The Qur'an: Intentions vs. Effects

[InvestigateTruth]

Sorry, one could not quote any verses of Quran with the context verses to name any physical progeny of Muhammad, one can take any time one desires to have and can come in the forum to enumerate their names for us, as there is none in Quran.
One shall have to resort to Shiaism's tradition, in which Bahaullah as I understand was much occupied and could not come out of it. Quran needs no tradition whether of Shiaism or of Sunni-ism or of any other religion or no-religion to explain its meaning. Quran is very clear and straightforward of itself, only because it is not word of Muhammad, Quran is Word of God revealed on Muhammad. Right, please?

Regards

We already discussed this subject many times, and I have quoted many verses.

Let me give some thoughts on the subject. And if you really want to have this conversation, i want you to also answer to my questions, so, i can know what you think. It is a two way communication.
1. See Quran 3:7. There is a term in the Quran known as 'well-grounded in knowledge'. Does the Quran give names of anyone who is well-grounded in knowledge? No, it does not give any names! But just because it does not give any names as who are the Well-grounded in knowledge, does that mean, there is no One who is well-grounded in knowledge? Of course Not! Because when Allah says there are well-grounded in knowledge .how can you say, there is no one who is well-grounded in knowledge?
2. Look at verses of Quran. It says to people of the Book that Muhammad is the prophet who they can find Him described in The Torah and Injil. But when you search all Torah and Injil, you cannot find name of Muhammad. Does that mean Quran is wrong? Of course not.
Now, do not say, it is because they changed the Torah and Injil from its original form, and otherwise Muhammad name was there. That is not what Quran says! It never says, Muhammad name was in Torah and they removed it, so, such an idea has no basis. Because, Muhammad is not in the Torah or Injil by name, but He is described in figurative language and allusions.
Now, is it fair and acceptable, if someone says, name of Muhammad is not in injil or torah, therefore He is a false prophet? If you say No as a Muslim, then why do you say, you cannot believe the progeny of Muhammad are the Well-Grounded in knowledge in the Quran, just because their names is not in the Quran?
4. When did Allah say, just because a Hadith is found in Shia sources is false? Did Allah say, only use Sunni Hadithes? Of course not. We need to be open minded. Wherever we find truth, we accept it. Now, some Muslims say, we are only Muslims. We are not Shia. Allah did not approve sects. I agree. But did Allah say to use only Sunni Hadithes? Now what?

 

[ManSinha]

Islam is not evil.
The Qur'an is not the problem .

2) Do the verses instruct Muslims to despise Non-Muslims as a previous post claimed? No

I think we have a bit of a chasm here - in the Qu'ran as I understand it - Allah is the supreme being to whom all allegiance and worship is owed

This is similar to the discussion you and I had @dybmh regarding the word Kafir

Anyone who does not believe or worship solely Allah but gives their devotion / worship to another entity is by definition therefore an infidel

There are no protections for infidels or Kafirs - it is always open season on them

That is the line of reasoning undertaken by many that choose to commit crimes in the name of Islam

And truly there are well researched articles as well that say there is no Islam in the Islamic state - it is more political and its young adherents are angry and frustrated but have very little knowledge of the Qu'ran

 

[dybmh]

I think we have a bit of a chasm here - in the Qu'ran as I understand it - Allah is the supreme being to whom all allegiance and worship is owed

This is similar to the discussion you and I had @dybmh regarding the word Kafir

Anyone who does not believe or worship solely Allah but gives their devotion / worship to another entity is by definition therefore an infidel

There are no protections for infidels or Kafirs - it is always open season on them

That is the line of reasoning undertaken by many that choose to commit crimes in the name of Islam

And truly there are well researched articles as well that say there is no Islam in the Islamic state - it is more political and its young adherents are angry and frustrated but have very little knowledge of the Qu'ran

It sounds like you think the label "infidel" is something that is important to discuss relating to whether the Qur'an is intended to encourage peace or whether the Qur'an is intended to encourage conflict / dominance?

Am I understanding your comment correctly?

 

[ManSinha]

It sounds like you think the label "infidel" is something that is important to discuss relating to whether the Qur'an is intended to encourage peace or whether the Qur'an is intended to encourage conflict / dominance?

Am I understanding your comment correctly?

Yes because it is derived from the language in the Qu'ran is it not?

 

[Niblo]

…..And whoever has assaulted you, assault him in the same way he has assaulted you (2:194). So if an airforce pilot rains down fire on people that burns them alive, you can see the justification for burning him alive if captured, to take just one example.

This is not correct.

Shaykh Muhammad Al-Yaqoubi explains it very well:

‘ISIS committed the crime of burning human beings alive, as they did to the Jordanian pilot Mu˓ādh al-Kasābeh.

‘In Islam it is categorically prohibited to burn a human being, even after death – the Shariah is very clear on this. ISIS attempted to justify their grisly misdeed by arguing that since bombing (an action performed by pilots) is analogous to burning, the principle of retributive justice warrants that a captured enemy pilot should be burned. This reasoning is demonstrably fallacious and leads to a wrong conclusion.

‘The prohibition of burning with fire is well known and firmly established in the Shariah. It is based on rigorously authenticated narrations in which the Messenger of God (PBUH) forbade torturing with fire. This blanket prohibition abrogates all prior Prophetic instructions on the topic. The permissibility of burning someone was thus invalidated by the Prophet (PBUH) himself, once and for all. It is reported in Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī, on the authority of Abū Hurayra, that the Prophet (PBUH) said that no one except God is allowed to use fire to punish.’ (‘Refuting ISIS’).

 

[Muffled]

The path of Islam also lead to a form of Paradise, Maybe not same as in Christianity, and not same as Nibbana in Buddhism, But they will if they cultivate the path righterous get to a form of Paradise. As far as i have understood that is.

I believe it does not lead to eternal life. I recently had God say to me that the final judgment where people are judged on their actions leads to Hell or life depending on works. Christians are not in that judgment because we already have eternal life. The fact is that those who pass judgment get life which is temporal and although the worst miscreants are in Hell those with life outside the kingdom of God still have to contend with sin. So it isn't exactly paradise.

 

[Muffled]

As the old saying goes....

"The way to Hell is paved with good intentions."

I think all religions are inherently divisive.
I think Islam especially is in a tough spot, due to the status the Quran gets in that religion.

In Christian theology for example, there is the recognition at least that humans are fallible and that the bible was merely "inspired" as opposed to dictated.
There is general recognition that it might include things that aren't entirely accurate and because of that, it is more seen in context of the "spirit" of things.

Whereas the Quran is presented as pure perfection of the highest divine degree. That it was literally dictated and the most perfect text that ever existed or ever will exist. That makes Islamic theology a lot more "all or nothing" then something like Christianity.

This means that it forms a much more solid base for extremist beliefs to surface, which in turn fuels intolerance and division.

And I think we see the effect of that every day around the world. And in the middle east specifically.

Although Muslims take that view of the Qu'ran it is most likely untrue. Certainly whenever the text starts out with "Say" it is being dictated but in many instances and noticeably towards the end of the book that word is missing which means it is more liklely that Muhammad is speaking as an inspired person.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Although Muslims take that view of the Qu'ran it is most likely untrue. Certainly whenever the text starts out with "Say" it is being dictated but in many instances and noticeably towards the end of the book that word is missing which means it is more liklely that Muhammad is speaking as an inspired person.

That doesn't really matter as that is not how islam teaches it and it is not how muslims perceive it.

 

[sooda]

It sounds like you think the label "infidel" is something that is important to discuss relating to whether the Qur'an is intended to encourage peace or whether the Qur'an is intended to encourage conflict / dominance?

Am I understanding your comment correctly?

The term “infidel” is a Catholic-Christian term, originating from the Latin language. It has no roots in Islam or Arabic terminology. Some have attempted to equate “infidel” with “kafir”, but these are two different terms, from two different languages that carry two different meanings.

Infidel is a 16th century word having to do with pledging fealty to a lord or king.

Pledging fealty to a lord or a cause was a lifetime commitment, you are pledging your life, family and whatever assets to your "lord"

 

[Muffled]

No it was in reply to your post that was quoted - I am of the opinion that both types of "extremism's" are reprehensible - the violent as well as the subtle

I believe one has to ask: Is it extremism to contend for ones beliefs as we do in debates or is it extreme to just denounce something without debating it?

 

[Muffled]

Those are some tall claims (souls prepared in another world) - where is the proof of this other than "It must be so because it is so written and they said so" - circular argument as alluded to previously

In Buddhism with the re births of the Bodhisattva - the enlightened soul - a line can be drawn that traces a path to the enlightened birth -

Is there anything similar to support your statement?

I believe I have jumped around between worlds but can't say I was prepared in any way. After all in the new life most of the old lives are forgotten.

 

[Muffled]

Here you go - equating Baha'u'llah with Muhammad, Christ and Krishna

Christ, it is said, performed miracles, so that people would know his connection to the lord

Krishna revealed that he and he alone was the all encompassing lord of the Universe - to multiple people on multiple occasions

What did Baha'u'llah do?

I believe Krishna could say it and the B man also but that didn't make it true. Jesus, on the other hand is God in the flesh borne out not just by His words and actions but also by what God says.

 

[dybmh]

@The_Fisher_King ,

i have been researching the Qur'an's references to burning in hellfire and i have reached the same conclusion as Niblo,

no one except God is allowed to use fire to punish

I did not approach it from a legal perspective. My conclusion is coming from reading the verses in the Qur'an. The idea of divine retribution isn't really appealing to me. But i can see how strict harsh penalties would discourage vigilante justice.

This is how i perceive the intention of the Qur'an regarding penalty by burning in hell's fire. Muslim's who beleive the Qur'an is the holy word of God may read it on a much deeper level. But on a purely superficial level, I think the intention is to prevent tribal infighting and vigilante justice.

This is a practical and hopefully accurate way for outsiders to perceive the intentions of the concept of burning sinners in hells fire. But what are the effects?

Clearly we see dangerous immoral people cherry pick the parts of the Qur'an that support their pursuits and omit or ignore the parts of the Qur'an that discourage their immoral behaviour.

But there's also an effect on the other side that i think @ManSinha has observed. The idea that non-believers are punished in Hell's fire by Allah is quite insulting. Am I understanding, ManSinha? Do you feel like the Qur'an's verses about non-believers is insulting towards non-Muslims? Maybe this is an unintended side effect?

So why include those verses if they are potentially insulting to outsiders, can be skewed to support heinous actions by dangerous terrorists, and can be used to demonize the Qur'an and bring dishonor towards Islam? Aren't these negative side effects obvious and predictable? How could these side effects be unintentional? If they are unintended side effects, what is the larger intended benefit?

Answer: I think these verses demonstrate sincerity and integrity, a recurring theme in the Qur'an.

All 3, Judaism, Chritianity, and Islam have a concept of divine punishment for evil deeds perpetrated by non-believers. In Judaism, the concept is not written about overtly in the Old Testament. The hell-fire concept is written about in the New Testament in Luke only a few times. And it is written about many times in the Qur'an. To me this demonstrates the Islamic value of sincerity. The divine retribution isn't hidden; it is front and center for all to see and read for themselves.

 

[ManSinha]

I believe Krishna could say it and the B man also but that didn't make it true. Jesus, on the other hand is God in the flesh borne out not just by His words and actions but also by what God says.

That is fiction - Jesus was most certainly NOT god by any stretch of imagination
Just because you say so - does not make it true

And what exactly did god say? did she speak with you? do you have a direct line?

All you have is the words attributed to god written in a now forgotten language translated and re published many times over - ALL done by humans that walked on two feet, ate, slept and pooped like everyone else

 

[ManSinha]

But there's also an effect on the other side that i think @ManSinha has observed. The idea that non-believers are punished in Hell's fire by Allah is quite insulting. Am I understanding, ManSinha? Do you feel like the Qur'an's verses about non-believers is insulting towards non-Muslims? Maybe this is an unintended side effect?

That in and of itself would be bad enough BUT there is a double whammy here

Non believers are punished with hellfire

AND

Anyone that chooses to worship a being other than Allah can be classified a non believer


It is easy for some people to connect the dots and justify their atrocities against innocent people who may not think as they do

The divine retribution isn't hidden; it is front and center for all to see and read for themselves.

This is wrong I believe - there is no divine retribution - only natural disasters that accept no favorites and acts of humans that are equally unforgiving
The Universe is non transactional - it does not micro manage the lives of humans

 

[dybmh]

Anyone that chooses to worship a being other than Allah can be classified a non believer

How is this different than Christian Fundementalism?

Does Christian Fundementalism offend you in the same way with the same intensity?

If a Muslim doesn't define non-believers the way you do, does that help you feel less offended?

 

[dybmh]

This is wrong I believe - there is no divine retribution - only natural disasters that accept no favorites and acts of humans that are equally unforgiving
The Universe is non transactional - it does not micro manage the lives of humans

If you believe it's wrong, why are you offended?

 

[The_Fisher_King]

This is not correct.

Shaykh Muhammad Al-Yaqoubi explains it very well:

‘ISIS committed the crime of burning human beings alive, as they did to the Jordanian pilot Mu˓ādh al-Kasābeh.

‘In Islam it is categorically prohibited to burn a human being, even after death – the Shariah is very clear on this. ISIS attempted to justify their grisly misdeed by arguing that since bombing (an action performed by pilots) is analogous to burning, the principle of retributive justice warrants that a captured enemy pilot should be burned. This reasoning is demonstrably fallacious and leads to a wrong conclusion.

‘The prohibition of burning with fire is well known and firmly established in the Shariah. It is based on rigorously authenticated narrations in which the Messenger of God (PBUH) forbade torturing with fire. This blanket prohibition abrogates all prior Prophetic instructions on the topic. The permissibility of burning someone was thus invalidated by the Prophet (PBUH) himself, once and for all. It is reported in Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī, on the authority of Abū Hurayra, that the Prophet (PBUH) said that no one except God is allowed to use fire to punish.’ (‘Refuting ISIS’).

It's all in the interpretation. You can read a decent discussion of the issues here: Why did the Sahaabah use burning with fire as a punishment for some crimes? - Islam Question & Answer.

 

[The_Fisher_King]

@The_Fisher_King ,

i have been researching the Qur'an's references to burning in hellfire and i have reached the same conclusion as Niblo,

I did not approach it from a legal perspective. My conclusion is coming from reading the verses in the Qur'an. The idea of divine retribution isn't really appealing to me. But i can see how strict harsh penalties would discourage vigilante justice.

This is how i perceive the intention of the Qur'an regarding penalty by burning in hell's fire. Muslim's who beleive the Qur'an is the holy word of God may read it on a much deeper level. But on a purely superficial level, I think the intention is to prevent tribal infighting and vigilante justice.

This is a practical and hopefully accurate way for outsiders to perceive the intentions of the concept of burning sinners in hells fire. But what are the effects?

Clearly we see dangerous immoral people cherry pick the parts of the Qur'an that support their pursuits and omit or ignore the parts of the Qur'an that discourage their immoral behaviour.

But there's also an effect on the other side that i think @ManSinha has observed. The idea that non-believers are punished in Hell's fire by Allah is quite insulting. Am I understanding, ManSinha? Do you feel like the Qur'an's verses about non-believers is insulting towards non-Muslims? Maybe this is an unintended side effect?

So why include those verses if they are potentially insulting to outsiders, can be skewed to support heinous actions by dangerous terrorists, and can be used to demonize the Qur'an and bring dishonor towards Islam? Aren't these negative side effects obvious and predictable? How could these side effects be unintentional? If they are unintended side effects, what is the larger intended benefit?

Answer: I think these verses demonstrate sincerity and integrity, a recurring theme in the Qur'an.

All 3, Judaism, Chritianity, and Islam have a concept of divine punishment for evil deeds perpetrated by non-believers. In Judaism, the concept is not written about overtly in the Old Testament. The hell-fire concept is written about in the New Testament in Luke only a few times. And it is written about many times in the Qur'an. To me this demonstrates the Islamic value of sincerity. The divine retribution isn't hidden; it is front and center for all to see and read for themselves.

I wasn't suggesting that the verses of the Qur'an which talk about the punishment of the Hellfire could be used to justify burning someone to death as a punishment for particular crimes. As I understood Niblo's post it was in relation to the specific form of punishment Daesh (Islamic State) used against a pilot they had captured and the validity or otherwise of that ruling (for a detailed discussion of the issues, read here: Why did the Sahaabah use burning with fire as a punishment for some crimes? - Islam Question & Answer).

More broadly, I would suggest that most Muslims take the frequent references to eternal punishment in the Hellfire for disbelievers at face value, and that that does rather set the tone for how disbelievers should be perceived: If Allah Most High feels that that is an appropriate punishment for disbelievers, who are we as human beings to disagree? If Allah hates disbelief so much, shouldn't Muslims also? It's arguably not a big jump from there to viewing disbelievers in a negative way.

 

[ManSinha]

How is this different than Christian Fundementalism?

Does Christian Fundementalism offend you in the same way with the same intensity?

If a Muslim doesn't define non-believers the way you do, does that help you feel less offended?

The Christians, to my knowledge, will try to educate and covert - the history of Muslims until very recently has been to force and intimidate - one can be ignored - the other one not - hence the offense