Nothing to do with Islam?

[LuisDantas]

NT does have any respect for those who reject Jesus either.

But it is possible, and in fact fairly common, to find Christians that do not particularly trust or value the literal text of the Bible. Perhaps because it is perceived as a text written by fallible, flawed people, or perhaps due to genuine liberal thinking.

Both situations are considerably difficult to establish themselves in Islaam, by design even.

As an aside, I am not very aware of those verses of the NT that would be comparable to the Qur'an regarding despisal of unbelievers. Some examples would be welcome.

 

[Estro Felino]

Wow! I see a HUGE difference between those two books. They're both barbaric, but the Quran is much more like a war manual than the NT.

With all due respect, I do not agree it deals with a war manual, but it contains episodes of battles that belong to a certain cultural and historical context...So you need to contextualize them.

It is very easy to manipulate words (for example, the veil doesn't exist in the Qur'an, let alone the burqa...But they twisted the meaning of some words to justify it.)

So I think it's unfair to accuse the holy books of a religion to be the source of some cultural inventions like the veil, or the cruelty of ISIS.

In Egypt , in Morocco the veil wasn't a thing before Pan-Islamism came into being.
Assad's wife is not veiled...neither is Rania of Jordan;
unfortunately there are people in the ME that don't want to evolve culturally , and the Syrian war is just the result of a great cultural divide between Assad and a slice of the population that sees modernization as the end of old, medieval principles.
Religion is just a pretext

 

[icehorse]

With all due respect, I do not agree it deals with a war manual, but it contains certain episodes of battles that belong to a certain cultural and historical context...So you need to decontextualize them.

It is very easy to manipulate words (for example, the veil doesn't exist in the Qur'an, let alone the burqa)...But they twisted the meaning of some words to justify it.

So I think it's unfair to accuse the holy books of a religion to justify some cultural inventions like the veil, or the cruelty of ISIS.

In Egypt , in Morocco the veil wasn't a thing before Pan-Islamism came to being.
Assad's wife is not veiled...neither is Rania of Jordan;
unfortunately there are people in the ME that don't want to evolve culturally , and the Syrian war is just the result of a great cultural divide between Assad and a slice of the population that sees modernization as the end of old, medieval principles.
Religion is just a pretext; The unleashing factor is anthropological (or better, zoological)

Did you glance at the link I provided in post #58? I think it will give you many specific examples of what I'm talking about.

 

[sayak83]

I will say that the Islamic definition of "defense" is very different from the common western definition. In Islam, if a non-believer resists being converted, that non-violent resistance can be viewed as "an attack" on Islam which can then be dealt with violently. So for example, when a cartoonist draws a picture of Muhammad, that is considered an attack on Islam, and any violence Muslims commit in response to the cartoon is considered "defensive".

Please show where in the Quran does it say resistance to conversion is said to be an attack?
Its more like what Rohingyas are encountering in Mynmar that qualifies as a case where defensive fighting is commanded.

 

[sayak83]

This feels a little like a "LMGTFY" request, but here's a nice handy summary of 109 verses in he Quran that speak of war with non-believers:

The Quran's Verses of Violence

Chapter 2, the verses, while talking about what is allowed during the month of Ramzan, the Quran says that fighting against those who attack you are allowed. This is similar to the case in OT, where Jews were allowed to fight during the Sabbath if they are attacked. Here is the full verse,

190 And fight in the way of God against those who fight against you, but do not transgress. Truly God loves not the transgressors. 191 And slay them wheresoever you come upon them, and expel them whence they expelled you, for strife is worse than slaying. But do not fight with them near the Sacred Mosque until they fight with you there. But if they fight you, then slay them. Such is the recompense of the disbelievers. 192 But if they desist, then truly God is Forgiving, Merciful. 193 And fight them until there is no strife, and religion is for God. But if they desist, then there is no enmity save against the wrongdoers.

 

[icehorse]

Chapter 2, the verses, while talking about what is allowed during the month of Ramzan, the Quran says that fighting against those who attack you are allowed.

Yes, but what constitutes an "attack"? Is drawing a cartoon an attack? Many Muslims - around the world - have demonstrated that they view blasphemy as an attack.

As for your second paragraph - doesn't that seem somewhat incoherent to you?

 

[sayak83]

Yes, but what constitutes an "attack"? Is drawing a cartoon an attack? Many Muslims - around the world - have demonstrated that they view blasphemy as an attack.

As for your second paragraph - doesn't that seem somewhat incoherent to you?

No it does not seem incoherent.

Mocking God is not considered an attack, though people are exhorted to shun those who mock Allah. See Quran. So mocking the prophet will fall in the same class.

 

[Sakeenah]

I appreciate the good intentions you bring to this discussion, really!

That said, it strikes me that this orientation makes a difficult job almost impossible. I have to say that what I read between the words in your post is that you have a good sense of morals and ethics that you acquired in spite of your scripture and that now you're trying to reverse-engineer your good work back into scripture that's mostly incompatible with what you rally believe. I wish you all the best luck, but I really think you're handcuffing yourself.

I did not acquire a good sense of morals and ethics in spite of my scripture. My scripture teaches me good morals and ethics. The Quran mentions sincerity, honesty, humility, justice, patience,straightforwardness, keeping promise, charity, humility, politeness, forgiveness, goodness, courage, veracity, compassion and tolerance. The Quran does not need me to reverse-engineer something that is already present.

 

[Sakeenah]

I will say that the Islamic definition of "defense" is very different from the common western definition. In Islam, if a non-believer resists being converted, that non-violent resistance can be viewed as "an attack" on Islam which can then be dealt with violently. So for example, when a cartoonist draws a picture of Muhammad, that is considered an attack on Islam, and any violence Muslims commit in response to the cartoon is considered "defensive".

This is incorrect, where do you base this islamic ruling on? It seems like you are taking these rulings straight from an ISIS website.

There are clear guidelines on what Islam views as defense. Islamically we can't convert a non-muslim against their will,the Quran clearly states that this goes against our beliefs. So no we don't view that as an attack. An attack is when someone enters your house/land and wants to harm you and your family, in this case we are allowed to defend ourselves. Many scholars have spoken against the violence after the Danish cartoons.

 

[icehorse]

No it does not seem incoherent.

Mocking God is not considered an attack, though people are exhorted to shun those who mock Allah. See Quran. So mocking the prophet will fall in the same class.

Well evidence from around the world a few years back was that drawing cartoons of Muhammad WAS considered to be an attack, and Muslims - again, around the world - responded violently. So from where I sit, you're claiming that you - individually - have the correct understanding of Islam, and all of those Muslims have it wrong. That is an extraordinary claim, so you need to have some extraordinary evidence.

As to the second point, if you find that paragraph coherent, can you summarize it?

 

[icehorse]

This is incorrect, where do you base this islamic ruling on? It seems like you are taking these rulings straight from an ISIS website.

There are clear guidelines on what Islam views as defense. Islamically we can't convert a non-muslim against their will,the Quran clearly states that this goes against our beliefs. So no we don't view that as an attack. An attack is when someone enters your house/land and wants to harm you and your family, in this case we are allowed to defend ourselves. Many scholars have spoken against the violence after the Danish cartoons.

I'm basing this on Islamic history, on the behaviors of conquering Muslims over the last 1400 years. And it's not just historical behavior, it's still happening. So we have your opinion up against 1400 years of evidence. I'm sure that you - personally - are sincere, but the ideology has guided Muslims differently for a long time now.

 

[FearGod]

But it is possible, and in fact fairly common, to find Christians that do not particularly trust or value the literal text of the Bible. Perhaps because it is perceived as a text written by fallible, flawed people, or perhaps due to genuine liberal thinking.

Both situations are considerably difficult to establish themselves in Islaam, by design even.

As an aside, I am not very aware of those verses of the NT that would be comparable to the Qur'an regarding despisal of unbelievers. Some examples would be welcome.

In short, quran and Islam is the worst on earth, your view makes me feel comfortable.

 

[FearGod]

Yes, but what constitutes an "attack"? Is drawing a cartoon an attack? Many Muslims - around the world - have demonstrated that they view blasphemy as an attack.

As for your second paragraph - doesn't that seem somewhat incoherent to you?

Does really the quran say kill those who mock or draw the prophet?
please show me the verse.

 

[FearGod]

Well evidence from around the world a few years back was that drawing cartoons of Muhammad WAS considered to be an attack, and Muslims - again, around the world - responded violently. So from where I sit, you're claiming that you - individually - have the correct understanding of Islam, and all of those Muslims have it wrong. That is an extraordinary claim, so you need to have some extraordinary evidence.

As to the second point, if you find that paragraph coherent, can you summarize it?

Show us which verse that motivate making violence for mocking the prophet,
why to blame the quran for some people behavior?

 

[LuisDantas]

In short, quran and Islam is the worst on earth, your view makes me feel comfortable.

For the record, @FearGod, I would greatly appreciate if you decided to stop directing such cheap and uncalled shots towards me. Word has it that you are a better person than they make you appear to be. And they can't really hurt me, in case you are wondering.

Besides, they are quite unhelpful and an unwelcome distraction from productive discussion, don't you think?

Answering the question that you can't quite make: there are worse things on Earth than Islaam - but, seeing how it is a strongly ideological movement saddled with serious inner conflicts and involving over a billion people, it should be no surprise that Islaam is perceived as worth of some attention and, when warranted, criticism.

 

[LuisDantas]

No it does not seem incoherent.

Mocking God is not considered an attack, though people are exhorted to shun those who mock Allah. See Quran. So mocking the prophet will fall in the same class.

Who exactly says so, among Muslims?

 

[icehorse]

In short, quran and Islam is the worst on earth, your view makes me feel comfortable.

Non-Muslims did not create Islam. Islamic scripture make outrageous and dangerous claims about itself and the rest of us have to deal with that. It makes the rest of us uncomfortable.

 

[Sakeenah]

I'm basing this on Islamic history, on the behaviors of conquering Muslims over the last 1400 years. And it's not just historical behavior, it's still happening. So we have your opinion up against 1400 years of evidence. I'm sure that you - personally - are sincere, but the ideology has guided Muslims differently for a long time now.

The above does not answer my question. I asked you " where do you base this Islamic fatwa(verdict) on?"

You gave an Islamic ruling by saying.

" I will say that the Islamic definition of "defense" is very different from the common western definition. In Islam, if a non-believer resists being converted, that non-violent resistance can be viewed as "an attack" on Islam which can then be dealt with violently. So for example, when a cartoonist draws a picture of Muhammad, that is considered an attack on Islam, and any violence Muslims commit in response to the cartoon is considered "defensive".

If you want to give an Islamic verdict you need to show us that it's an official ruling on a point of Islamic law given by a recognized authority.
You basically gave us an islamic verdict based on your opinion and made it out to be an Islamic definition..this is simply misleading.

 

[FearGod]

For the record, @FearGod, I would greatly appreciate if you decided to stop directing such cheap and uncalled shots towards me. Word has it that you are a better person than they make you appear to be. And they can't really hurt me, in case you are wondering.

Besides, they are quite unhelpful and an unwelcome distraction from productive discussion, don't you think?

Answering the question that you can't quite make: there are worse things on Earth than Islaam - but, seeing how it is a strongly ideological movement saddled with serious inner conflicts and involving over a billion people, it should be no surprise that Islaam is perceived as worth of some attention and, when warranted, criticism.

I don't have problem if you want to criticize Islam but when defending other religious books
when compared to Islam then that makes me comfortable to hear it from an atheist.

 

[FearGod]

Non-Muslims did not create Islam. Islamic scripture make outrageous and dangerous claims about itself and the rest of us have to deal with that. It makes the rest of us uncomfortable.

Show us a claim by claim to see how dangerous it's, don't direct us to a website.
put the verse that you see it dangerous which makes you uncomfortable?