussing what Muslims believe (Islamic theology) or what historians think (history). You simply make up your own straw-Islam and pseudo history by cherry picking what best suits your prejudices.

 

[Augustus]

Are you still playing that ridiculous false dichotomy game?

So, either Mohamed flew on an donkey and led an army to Tabuk, or he did neither????

No.

Either the Islamic narratives are highly accurate or they are not.

You assume they are highly accurate despite the flying donkeys and moon splitting, rather than considering that any text in which these fantastical details are among the most well attested to be true, it might be probable that the authors made as lot of other less well attested details up too (which is generally accepted as the consensus view of secular historians).

You (at least implicitly) assume the narratives are highly accurate.

 

[Augustus]

Cue the off-topic whataboutism.

Another example of you claiming a fallacy in lieu of thinking rationally.

Humans are violent. We can highlight examples of violence among all groups across human history. Your logic rests on the claim that Islam makes humans significantly more violent than the ideologies and belief systems in other mass cultures.

Across which of these periods would you say that there is evidence for this being true?

a) Past 2500 years
b) Past 1500 years
c) Past 500 years
d) Past 200 years
e) Past 100 years

Feel free to cherry pick your own time frame if you don't like those options.

 

[stevecanuck]

Your logic rests on the claim that Islam makes humans significantly more violent than the ideologies and belief systems in other mass cultures.

Yes, that's my claim.

Regardless of how legitimate complaints against Israel may be, the gleeful slaughter of Jews on October 7, and the outpouring of support for it from the world's Muslims, demonstrates just how vicious Islam causes people to be.

 

[Augustus]

Yes, that's my claim.

Then you should have some evidence to support it that extends beyond anecdote and assumption. So far in 100 threads of bitterness and whining, you have provided none.

Pick a time period and demonstrate this. I give you your most cherry picked choice of timelines from the past 2500 years where Islam would seem like an outlier.

Regardless of how legitimate complaints against Israel may be, the gleeful slaughter of Jews on October 7, and the outpouring of support for it from the world's Muslims, demonstrates just how vicious Islam causes people to be.

Lots of Israelis have been gleeful about the slaughter of Palestinians. Lots of Europeans and North Americans have been happy to see Russians killed in Ukraine. That's what happens when you have ongoing violent conflicts with your neighbours.

Rejoicing in the death of people you perceive as the enemy is common to all societies and, regardless of who is "worse" it is easy to understand why some people choose 'sides' in Israel/Palestine and rejoice in their smiting of the enemy.

Your anecdote fails again.

 

[paarsurrey]

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

That’s why I use the seven translations in corpus.quran.com. For the verses I want to parse for clarity I read all seven and use them as a guide to read the Arabic.

Hasn't one observed that there is sometimes a difference of understanding of meaning by the translators of Quran (in seven translations in corpus.quran.com) and therefore difference of translation among them, please, right? If it happens what does on do, please, right?

There are about 67 translations of Quran at the following website:
Ayah al-Isra` (Children of Israel, The Israelites) 17:79
Right?

I've only found 1 or 2 out of 6,236 verses that had significant differences in translation. If you said, "It's all my fault" as opposed to "I am entirely to blame", the meaning is the same despite no two words being the same.

Friend @stevecanuck .
So, one certifies that Quran is easy to understand **, as it claims to be, and that "1 or 2 out of 6,236 * verses that had significant differences in translation " could be, and or certainly are, due to the misunderstanding of 1 or 2 and or of both the translators of the original Arabic narration/text of Quran, right, please? Right?

Yup. Pretty sure I just said that.

Friend @stevecanuck .
15:10 (Original Arabic narration/text from Muhammad's time is below)
اِنَّا نَحۡنُ نَزَّلۡنَا الذِّکۡرَ وَاِنَّا لَہٗ لَحٰفِظُوۡنَ ﴿۱۰

15:10 Verily, We Ourself have sent down this Exhortation, and most surely We will be its Guardian. Holy Quran: Read, Listen and Search

One G-d sent down this Exhortation (Quran-its original Arabic narration on the heart of Muhammad) and since then G-d has guarded it and will guard it in future, right, please?
One agrees with it, right?

Regards