Qur'an Vs Bible Vs Bhagavad Gita Vs None

[KWED]

Because we believe Baha’u’llah is the Promised One of all religions including Islam and He has confirmed that.

Bahaullah has confirmed that Sunni Islam is a false religion?
Really? Reference please.

 

[KWED]

Muslims are human beings. 1.7 billion of them are peacefully living in our world because of Muhammad and the Quran. They are proof the Quran does not teach violence.

We are not talking about the behaviour of individual Muslims. We are talking about the contents of the Quran.

The Quran clearly states that people who spread mischief should be brutally killed. That is not open to debate. It is a simple fact.
Now, just because most Muslims don't brutally kill people who spread mischief does not alter what the Quran says.

The law says that we can ride a horse on the public roads. Most people do not ride a horse on the public roads.
Does that therefore mean that the law does not allow it?

 

[loverofhumanity]

But as I have repeatedly show you, the Quran does not "teach peace". It teaches peace and violence. Why do you keep simply ignoring the evidence. (Don't worry, rhetorical question. You keep ignoring it because it is uncomfortable to have your deep-rooted beliefs shaken.)

Most people are better than the religion they follow. They are generally just regular folk who want to get on with their lives in peace. The violent and intolerant passages in the Quran are irrelevant to them. Many are not even aware of them (like yourself). Millions of Muslims have never read the Quran. Their knowledge of Islam consists entirely of what there imam/parents tells them. It is entirely understandable that people usually want to marginalise the more unacceptable elements of Islam. However, the reason that the extremist Islamists gain traction so easily is because it's all there in black and white in the Quran and sunnah for those with the agenda of promoting it.

With extremists their manual quotes mostly hadiths and if there is Quran verse it’s out of context. The only Quran verses regarding war are conditional on being attacked and the laws are based on a desert environment to protect the innocent from serial offenders.

 

[loverofhumanity]

Bahaullah has confirmed that Sunni Islam is a false religion?
Really? Reference please.

Baha’u’llah confirms that the Imams are the true successors. Although both sects believe in the Quran, with regards to successorship, the caliphs are not recognised as being the true successors.


“Imam Husayn has, as attested by The Íqán, been endowed with special grace and power among the Imams, hence the mystical reference to Bahá’u’lláh as the return of Imam Husayn, meaning the Revelation in Bahá’u’lláh of those attributes with which Imam Husayn had been specifically endowed.” (Shoghi Effendi)

 

[KWED]

I detect a strong agenda of Muslim bashing here

OK. Point out one occasion where I have been critical of individual Muslims.

and I’m ending this conversation because I believe you are deliberately attempting to wound Muslims publicly by making false accusations against their Prophet and Holy Book.

Look, I understand that you may not have been aware of some of the stuff in the Quran or some of the nasty stuff Muhammad did, and finding out must be a bit of a trauma - like finding out your wife has been unfaithful. Denial is understandable and not uncommon in such circumstances.
However, simply ignoring reality is not a good position to be in.

This is a place I believe for civil and respectful debate not a place to attack religions.

It is a religious debate forum.
People make claims and arguments. Others present counter arguments.
You claimed that there is no violence or intolerance in the Quran. I showed you, with references, that there is.
Your response has been to simply ignore my arguments and evidence and just repeat your initial, and now disproved claim.

Of course you’re against Islam as a non Muslim

I'm not "against Islam" per se. I am critical of all religions and I will challenge the flawed arguments of apologists when I see them. I think that when promoted as dogma, overriding rational thought, they can be harmful. This is supported by evidence from around the world.

but 1.7 billion peaceful people are peaceful because of their religion and that point seems lost to you.

1. The issue is the content of the Quran and sunnah, not the behaviour of individual Muslims.
2. There are large numbers Muslims who are intolerant or violent, so by your argument, the Quran must contain violence and intolerance.
(Over 30,000 Muslims traveled to Syria to join ISIS. Over half of UK Muslims think homosexuality should be illegal. Around 50% of Iraqis and Egyptians think apostates should be killed

If you had yourself read the Quran undoubtedly you would have come across innumerable verses teaching peace, but as you make no mention of them then either you have not read them or are afraid to post them here as they would kill your argument that the Quran teaches violence.

*sigh*
You will remember that I clearly stated that I consider Islam to be a religion of peace and violence, tolerance and intolerance, equality and discrimination.
You seem happy to deny the negatives and insist it is all positive. I consider that a religious text (or political or whatever) should be judged on its entirety and not cherry picked to suit an agenda.

If a political party said that there should be free health care, education, racial and sexual equality and voting for all - but redheads would be rounded up and sent to extermination camps - would you support them for being "mostly good"?

 

[KWED]

Reincarnation is about ‘return’. Baha’u’llah states that qualities not people return so He is making the point that reincarnation is untrue.

"Qualities" arise anyway through natural personal development. They don't need to "return".

 

[KWED]

With extremists their manual quotes mostly hadiths and if there is Quran verse it’s out of context. The only Quran verses regarding war are conditional on being attacked and the laws are based on a desert environment to protect the innocent from serial offenders.

That's your interpretation. Others have different interpretations.
The reason why the extremists find it easy to "radicalise" some people is because they can just point at a passage and say "Look what Allah/Muhammad said".
The moderates have to say "Allah/Muhammad didn't really mean what they said. I can explain what they wanted to say".
You can understand why some people favour the former over the latter.

 

[KWED]

Baha’u’llah confirms that the Imams are the true successors. Although both sects believe in the Quran, with regards to successorship, the caliphs are not recognised as being the true successors.


“Imam Husayn has, as attested by The Íqán, been endowed with special grace and power among the Imams, hence the mystical reference to Bahá’u’lláh as the return of Imam Husayn, meaning the Revelation in Bahá’u’lláh of those attributes with which Imam Husayn had been specifically endowed.” (Shoghi Effendi)

What then? Are you now saying that Sunni Islam is not a false religion?

 

[loverofhumanity]

We are not talking about the behaviour of individual Muslims. We are talking about the contents of the Quran.

The Quran clearly states that people who spread mischief should be brutally killed. That is not open to debate. It is a simple fact.
Now, just because most Muslims don't brutally kill people who spread mischief does not alter what the Quran says.

The law says that we can ride a horse on the public roads. Most people do not ride a horse on the public roads.
Does that therefore mean that the law does not allow it?

Yes I understand that. But any fighting is always conditional in the Quran. If peace is offered it is to be accepted. And everyone is free to believe their own religion. The Quran is clear to fight against only oppressors who attack first. Others who do no harm are to be left alone and other religions have nothing to fear and will be rewarded for doing good.

2:59

Verily, they who believe (Muslims), and they who follow the Jewish religion, and the Christians, and the Sabeites – whoever of these believeth in God and the last day, and doeth that which is right, shall have their reward with their Lord: fear shall not come upon them, neither shall they be grieved.

Sura 109

In the Name of God, the Compassionate, the Merciful SAY: O ye UNBELIEVERS! I worship not that which ye worship, And ye do not worship that which I worship; I shall never worship that which ye worship, Neither will ye worship that which I worship. To you be your religion; to me my religion.

41:34

Good and evil are never equal. Repel evil with good, and your enemy will become like an intimate friend.

Verses to fight are clearly directed towards their oppressors and persecutors

Allah does not forbid you to deal justly and kindly with those who did not fight you for your religion and did not drive you out of your homes. Verily, Allah loves those who deal justly” [8] “It is only in regards to those who fought you for your religion, have driven you out of your homes, and helped to drive you out, that Allah forbids you to take them as allies. And whoever takes them as Allies, then those are the oppressors” [9] Holy Quran, Surat (Al Mumtahina) Ch (60), verses (8-9)

 

[loverofhumanity]

OK. Point out one occasion where I have been critical of individual Muslims.

Look, I understand that you may not have been aware of some of the stuff in the Quran or some of the nasty stuff Muhammad did, and finding out must be a bit of a trauma - like finding out your wife has been unfaithful. Denial is understandable and not uncommon in such circumstances.
However, simply ignoring reality is not a good position to be in.

It is a religious debate forum.
People make claims and arguments. Others present counter arguments.
You claimed that there is no violence or intolerance in the Quran. I showed you, with references, that there is.
Your response has been to simply ignore my arguments and evidence and just repeat your initial, and now disproved claim.

I'm not "against Islam" per se. I am critical of all religions and I will challenge the flawed arguments of apologists when I see them. I think that when promoted as dogma, overriding rational thought, they can be harmful. This is supported by evidence from around the world.

1. The issue is the content of the Quran and sunnah, not the behaviour of individual Muslims.
2. There are large numbers Muslims who are intolerant or violent, so by your argument, the Quran must contain violence and intolerance.
(Over 30,000 Muslims traveled to Syria to join ISIS. Over half of UK Muslims think homosexuality should be illegal. Around 50% of Iraqis and Egyptians think apostates should be killed

*sigh*
You will remember that I clearly stated that I consider Islam to be a religion of peace and violence, tolerance and intolerance, equality and discrimination.
You seem happy to deny the negatives and insist it is all positive. I consider that a religious text (or political or whatever) should be judged on its entirety and not cherry picked to suit an agenda.

If a political party said that there should be free health care, education, racial and sexual equality and voting for all - but redheads would be rounded up and sent to extermination camps - would you support them for being "mostly good"?

I’ve never denied the wrong doing of extremists or fanatics, only that Muhammad and the Quran does not teach evil, hatred or prejudice.

I see you have developed condescension into an art form perhaps because your arguments cannot stand up to scrutiny. The only authority in Islam is the Quran and it states that Muhammad was a perfect example.

You have an excellent model in the Messenger of Allah, for all who put their hope in God and the Last Day and remember Allah much”. (Surat al-Ahzab :21)

The best thing is for you to keep your beliefs and me mine and go our own way.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

In the other world the human reality doth not assume a physical form, rather doth it take on a heavenly form, made up of elements of that heavenly realm. (Abdu’l-Bahá, Selections from the Writings of Abdu’l-Bahá, p. 194)

I have an honest question: are there any unabridged documentation from your prophet or is there only the cliff notes version? How can anyone say with authority that someone said something if they don’t have the whole story?

 

[Trailblazer]

You mean that you don't believe in committing violent acts?
But Bahaullah said "The one who deliberately burns a house, he shall also be burned". Sounds not only violent but barbaric.

That is not a violent act. It is justice for one who has committed a violent act.
However, we do not even know if that will be offered as the punishment, since the UHJ will legislate on that in the future.

87. Should ye condemn the arsonist and the murderer to life imprisonment, it would be permissible according to the provisions of the Book. # 62

Shoghi Effendi, in response to a question about this verse of the Aqdas, affirmed that while capital punishment is permitted, an alternative, “life imprisonment”, has been provided “whereby the rigours of such a condemnation can be seriously mitigated”. He states that “Bahá’u’lláh has given us a choice and has, therefore, left us free to use our own discretion within certain limitations imposed by His law”. In the absence of specific guidance concerning the application of this aspect of Bahá’í law, it remains for the Universal House of Justice to legislate on the matter in the future.
The Kitáb-i-Aqdas,p p. 204-205

This is what I meant when I said that if people are looking for faults they can always find them, but if they look further than their nose, they will see that the Law is just, since alternatives are offered and allowed.

 

[Trailblazer]

I showed that "opinion" and "belief" are synonymous in this context. You refuse to accept that.

No, I do not accept that because they are not synonymous, and I explained why. I only admit that I am wrong when I am actually wrong.

What is a belief or opinion?

A opinion is a judgement based on facts while a belief is a conviction based on personal values. An opinion is a judgment based on facts, an honest attempt to draw a reasonable conclusion from factual evidence.Jun 29, 2016

What is a belief, and how does it differ from an opinion?

What do you think "authentic" means here?

authentic: of undisputed origin; genuine.
authentic means - Google Search

So, in the case of the Bible, nobody knows who the authors were, as they are unnamed. As I recall, we do have names of some of the scribes of the Qur'an, and of course we know that the Bab and Baha'u'llah wrote their own scriptures so they are wholly authentic, according to the definition.

 

[Trailblazer]

Capital punishment is "killing for the sake of killing".

No, it is killing for the sake of justice.

 

[Trailblazer]

So basically you are saying that the words used used by the author, and the way they used them are irrelevant to the meaning of a passage. It is what the reader wants it to mean that is important.

No, I am not saying that. I am saying that people interpret the words which are contained within the verses in their own ways since no two people think exactly alike. Also, a word has to be interpreted within the 'context' of the sentence, the verse it is in, and sometimes we need to read more than one verse in order to understand what a certain verse means.

Many times the reader, if they are a Christian, wants it to mean something that they already believe (the dogma of their church) so that is what they interpret the verses to mean. Of course that would also apply to Baha'is who believe they know what the verses mean, according to preestablished Baha'i beliefs.

Some words contained in Bible verses are self-evident in their meaning yet this might be denied by Christians if they do not want to face reality and live the life Jesus taught, but instead want to live for the things of the world.
.
For example, flesh means the physical body and in this context "I believe" it means sex and desire, but it could also apply to other physical things people are attached to. That is MY interpretation, but it might be disputed by a Christian.

John 3:6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.

John 6:63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.

1 John 2:16 For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world.

Matthew 16:23 But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men.

Those 'things' that are of men are the things of the flesh; they are not of God, but of the world. If Christians don't want to face that fact then they are going against what Jesus taught all throughout the New Testament. Oh well.

You have certainly put that principle into practice!

How do you think I did that?

 

[KWED]

Yes I understand that. But any fighting is always conditional in the Quran.

I didn't mention "fighting" there. I was talking about the punishment for speeding mischief - which the Quran states is death, crucifixion (death by torture), or dismemberment (probable death by torture).

If peace is offered it is to be accepted.

Before the conquest of Mecca, the Quraysh sent an emissary to Muhammad to ask for peace. Muhammad refused to see him and invaded Mecca anyway. So, why didn't Muhammad follow the rules?

Verse 8:39 instructs Muslims to fight disbelievers "until all religion is for Allah". That contradicts the idea of not fighting disbelievers who want to be left alone in their own lands with their own faith. This is confirmed by several sahih hadith where Muhammad states "I have been commanded to fight the disbelievers until they submit to islam. Then their blood and property will be protected".

And everyone is free to believe their own religion.

Apparently not. ^

The Quran is clear to fight against only oppressors who attack first. Others who do no harm are to be left alone and other religions have nothing to fear and will be rewarded for doing good.

Only if you selectively edit it. If you read it as a whole, the message includes aggressive military action as a means of gaining property, power and converts. There were conditions placed on how those campaigns should be conducted, but the claim of "only fight in self defence" simply does not stand up to scriptural or historical examination. I guess it probably sounds quite comforting though.

2:59 Verily, they who believe (Muslims), and they who follow the Jewish religion, and the Christians, and the Sabeites – whoever of these believeth in God and the last day, and doeth that which is right, shall have their reward with their Lord: fear shall not come upon them, neither shall they be grieved.
Sura 109

In the Name of God, the Compassionate, the Merciful SAY: O ye UNBELIEVERS! I worship not that which ye worship, And ye do not worship that which I worship; I shall never worship that which ye worship, Neither will ye worship that which I worship. To you be your religion; to me my religion.

41:34

Good and evil are never equal. Repel evil with good, and your enemy will become like an intimate friend.

Verses to fight are clearly directed towards their oppressors and persecutors

Allah does not forbid you to deal justly and kindly with those who did not fight you for your religion and did not drive you out of your homes. Verily, Allah loves those who deal justly” [8] “It is only in regards to those who fought you for your religion, have driven you out of your homes, and helped to drive you out, that Allah forbids you to take them as allies. And whoever takes them as Allies, then those are the oppressors” [9] Holy Quran, Surat (Al Mumtahina) Ch (60), verses (8-9)

You keep playing the same broken record. There are verses that appear conciliatory, and there are verses that are antagonistic. You need to read the Quran as a whole, not just cherry-pick verses out of context to suit your agenda.

 

[KWED]

x

I notice you failed to provide an example of me being critical of individual Muslims. Thought as much.

I’ve never denied the wrong doing of extremists or fanatics,

And what about when they cite specific passages from the Quran and sunnah as justification?

only that Muhammad and the Quran does not teach evil, hatred or prejudice.

"Hatred and animosity towards disbelievers until they accept Islam is a good example to follow" - 60:4
"The punishment for spreading mischief is that they be crucified or have their hands and feet cut off on opposite sides" - 5:33 ("Evil" is a subjective concept, but torturing people to death is pretty evil in my book. How about you?)
"Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued." - 9:29 (That sounds pretty prejudiced towards non-Muslims, not to say aggressive)

I see you have developed condescension into an art form perhaps because your arguments cannot stand up to scrutiny.

Are you high? I have repeatedly provided detailed arguments and responses, with references. Yet you keep ignoring them.

The only authority in Islam is the Quran and it states that Muhammad was a perfect example.

Two problems there.
1. The Quran was produced by Muhammad to promote his own claim to be a messenger of god, so it is not an objective record.
2. When we consult records from other people recording Muhammad's words and deeds, he was clearly at times violent and intolerant.

The best thing is for you to keep your beliefs and me mine and go our own way.

Like so many salty apologists, you seem to completely misunderstand the point of religious debate forums. You present your arguments, I present mine, and so forth, trying to identify flaws or weaknesses, presenting evidence, etc, in an attempt to establish which argument is more valid.

You don't have to come on here and present your beliefs for examination, but if you do, you can't complain when people examine them.

 

[KWED]

That is not a violent act.

So you don't think burning someone to death is a violent act?

It is justice

Torturing someone to death is never "justice". It is barbaric retribution. Civilised society has moved on from such horrors.

for one who has committed a violent act.

Arson is damage to property, not violence against a person.

However, we do not even know if that will be offered as the punishment, since the UHJ will legislate on that in the future.

But Bahaullah decreed it and he is the infallible messenger of god. You have no doubts about his laws. Even if he said that left is now right, you must simply accept it.
So, how can you claim that a group of Bahais can change what Bahaullah has decreed. You have previously stated that this can never happen.
(As usual, you flip flop your position depending on the circumstances).

87. Should ye condemn the arsonist and the murderer to life imprisonment, it would be permissible according to the provisions of the Book. # 62

Shoghi Effendi, in response to a question about this verse of the Aqdas, affirmed that while capital punishment is permitted, an alternative, “life imprisonment”, has been provided “whereby the rigours of such a condemnation can be seriously mitigated”. He states that “Bahá’u’lláh has given us a choice and has, therefore, left us free to use our own discretion within certain limitations imposed by His law”. In the absence of specific guidance concerning the application of this aspect of Bahá’í law, it remains for the Universal House of Justice to legislate on the matter in the future.
The Kitáb-i-Aqdas,p p. 204-205

Ah, so you mean that both burning and life imprisonment are the prescribed punishments, not that burning might be abolished.

This is what I meant when I said that if people are looking for faults they can always find them, but if they look further than their nose, they will see that the Law is just, since alternatives are offered and allowed.

If you bought a new car that sometimes wouldn't start, would you accept the salesman's reply that it sometimes does start and to stop looking for faults?
Under Bahai law, arsonists can be burned to death. The fact that it might not always happen is irrelevant.

Here's another analogy. Most black suspects are not murdered by the police, so should BLM "stop looking for faults" and "look further than their nose" at those police who don't murder black suspects?
Hmm...?

 

[KWED]

No, it is killing for the sake of justice.

There are many countries where capital punishment is not necessary. So where it is used, it is done for its own sake.
It is also known that it is not a deterrent. And due to miscarriages of justice, it is clearly nut a just punishment.
It is simply violent revenge.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

Torturing someone to death is never "justice". It is barbaric retribution. Civilised society has moved on from such horrors.

Wasn’t their prophet executed? Was that justified?