Qur'an Vs Bible Vs Bhagavad Gita Vs None

[Bree]

I believe that Baha'u'llah knew what God knows since He was a Manifestation of God.

“O KING! I was but a man like others, asleep upon My couch, when lo, the breezes of the All-Glorious were wafted over Me, and taught Me the knowledge of all that hath been. This thing is not from Me, but from One Who is Almighty and All-Knowing. And He bade Me lift up My voice between earth and heaven, and for this there befell Me what hath caused the tears of every man of understanding to flow.” Proclamation of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 57

I believe that the only way we can know anything about what God knows is through a Manifestation of God.

.

God has only ever used spokespersons to represent him. He has never 'manifested' himself thru a person in such a way.

 

[KWED]

My understanding is that one can only do this if they take verses out of context. For example a famous quote used by anti Islamists ‘kill them wherever you find them’. But the verses before say ‘do not attack unless attacked first’.

Oh dear.
Verses 9:1-4 do not mention "not attacking first". Although they do say "Allah will disgrace the disbelievers", which is not exactly tolerant, is it?
And 9:5 says to "kill them wherever you find them". This does not indicate "self defence". It indicates looking for disbelievers with the intention of killing them. This is confirmed by the words "ambush and besiege them". Neither of those things are defensive actions. They are explicitly and exclusively offensive.

So playing on peoples ignorance it’s easy to fool them into thinking the Quran

What was that you were saying about "playing on peoples ignorance it’s easy to fool them into thinking" the Quran says something it doesn't?

teaches violence and hatred but it doesn’t when studied in context.

When you actually study Quran in context rather than just cherry picking verses (and making stuff up ) it is clear that there are passages that promote hatred, intolerance or violence against disbelievers under certain circumstances.
Obviously, not every passage promotes those things, but some do. Your denial of reality simply highlights your blind acceptance of a biased narrative.

Interesting that you haven't responded to my point about 60:4, which unequivocally states that hatred for those who reject Islam is a good example to follow - until they submit to Islam.
Pretty much every suggestion of peace or conciliation relies on disbelievers submitting to Islam in order to avoid attack or oppression.

 

[loverofhumanity]

Oh dear.
Verses 9:1-4 do not mention "not attacking first". Although they do say "Allah will disgrace the disbelievers", which is not exactly tolerant, is it?
And 9:5 says to "kill them wherever you find them". This does not indicate "self defence". It indicates looking for disbelievers with the intention of killing them. This is confirmed by the words "ambush and besiege them". Neither of those things are defensive actions. They are explicitly and exclusively offensive.

What was that you were saying about "playing on peoples ignorance it’s easy to fool them into thinking" the Quran says something it doesn't?

When you actually study Quran in context rather than just cherry picking verses (and making stuff up ) it is clear that there are passages that promote hatred, intolerance or violence against disbelievers under certain circumstances.
Obviously, not every passage promotes those things, but some do. Your denial of reality simply highlights your blind acceptance of a biased narrative.

Interesting that you haven't responded to my point about 60:4, which unequivocally states that hatred for those who reject Islam is a good example to follow - until they submit to Islam.
Pretty much every suggestion of peace or conciliation relies on disbelievers submitting to Islam in order to avoid attack or oppression.

Firstly. Out of respect for this thread I suggest we take our conversation to another thread.

With regards to 60:4 it’s only stating a fact not promoting hated. It’s the same today. If Putin had a god fearing attitude he would not have invaded Ukraine. If the world was full of virtuous people there would be peace but there is not because power and wealth comes before obedience to God’s laws to love one another.

Turning to God will make all men as brothers because God teaches virtues and love while materialism and consumerism promote selfishness and greed which ultimately leads to wars and world insecurity.

The corrosion of ungodliness is eating into the vitals of human society; ... Religion is, verily the chief instrument for the establishment of order in the world, and of tranquillity amongst its peoples. ... The greater the decline of religion, the more grievous the waywardness of the ungodly. This cannot but lead in the end to chaos and confusion. ... Religion is a radiant light and an impregnable stronghold for the protection and welfare of the peoples of the world ..." (Baha’u’llah)

 

[Aupmanyav]

.. and for this there befell Me what hath caused the tears of every man of understanding to flow.”

All that bragging for just four months in jail!
Note the capitalizing of 'Me'.

 

[loverofhumanity]

Oh dear.
Verses 9:1-4 do not mention "not attacking first". Although they do say "Allah will disgrace the disbelievers", which is not exactly tolerant, is it?
And 9:5 says to "kill them wherever you find them". This does not indicate "self defence". It indicates looking for disbelievers with the intention of killing them. This is confirmed by the words "ambush and besiege them". Neither of those things are defensive actions. They are explicitly and exclusively offensive.

What was that you were saying about "playing on peoples ignorance it’s easy to fool them into thinking" the Quran says something it doesn't?

When you actually study Quran in context rather than just cherry picking verses (and making stuff up ) it is clear that there are passages that promote hatred, intolerance or violence against disbelievers under certain circumstances.
Obviously, not every passage promotes those things, but some do. Your denial of reality simply highlights your blind acceptance of a biased narrative.

Interesting that you haven't responded to my point about 60:4, which unequivocally states that hatred for those who reject Islam is a good example to follow - until they submit to Islam.
Pretty much every suggestion of peace or conciliation relies on disbelievers submitting to Islam in order to avoid attack or oppression.

As to ch 9.

This is in reference to those who broke their peace treaties with the Muslims. If you read the entire chapter this will be evident that the war is with those who have broken their treaties and either attacked the Muslims or assisted their oppressors.

There is context behind ever verse, every command, each and every law and just reading the Quran like a novel will be misleading.

As long as they remain true to you, be true to them. God loves those who are mindful of Him.(9:07)

If they violate their oaths after having made a treaty with you and condemn your faith, then fight against these leaders of ungodliness, who have no regard for their own oaths, so that they will stop their aggression.(9:12) Won’t you fight against people who have broken their solemn oaths, and done all they can to drive the Messenger out, and attacked you first?

Being attacked first is mentioned in this chapter as the pretext for self defense.

The passage before the one you quoted speaks about treaties.

As for those who have honored their treaty obligations, and have not assisted anyone against you, fulfill your agreement with them to the end of its term. God loves those who are mindful of Him.(9:04)

These is no qualms or disputes with those who are not attacking the Muslims, only those who have broken their peace treaties and are either directly attacking them or assisted others against the Muslims. That context is very clearly stated before permission is given to fight.

 

[KWED]

Firstly. Out of respect for this thread I suggest we take our conversation to another thread.

Working on that now.

With regards to 60:4 it’s only stating a fact not promoting hated.

If god "states the fact" that hatred and enmity towards disbelievers until they submit to Islam is "a good example to follow", then by definition, god is advising Muslims to hate disbelievers who do not submit to Islam.
If god really didn't want Muslims to hate disbelievers, he would not have mentioned it, never mind recommending it.

If Putin had a god fearing attitude he would not have invaded Ukraine.

What if Putin genuinely believes that god supports his actions? After all, god spoke to President Bush in support of invading Iraq.

If the world was full of virtuous people there would be peace but there is not because power and wealth comes before obedience to God’s laws to love one another.

So believing in god and following a religion does not make a person "virtuous" and even if everyone believes in god and follows a religion there still won't be peace. Well, history has shown this to be true.

Turning to God will make all men as brothers because God teaches virtues and love while materialism and consumerism promote selfishness and greed which ultimately leads to wars and world insecurity.

And yet throughout history, god-fearing believers have also been materialist war-mongers. Muhammad is a perfect example.

The corrosion of ungodliness is eating into the vitals of human society; ... Religion is, verily the chief instrument for the establishment of order in the world, and of tranquillity amongst its peoples. ... The greater the decline of religion, the more grievous the waywardness of the ungodly. This cannot but lead in the end to chaos and confusion. ... Religion is a radiant light and an impregnable stronghold for the protection and welfare of the peoples of the world ..."

(Baha’u’llah)

Some parts of the world are far less religious than at any time in history, and those places tend to be safer, happier, more just, with better health and social welfare than the more religions countries.
Your platitudes aside, the evidence suggests that less religion is the path to a truly better society, not more.

 

[loverofhumanity]

Working on that now.

If god "states the fact" that hatred and enmity towards disbelievers until they submit to Islam is "a good example to follow", then by definition, god is advising Muslims to hate disbelievers who do not submit to Islam.
If god really didn't want Muslims to hate disbelievers, he would not have mentioned it, never mind recommending it.

What if Putin genuinely believes that god supports his actions? After all, god spoke to President Bush in support of invading Iraq.

So believing in god and following a religion does not make a person "virtuous" and even if everyone believes in god and follows a religion there still won't be peace. Well, history has shown this to be true.

And yet throughout history, god-fearing believers have also been materialist war-mongers. Muhammad is a perfect example.

Some parts of the world are far less religious than at any time in history, and those places tend to be safer, happier, more just, with better health and social welfare than the more religions countries.
Your platitudes aside, the evidence suggests that less religion is the path to a truly better society, not more.

Baha’u’llah referred to ungodliness. The condition of a state of lack of virtue is what is meant. So a godly Putin would mean a person of noble and good character loving all people and harming nobody,

If ungodliness rules the world, like today, there will always be hate.

Anyway I’ll see you hopefully in the new thread.

Thanks for all your sincere questions and I agree that we must look into these things thoroughly.

Im not going to say I’m right and you are wrong, just that we both have a different interpretation of the Quran. I respect yours and look forward to sharing views. I’m glad we can share such sensitive stuff while still being on good terms. I think you are a very mature and good person.

 

[osgart]

I've read the Bible and it is mostly rubbish with a bit of wisdom here and there. I have a Quran but thought it was obsessed with infidels so I was immediately turned off by it. I have a Bhagavad Gita but have not touched it yet.

I'm turned off to holy books completely. I think people will get a ton more wisdom and truth by reasoning with plain old language then they will ever get by reading a holy book.

I find holy books are no substitute for a sincere heart seeking wisdom and truth for themselves applying their own reason to reality.

We should think for ourselves, and never be commanded to imbibe meanings with unknown context.

A person knows fair if they truly desire fairness. I don't need a holy book to run my life.

 

[firedragon]

I have a Quran but thought it was obsessed with infidels so I was immediately turned off by it. I

Then you have not read it.

I have a Bhagavad Gita but have not touched it yet.

Great book. Was highly ranked as a business strategy book as well.

We should think for ourselves, and never be commanded to imbibe meanings with unknown context.

Why?

 

[osgart]

Then you have not read it.



Great book. Was highly ranked as a business strategy book as well.



Why?

Because there is more to learn through one's own reason with language then taking commands from a book that has no care or understanding of one's own situation. Many of the meanings are subject to interpretation, and
the context isn't clear. If it's not readily understandable, and doesn't explain it's reasons it is just dogmatic. A person is better off learning and grappling with meanings themselves because they can get in touch with right and wrong better if they knew their own reasoning and desires better.

Self reflection, meditation and experience will teach way more than a blindly followed command from an ancient book.

It's better to test and challenge command then to get lead into something that offers only false promises. If you can't prove it or test it then you are only following commands blindly.

It has to resonate with meaning that you can apply to yourself. If you don't know why you are heeding something then you'll not know your own life purpose.

I've been trying to find reasons to read these books, but they just collect dust.

I only read the first few pages of Koran.

 

[firedragon]

Because there is more to learn through one's own reason with language then taking commands from a book that has no care or understanding of one's own situation. Many of the meanings are subject to interpretation, and
the context isn't clear. If it's not readily understandable, and doesn't explain it's reasons it is just dogmatic. A person is better off learning and grappling with meanings themselves because they can get in touch with right and wrong better if they knew their own reasoning and desires better.

Self reflection, meditation and experience will teach way more than a blindly followed command from an ancient book.

It's better to test and challenge command then to get lead into something that offers only false promises. If you can't prove it or test it then you are only following commands blindly.

It has to resonate with meaning that you can apply to yourself. If you don't know why you are heeding something then you'll not know your own life purpose.

I've been trying to find reasons to read these books, but they just collect dust.

I only read the first few pages of Koran.

Okay I understand. I am not blaming you for anything because it's normal to have a particular view as in all of us do. We might have our own cognitive biases. But you could take a methodological approach and actually study the books and what scholars have written about them. Not bogus scholars, but actual scholars who have studied in-depth.

I have no expertise in the Upanishads. Just reading them I don't believe warrants me to make expert commentary on them.

But I can recommend scholars you could read up on the Qur'an. I mean not Muslim scholars because you might have a bias against Muslim scholars which is also normal. Try Fred Donner who is an atheist. Angelica Neuwirth who is also I believe is an atheist. Nicolai Sinai who I believe is an agnostic but please do your own checking and correct me.

Anyway, I think you are associating following scripture with blind following. But it is you who has blindly made that conclusion without any research. It is only your bias. A hasty generalisation.

Just because you have let books collect dust because you have a blind faith against them, that does not mean your blind faith is the objective truth.

Cheers.

 

[osgart]

Okay I understand. I am not blaming you for anything because it's normal to have a particular view as in all of us do. We might have our own cognitive biases. But you could take a methodological approach and actually study the books and what scholars have written about them. Not bogus scholars, but actual scholars who have studied in-depth.

I have no expertise in the Upanishads. Just reading them I don't believe warrants me to make expert commentary on them.

But I can recommend scholars you could read up on the Qur'an. I mean not Muslim scholars because you might have a bias against Muslim scholars which is also normal. Try Fred Donner who is an atheist. Angelica Neuwirth who is also I believe is an atheist. Nicolai Sinai who I believe is an agnostic but please do your own checking and correct me.

Anyway, I think you are associating following scripture with blind following. But it is you who has blindly made that conclusion without any research. It is only your bias. A hasty generalisation.

Just because you have let books collect dust because you have a blind faith against them, that does not mean your blind faith is the objective truth.

Cheers.

Okay expert commentary is a nice way to get acquainted with an ancient book. What does reading it yourself without expert commentary benefit, if any at all?

It's not blind faith. I've been through Christianity. I've read the opening pages of Koran, and it goes immediately into describing the disease of the infidel. So immediately I recognized a pattern from one religion to another, God punishes infidels/nonbelievers. God chastises infidels, and mentions they have a disease. Koran doesn't set out to prove anything, or persuade anyone, it is specifically written to those who believe in the unseen. It makes a proclamation, and it declares it's words to be the truth. Now it has to back those words up. It's setting the non believer up as severe opposition from the start. It leaves no room for questioning it's authority.

 

[firedragon]

Okay expert commentary is a nice way to get acquainted with an ancient book. What does reading it yourself without expert commentary benefit, if any at all?

Very specifically I said that I am not qualified to give expert commentary. You mentioned the Upanishads. Why not read it and see how it benefits?

It's not blind faith.

It's blind faith. Absolutely. Because you have dismissed books with out reading them or studying them. That's the definition of blind faith. Secondly, the second blind faith you have is that others have blind faith with no research.

So immediately I recognized a pattern from one religion to another, God punishes infidels/nonbelievers.

Well. You are wrong. Or should I say you don't know what you are talking about? This is blind faith you are displaying.

Koran doesn't set out to prove anything, or persuade anyone, it is specifically written to those who believe in the unseen.

With out studying it you are making expert commentary on the Qur'an. That's your blind faith. It is not others who have blind faith, its you.

I understand what you are doing this. But you should know that you are wrong because you don't know the subject.

It makes a proclamation, and it declares it's words to be the truth. Now it has to back those words up. It's setting the non believer up as severe opposition from the start.

That's false. Blind faith.

It leaves no room for questioning it's authority.

You are wrong.

Study the Qur'an prior to making commentary. Ask around. And I gave you some scholars. I don't think you made any effort in that area even afterwards.

These comments you have made shows that your knowledge on the Qur'an is very poor. Most people who make these claims in this forum basically make the same statements, and are absolutely unwilling to listen or read what someone has to say, and generally will resort to logical fallacies like generalisations, composition/division, appeal to authority, ad populum, etc. I don't know if you do the same, but most people who make the exact same claims you are making above do the same fallacies day in, day out.

Let's see.

 

[ppp]

My understanding is that one can only do this if they take verses out of context. For example a famous quote used by anti Islamists ‘kill them wherever you find them’. But the verses before say ‘do not attack unless attacked first’. So playing on peoples ignorance it’s easy to fool them into thinking the Quran teaches violence and hatred but it doesn’t when studied in context.

"Those [women] whose nushuz you fear, admonish them, and abandon them in bed, and strike them. If they obey you, do not pursue a strategy against them. Indeed, God is Exalted, Great."

 

[firedragon]

"Those [women] whose nushuz you fear, admonish them, and abandon them in bed, and strike them. If they obey you, do not pursue a strategy against them. Indeed, God is Exalted, Great."

1. You mentioned an arabic word there. Nushuz. What does that mean?
2. Do you know the arabic word for strike? What other meanings are there right there in 40 something verses the word is mentioned?

Thanks.

 

[Trailblazer]

God has only ever used spokespersons to represent him. He has never 'manifested' himself thru a person in such a way.

The spokespersons are Manifestations of God.
A Messenger of God brings a message from God but He also manifests God on earth.
He is a Servant of God and the Voice of God on earth.

“Were any of the all-embracing Manifestations of God to declare: “I am God,” He, verily, speaketh the truth, and no doubt attacheth thereto. For it hath been repeatedly demonstrated that through their Revelation, their attributes and names, the Revelation of God, His names and His attributes, are made manifest in the world ...... And were any of them to voice the utterance, “I am the Messenger of God,” He, also, speaketh the truth, the indubitable truth…. And were they to say, “We are the Servants of God,” this also is a manifest and indisputable fact. For they have been made manifest in the uttermost state of servitude, a servitude the like of which no man can possibly attain. Thus in moments in which these Essences of Being were deep immersed beneath the oceans of ancient and everlasting holiness, or when they soared to the loftiest summits of Divine mysteries, they claimed their utterances to be the Voice of Divinity, the Call of God Himself.” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, pp. 54-55

 

[KWED]

Then you have not read it.

Given that "infidel" generally refers to one who does not follow a given religion, disbelievers, wrongdoers, etc , the Quran is kinda obsessed with them.
Or perhaps you have not read it?

 

[KWED]

1. You mentioned an arabic word there. Nushuz. What does that mean?

Not like you to avoid addressing the actual issue.
"Ill-conduct", "disobedience" and "rebellion" seem to be the most popular meanings amongst scholars fluent in Classical Arabic.
Ibn Kathir describes it as "she acts as if she is above her husband, disobeys him, ignores him, dislikes him, and so forth".

2. Do you know the arabic word for strike? What other meanings are there right there in 40 something verses the word is mentioned?

In the other verse that uses the same form (8:12), it is used to describe striking an enemy in battle. Many of the other verses with slightly different forms refer to physically hitting with the hand, sticks, etc.
The fact that several tafsir and hadith clarify this as to mean a beating or physical disciplining that is not too violent or severe, and avoids the face, thoroughly refutes those claims that it means "separate" or "send away".

But then, you knew all this, of course.

 

[loverofhumanity]

"Those [women] whose nushuz you fear, admonish them, and abandon them in bed, and strike them. If they obey you, do not pursue a strategy against them. Indeed, God is Exalted, Great."

Sura 4:34 is a wrong translation. Keep in mind that ALL translations are interpretations. So at that time, the domestic culture was to oppress and strike women.

In Arabic the word to strike or hit has the same root as to ignore or leave alone. But because the translators came from a background who’s culture is to normally hit women, they automatically assumed that hit was meant but Muhammad never hit his wives.

 

[ppp]

Sura 4:34 is a wrong translation. Keep in mind that ALL translations are interpretations. So at that time, the domestic culture was to oppress and strike women.

In Arabic the word to strike or hit has the same root as to ignore or leave alone. But because the translators came from a background who’s cutter normally hit women, they automatically assumed that hit was meant but Muhammad never hit his wives.

I think its the other way around. You come from a culture and time where there is women's suffrage and an awareness that Head of of the Family is a stupid concept. So you attribute those modern concepts to someone you wish to be a paragon, but was just a product of his times.