Quran Yes. Hadith No.

[Wasp]

The pattern has to do with ALL of us, myself included.

Let's try a small experiment. In the first couple of Surah's I we find the following:

1:7 - ... not the way of those who earned your anger..
2:6 - ...those who disbelieve.. will disbelieve..
2:7 - Allah has set a seal in their hearts and on their hearing, and on their eyes their is a covering. Theirs will be a great torment.
2:8 - ... there are some hypocrites who say they believe.. but believe not
2:9 - they think to deceive Allah..
2:10 - In their hearts is a disease.. a painful torment is theirs because they lie
2:12 - they are the ones who make mischief, but they perceive not.
2:13 - ...they are fools, but they know not
2:14 - (again, they are liars)
2:15 - Allah mocks them.. they wander blindly
2:16 - they have purchased error for guidance..
2:17 - Allah took away their light
2:18 - They are deaf, dumb, and blind

And so on, and so on..

Who are the "they" the Quran is referring to? When the Quran criticizes the "they" throughout the book, who is it that's being criticized? Is it one group? Is it five different groups? Is it 10? could you list them? Even a partial list of groups would be okay for this discussion.

That depends which part we're talking about and often even then there are many meanings and many peoples being referred to.

So then why are you right if this pattern thing applies to you too?

 

[icehorse]

That depends which part we're talking about and often even then there are many meanings and many peoples being referred to.

So then why are you right if this pattern thing applies to you too?

I just gave you a bunch of specific examples. Who is the Quran talking about in those examples? Just in those first two Surahs?

Pattern matching applies to all of us. We all have to watch out for unethical advertisers and propaganda and so on, all through our lives.

 

[Wasp]

I just gave you a bunch of specific examples. Who is the Quran talking about in those examples? Just in those first two Surahs?

Pattern matching applies to all of us. We all have to watch out for unethical advertisers and propaganda and so on, all through our lives.

It isn't good for me to go explaining interpretations to anyone,but surah al-fatiha 1:7 "The path of those upon whom You have bestowed favor, not of those who have evoked [Your] anger or of those who are astray." It is interpreted, for instance, as referring to the Jews, people who after receiving God's message and understanding it, reject it, and / or in general to people who have earned God's wrath.

2:2 "This Book whereof there is no doubt, is a guidance unto the God-fearing."

2:3 "Who believe in the Unseen, and establish prayer, and out of that wherewith We have provided them expend."

2:4 "And who believe in that which hath been sent down unto thee and that which hath been sent down before thee and of the Hereafter they are convinced."

2:5 "These are on guidance from their Lord, and these they are the blissful ones."

2:6 "Verily those who have disbelieved, it is equal to them whether thou warnest them or warnest them not; they will not believe."

This is explained in the verses before it.

• God-fearing
• Believe in the unseen
• Establish prayer
• Charity
• Believe in the revelations sent
• Believe in the hereafter

These are on guidance... Those who have disbelieved....

You're still ignoring my question. If the pattern thing applies to you what makes you so sure it doesn't here.

 

[icehorse]

Ok, so is it fair to say that the Quran repeatedly criticizes "those who have disbelieved" ?

Could we zoom out and say that all 500+ criticisms apply to "those who have disbelieved"? If so, how is that substantially different than saying "non-Muslims".

As for me, if I were to study the Quran and believe it to be the word of god, then the patterns would be believed by my brain. This is how brains work. This high repetition is one of the primary ways that brains learn.

 

[Wasp]

Ok, so is it fair to say that the Quran repeatedly criticizes "those who have disbelieved" ?

Could we zoom out and say that all 500+ criticisms apply to "those who have disbelieved"? If so, how is that substantially different than saying "non-Muslims".

As for me, if I were to study the Quran and believe it to be the word of god, then the patterns would be believed by my brain. This is how brains work. This high repetition is one of the primary ways that brains learn.

Zooming out you define criticism as simply as finding fault with something? If you do then you're putting way too much energy on all this. What is the problem with the book finding fault with people who disobey God? It is a religious book.

The reason I think the vague definition is necessary is because I assume much of those 500 verses are the kind that says for example that if you turn against God and don't repent you will probably end up in hell after this life. You can call that finding fault with something or someone, but to call it criticism can be misleading.

Is the disbelieved in relation to 2:6? If not it depends a lot on which part of the Qur'an we're talking about. If it is regarding 2:6 - it is perfectly possible for a non-Muslim to fill five of the six requirements listed. A problem comes with believing in all the revelations sent. However, is a person, a Christian for instance, who believes in the earlier revelations and fulfills the five requirements and believes in one God a disbeliever? In an Islamic sense of course he is, but in general sense it is up to God to judge.

And the Qur'an finds a lot of faults with the believers as well. Have you counted all those?

 

[Firemorphic]

Could we zoom out and say that all 500+ criticisms apply to "those who have disbelieved"? If so, how is that substantially different than saying "non-Muslims".

You're truly not defining anything you're asking here. It's quite embarrassing to hear you still harping on about this.

As for me, if I were to study the Quran and believe it to be the word of god, then the patterns would be believed by my brain. This is how brains work. This high repetition is one of the primary ways that brains learn.

Ok, hypothetically If you were to treat it as the word of God (as it is), why would you continue to throw around the text to your whims as if it's words mean utterly nothing? surely you would have more reverence towards it and patience to grow in your understanding of what it is saying? no?

Your talk about brains here appears quite underdeveloped by what I've read from you over the various months. I do get what you want to be saying but you're grasping at straws with your apologetics and with what (little) you are using to actually support your intended result.

 

[icehorse]

You're truly not defining anything you're asking here. It's quite embarrassing to hear you still harping on about this.

Ok, hypothetically If you were to treat it as the word of God (as it is), why would you continue to throw around the text to your whims as if it's words mean utterly nothing? surely you would have more reverence towards it and patience to grow in your understanding of what it is saying? no?

Your talk about brains here appears quite underdeveloped by what I've read from you over the various months. I do get what you want to be saying but you're grasping at straws with your apologetics and with what (little) you are using to actually support your intended result.

More slurs. As I said earlier, learn a little cognitive science and then we can talk. Until then have yourself a fine day.

Peace.

 

[Lyndon]

goodbye

 

[firedragon]

Come back when you've learned some cognitive science

What you pose is an embarrassment for cognitive science.

 

[Augustus]

You could start with "Implicit Learning and Tacit Knowledge" by Arthur Reber, and go from there. Once you've read that one, I can give you follow up reading.

Can you explain what in that paper you see as supporting your argument please?

Tacit knowledge (Polanyi) is something very different to what you describe and is similar to practical knowledge (Oakeshott). An example would be a top chef giving you their recipe would not enable you to replicate their food perfectly as they cannot communicate the tacit knowledge necessary to produce the dish (technique/artistry/etc.). Tacit knowledge is that which cannot easily be turned into words (explicit knowledge).

 

[icehorse]

What you pose is an embarrassment for cognitive science.

More slurs. It's clear to me that you don't value knowledge past what your one book tells you to value. So we're stuck.

 

[icehorse]

Can you explain what in that paper you see as supporting your argument please?

Tacit knowledge (Polanyi) is something very different to what you describe and is similar to practical knowledge (Oakeshott). An example would be a top chef giving you their recipe would not enable you to replicate their food perfectly as they cannot communicate the tacit knowledge necessary to produce the dish (technique/artistry/etc.). Tacit knowledge is that which cannot easily be turned into words (explicit knowledge).

Yes! You've described an important piece of the puzzle. @firedragon - you ought to notice what @Augustus has done here - he's actually thinking about what I've said and perhaps he even did a little research.

@Augustus - Tacit knowledge and perceptual learning often go hand in hand. In many situations, tacit knowledge is gained via perceptual learning. Perceptual learning occurs via high repetition. Often the learner is clear on what's to be learned, but the key point here is that the learner's intention is not necessary for perceptual learning to occur. So in this case, a person studying the Quran probably doesn't have the intention to learn to despise non-Muslims. But through high repetition (which creates a perceptual learning environment), the person will gain the orientation to despise non-Muslims. Based on the evidence in the world, most people who study the Quran don't consciously know that they've acquired this mindset, it's tacit.

Advertisers know this. Propagandists (like trump), know this. Muhammad knew the power of propaganda very well. He did a brilliant job of pulling together a new tribe with a strong "us vs. them" orientation, and the book supports that goal.

 

[firedragon]

More slurs. It's clear to me that you don't value knowledge past what your one book tells you to value. So we're stuck.

Great.

 

[FooYang]

Yes! You've described an important piece of the puzzle. @firedragon - you ought to notice what @Augustus has done here - he's actually thinking about what I've said and perhaps he even did a little research.

@Augustus - Tacit knowledge and perceptual learning often go hand in hand. In many situations, tacit knowledge is gained via perceptual learning. Perceptual learning occurs via high repetition. Often the learner is clear on what's to be learned, but the key point here is that the learner's intention is not necessary for perceptual learning to occur. So in this case, a person studying the Quran probably doesn't have the intention to learn to despise non-Muslims. But through high repetition (which creates a perceptual learning environment), the person will gain the orientation to despise non-Muslims. Based on the evidence in the world, most people who study the Quran don't consciously know that they've acquired this mindset, it's tacit.

Advertisers know this. Propagandists (like trump), know this. Muhammad knew the power of propaganda very well. He did a brilliant job of pulling together a new tribe with a strong "us vs. them" orientation, and the book supports that goal.

Do you hate non-muslims?

 

[icehorse]

Do you hate non-muslims?

No. But I don't think the Quran is the word of god either.

 

[FooYang]

So in this case, a person studying the Quran probably doesn't have the intention to learn to despise non-Muslims. But through high repetition (which creates a perceptual learning environment), the person will gain the orientation to despise non-Muslims. Based on the evidence in the world, most people who study the Quran don't consciously know that they've acquired this mindset, it's tacit.

No. But I don't think the Quran is the word of god either.

If it didn't work like this for you, how can you be so sure that it does work like this for others? I'm surprised that you don't hate non-muslims after reading the things you've written, something's not right there.

 

[icehorse]

If it didn't work like this for you, how can you be so sure that it does work like this for others? I'm surprised that you don't hate non-muslims after reading the things you've written, something's not right there.

sigh..

 

[Epic Beard Man]

In the contemporary world Islam does not offer consistent unified spiritual guidance.

The irony considering your faith stems from elements of Islam.

 

[j1i]

As Salaam Alaikum
I was Sunni but never cared what sort of Muslim anyone was. These days I have many arguments against Fatwas. I thought the Hadith was Sayings of Muhammad PBUH and his life?

These days I am a sort of "Quran Only" Muslim. Islam is as much chaos as Christianity is. May Allah SWT help us?

Quran yes and hadith yes

I'm surprised by the way the subject is written
You write a religious topic and then attach extreme actions of people who are not Muslims? Terrorists who do not belong to any religion

But what is important is that religion is properly understood

No group in the world can agree on a single approach

Brothers in the same house united by the same religion and the same father and mother and see them fight and disagree and disagree

The difference is related to stinginess, selfishness and ego

Therefore you find the separation

If you are generous and generous, almost everyone agrees

Parsimony and scarcity are associated with fighting and bloodshed

 

[shunyadragon]

The irony considering your faith stems from elements of Islam.

No irony here. Yes, but there are reasons why I am not a Muslim. There are elements of Judaism and Christianity also, but of course, there are reasons I am not a Jew nor Christian. Please note I referred to the contemporary world.