Prejudice against Qur'an.

[Unification]

That's all very well for you to say and think, but Muslims themselves, overwhelmingly believe the Qur'an is the LITERAL word of God. THAT is problematic. The commentaries, after the fact, by so-called Muslim "scholars" simply add fuel to the fires. So, because it is seen as being the literal word of god, that is why you have so many wild and crazy interpretations. That feature goes directly back to the source text and underscores it being the problem.

We don't disagree here in much of what you are saying.

The point it to gradually rid of the harmful ideologies and interpretations by interpreting them differently. Turning what appears to be negative into positive... what appears to be literal and historical into taking it internally. Someone can still believe the Quran is the word of "God" and interpret it much differently. . in a more peaceful manner. But even when it's interpreted in a more inner and peaceful manner, there are people who scoff at that too. It's as if they get pleasure in arguing, condescending, being a hypocrite towards more peaceful interpretations.

If there were no human's and 50 trillion copies of the Quran lying around on Earth... will the book itself come to life and start doing harmful things?

 

[YmirGF]

We don't disagree here in much of what you are saying.

The point it to gradually rid of the harmful ideologies and interpretations by interpreting them differently. Turning what appears to be negative into positive... what appears to be literal and historical into taking it internally. Someone can still believe the Quran is the word of "God" and interpret it much differently. . in a more peaceful manner. But even when it's interpreted in a more inner and peaceful manner, there are people who scoff at that too. It's as if they get pleasure in arguing, condescending, being a hypocrite towards more peaceful interpretations.

If there were no human's and 50 trillion copies of the Quran lying around on Earth... will the book itself come to life and start doing harmful things?

Ok, I can deal with that, but I don't quite understand the need to bother. Why bother trying to massage the texts to make them sweeter and more peacefilled? Why not just abandon the thing altogether and cobble together a more legitimate rendering of the human experience based on a slightly more enlightened understanding?

Humorously: 50 Trillion copies of any book may well negatively impact a given ecosystem. I can't see that many copies of anything doing the world much good.

 

[CATSISS]

And the problem with this attitude is that it is no different than the attitude of those radicals, like IS, whom we are trying to combat. Tolerance and respect for other faiths does not include destroying them or their holy scriptures. It does include working together with all of humanity to find useful, morally upright understandings of all scriptures and all faiths. And, yes, that is the harder path. And, yes, that will require time and effort to change extremist thinking. But it is the right way through this.

Probably just erase the wicked part of the quran and keeping it from getting printed and destroy the old ones.in UK

 

[Shusha]

Ok, I can deal with that, but I don't quite understand the need to bother. Why bother trying to massage the texts to make them sweeter and more peacefilled? Why not just abandon the thing altogether and cobble together a more legitimate rendering of the human experience based on a slightly more enlightened understanding?

Well, from a faith based perspective, the enlightened understanding is already in the text. We just have to extract it.

 

[Unification]

Ok, I can deal with that, but I don't quite understand the need to bother. Why bother trying to massage the texts to make them sweeter and more peacefilled? Why not just abandon the thing altogether and cobble together a more legitimate rendering of the human experience based on a slightly more enlightened understanding?

Humorously: 50 Trillion copies of any book may well negatively impact a given ecosystem. I can't see that many copies of anything doing the world much good.

There are those who will leave the texts behind altogether, and there are those who will not leave the texts behind.

Some may be working to show its mythological and harmful nature, and some may be working to show both that and its moral lessons beneath the literal and historical interpretations. The key is to work together and not get in each other's way. We have the same interests. Either way, both are understanding and forms of enlightenment.

There is wonderful inner growth to be found within the texts if they are sought after. There is a very enlightened understanding of the texts internally.

There really is no "need" for anything unless an individual or individuals collectively want to find peace and then spread peace.

 

[Unification]

Ok, I can deal with that, but I don't quite understand the need to bother. Why bother trying to massage the texts to make them sweeter and more peacefilled? Why not just abandon the thing altogether and cobble together a more legitimate rendering of the human experience based on a slightly more enlightened understanding?

Humorously: 50 Trillion copies of any book may well negatively impact a given ecosystem. I can't see that many copies of anything doing the world much good.

Lol, from an environment and Eco perspective..... I suppose then it can do some harm.

 

[CATSISS]

Fock,got carried away by the argument there,evryone in the UK have these kind of hate towards the muslims,and it seems i kinda got carried away by it,sorry about that stupid mentality there here to learn anyways,open to suggestions.

 

[YmirGF]

Well, from a faith based perspective, the enlightened understanding is already in the text. We just have to extract it.

Why bother though? Why not just write something new? Why bother trying to repurpose something that is so out-dated?

 

[Unification]

Why bother though? Why not just write something new? Why bother trying to repurpose something that is so out-dated?

That's an option too. Then it would be considered "new age," and we know very well how that offends people, even if the new age interpretations are of peace and we become aware that words and language have evolved significantly from thousands of years ago.

 

[CATSISS]

That's an option too. Then it would be considered "new age," and we know very well how that offends people, even if the new age interpretations are of peace and we become aware that words and language has evolved significantly from thousands of years ago.

I wonder why are peoples even offended by a technically better version of it,is it some kind of "incomplete" sentiment?

 

[YmirGF]

That's an option too. Then it would be considered "new age," and we know very well how that offends people, even if the new age interpretations are of peace.

Why on earth would one have to pander to the "new age" drivel in order to formulate a more intelligent view of self and the universe? My thinking is fairly unique but I think one would be fairly disingenuous to describe it as "new age". Jus' sayin'...

 

[Unification]

Why on earth would one have to pander to the "new age" drivel in order to formulate a more intelligent view of self and the universe? My thinking is fairly unique but I think one would be fairly disingenuous to describe it as "new age". Jus' sayin'...

I would certainly hope that many and most will see the beneficial uniqueness of that.

I suppose it would depend on what is classified as new age drivel.

 

[Unification]

I wonder why are peoples even offended by a technically better version of it,is it some kind of "incomplete" sentiment?

Anything of peace and equality I would hope no one would be offended by no matter what language and words are used.

I know that change and neurological plasticity would be painful and difficult for many, but well worth it in the run.

 

[CATSISS]

Anything of peace and equality I would hope no one would be offended by no matter what language and words are used.

I know that change and neurological plasticity would be painful and difficult for many, but well worth it in the run.

Especially when the changes were made by the "non-muslims",i think they would get pissed because of that.

 

[Unification]

Especially when the changes were made by y "non-muslims",i think they would get pissed because of that.

There are also many "Muslims" who are proactive for reform and change, it would be beneficial to support them in any way. They are pivotal. Even if they believe in mythology and Allah... yet do so in peace and without harming others. It's their freedom and I respect harmless diversity and beliefs.

I suppose to see them as human beings, and not to battle flesh and blood... but rather battle the harmful ideologies in minds.

I suppose objectivity and subjectivity co-existing with the least harm possible.

 

[Shusha]

Why bother though? Why not just write something new? Why bother trying to repurpose something that is so out-dated?

Again, from faith, it isn't outdated. It is G-d's instruction to us. It is complete and correct as it stands. He didn't intend for it to be changed or re-written or scrapped (unless you are Baha'i and believe in a progressive revelation). And indeed, it would be an affront to Him to attempt to do so.

But this doesn't mean we can't come to a greater, or better, understanding of what He meant or what He intended. And yes, we can write explanations and record dialogues and create symbolisms which are new. And we can then use those writings to gain a better understanding of the scripture, and thus, His Intent.

But to ask a Muslim (or a Christian or a Jew) to throw out scripture and write something new makes mockery of the foundations of faith. Its intolerable.

 

[Shusha]

I suppose to see them as human beings, and not to battle flesh and blood... but rather battle the harmful ideologies in minds.

Yes, I think this must be the way forward for Islam. To see the battle imagery in the Qur'an as being ideological rather than literal and physical. (And yes, I realize a great many Muslims already see it this way).

I think it will be a difficult road. There are some passages which are extremely difficult to understand in that context. And in terms of peace between different faiths, they will have to wrestle with the idea of "unbelievers" and how they should be treated. And I haven't a clue what one could do with the whole "Jews are apes and pigs" thing.

 

[Tumah]

What could be an effective way to counter it. Should Muslims themselves do more or are we doing more but get no coverage from the media as that's not what they wish to propagate about Islam.

My recommendation is to encourage a greater majority of Muslims not to engage in terrorism. Perhaps, if more Muslims from all over the world can not take part in groups such as ISIS, Hamas, Hezbullah, al-Qaeda, al-Aqsa, al-Shabaab, Boko Haram, PLO, etc. and not do things like shoot hundreds of people, blow up hundreds of people, or otherwise kill hundreds of people, it will be much easier to make an argument that the Qur'an does not encourage violence.

But look, to be honest, I'm not the best guy when it comes to PR. So there might be other, better ideas out there.

 

[YmirGF]

But to ask a Muslim (or a Christian or a Jew) to throw out scripture and write something new makes mockery of the foundations of faith. Its intolerable.

So, without doing mental gymnastics you are actually stuck in a pine box of understanding.

 

[Shusha]

So, without doing mental gymnastics you are actually stuck in a pine box of understanding.

Ha! I guess that depends on the quality of one's mental gymnastics.