The Qur'an: Intentions vs. Effects

[TagliatelliMonster]

I find that difficult to accept at best - the knowledge was revealed to Muhammad who was illiterate - as well as a human being
He conveyed that knowledge to others who wrote it down

The quran itself states that it is perfect.

It even issues a challenge to people to try and produce a chapter like it and claims that this can't be done, because the Quran says of itself that it is the most superior of works and that no human could do better - because that would essentially mean that a human did a better job then Allah himself, who is seen as the literal author of the book. Mohammed and his compagnions were merely the vessels to whom the book was dictated and who wrote it down.

This is as good as a tenent of islam.

Challenge of the Quran - Wikipedia

In modern days when data passes through human touches rather than interfaces there is an element of variability that is introduced as well as potential for error

Right. And the "miracle of the Quran", is that that exact thing didn't happen when Allah dictated this book.

Square those two facts without invoking - "It must not be that way for the Qu'ran" and then we can talk further

Read the Quran. The book itself claims this is the case.

 

[dybmh]

Why is it, that when the initial news of the lunatic in NZ broke out, everybody's initial assumption was that it was another attack carried out by islamic terrorists?

What is it about Islam that fuels these militant jihadists and extremist theology?

Do you recognise / acknowledge, that the problem of islamic extremism is a lot more serious then the problem of christian or jewish extremism (which most definatly also exists)?

Why is this?
What is the actual problem, if islam itself isn't the thing that fuels it somehow?

Thank you for your questions.

I have taken note of the comments you made about my debate style; and I will attempt to adjust.

I am going to answer these questions simply, and then work out a more detailed reply to post later if you are interested.

Question: "Why is it, that when the initial news of the lunatic in NZ broke out, everybody's initial assumption was that it was another attack carried out by Islamic terrorists?"

I don't know. I wasn't aware of that. I will try to research it more. It makes sense to me that this happened. You don't need to prove it. But if you can provide some support for this statement it would make it easier for me to respond.

Question: "What is it about Islam that fuels these militant jihadists and extremist theology?"

I have some theories on this. It will take some time to type up my full answer. However, most simply, I think that Militant Jihad and the Extremist Muslim Theology are are fueled by multiple factors where each of the factors amplify and support each other. The result is somewhat like a feedback loop or a perfect storm.

Question: "Do you recognize / acknowledge, that the problem of Islamic extremism is a lot more serious then the problem of Christian or Jewish extremism (which most definitely also exists)?"

Yes. I recognize and acknowledge the the problem of Islamic extremism is a lot more serious then the problem of Christian or Jewish extremism.

Question: "[If so], Why is this? What is the actual problem, if Islam itself isn't the thing that fuels it somehow?"

I don't know. At this point I'm working on the Qur'an not on Islam. My focus is, What is the Qur'an's role in militant jihadists and extremist theology.

If I were to venture a guess about Islam it would need to be phrased very carefully.

Does this answer your questions to your satisfaction? Would you like me to attempt a more detailed reply to any of your questions? If so, please reply and let me know which of my answers you would like to be expanded.

I Thank you.

Edit: Now I see both of your replies. Apologies, I did not see them or read them in order. And now I understand the context of your question and why Islam is the focus and not the Qur'an. My answers do not change. If you would like me to further elaborate, please let me know.

 

[ManSinha]

Do you recognise / acknowledge, that the problem of islamic extremism is a lot more serious then the problem of christian or jewish extremism (which most definatly also exists)?

The Islamic fundamentalists use guns and direct action - the Christian ones use polls and the judicial system to try and impose their beliefs on others like creationism and anti abortion rhetoric -

 

[dybmh]

Unfortunately, about the most objective one around those that I know of is Bill Warner's.

Thank you this, I am not familiar with Bill Warner.

When I go to his website, the first thing that I noticed is that Bill Warner is speaking about "Political Islam" as opposed to "Religious Islam".

Are you familiar with this distinction?

 

[LuisDantas]

Thank you this, I am not familiar with Bill Warner.

When I go to his website, the first thing that I noticed is that Bill Warner is speaking about "Political Islam" as opposed to "Religious Islam".

Are you familiar with this distinction?

Yes. And I somewhat agree.

But you should keep in mind that Bill's point is that there is in fact no distinction. Islaam, as I concluded before finding his writing, is in reality no religious movement at all.

As a matter of fact, Islaam has only the vaguest and most flawed of understandings of what religion is or what religion can be, precisely because it defines itself in relation to the Qur'an. A huge part of its difficult history with other groups comes from the insistence on having scripture trump reality.

Bill Warner points out that it Islaam as a religion does not actually exist, and that Islaam is a political ideology that has convinced itself that it should be considered a religion - the one true religion, even. It is hard to even attempt to counterargue Bill Warner's claim. He sources his findings quite well, and Islamists are essentially powerless to present meaningful counterclaims.

It may help you in understanding this situation if you notice that Muslims, just like most people, try to do right, and that definitely includes deviating from the actual doctrine because their consciences and discernments tell them better. Quite often they try harder than most non-Muslims, if only because obedience and submission are hammered into them so often by the Qur'an.

It is too bad that so many people fear doing better than their inherited beliefs tell them to. For Muslims, that is even more unfortunate than for most people.

 

[ManSinha]

It may help you in understanding this situation if you notice that Muslims, just like most people, try to do right, and that definitely includes deviating from the actual doctrine because their consciences and discernments tell them better. Quite often they try harder than most non-Muslims, if only because obedience and submission are hammered into them so often by the Qur'an

And dictated by circumstances as well perhaps - as you find many if not most that have migrated to Western countries espousing this belief - and yet there are instances where I am told the Imams in some of the mosques in the UK - preach a different message - if needed I can try and find citations in support

 

[LuisDantas]

And dictated by circumstances as well perhaps - as you find many if not most that have migrated to Western countries espousing this belief - and yet there are instances where I am told the Imams in some of the mosques in the UK - preach a different message - if needed I can try and find citations in support

It stands to reason, and is in fact necessary for a healthy, living doctrine, to have the message adapt itself to the cultural circunstances.

Although I am not very certain that the whole of the explanation for variations in doctrine in Islaam is attributable to that very welcome fact.

There are those who believe that there are other reasons, and I am in no position to have much of an opinion on how accurate that perception is.

That said, it is still remarkable how little the presentations of Islaam that I see online resemble the testimonials that I have seen in person here in Brazil.

 

[sooda]

Thank you this, I am not familiar with Bill Warner.

When I go to his website, the first thing that I noticed is that Bill Warner is speaking about "Political Islam" as opposed to "Religious Islam".

Are you familiar with this distinction?

Warner is an idiot from NC..

Dr. Bill Warner, Author - Political Islam
https://www.politicalislam.com/author
Dr. Bill Warner is a prominent and highly respected expert on Political Islam. He holds a PhD in Physics & Applied Mathematics from North Carolina State University. He has held positions as a research scientist, business owner and University Professor. Dr. Warner has had a life-long interest in religion and its effects on history.

This bird is just a garden variety opportunist.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

The Islamic fundamentalists use guns and direct action - the Christian ones use polls and the judicial system to try and impose their beliefs on others like creationism and anti abortion rhetoric -

That's not an answer to the question that was actually asked.

 

[Niblo]

Warner is an idiot from NC..

Dr. Bill Warner, Author - Political Islam
https://www.politicalislam.com/author
Dr. Bill Warner is a prominent and highly respected expert on Political Islam. He holds a PhD in Physics & Applied Mathematics from North Carolina State University. He has held positions as a research scientist, business owner and University Professor. Dr. Warner has had a life-long interest in religion and its effects on history.

This bird is just a garden variety opportunist.

Exactly.

Warner impresses only the ignorant; those who are out of their depth when it comes to the Qur’an; who really do need to do some through research, rather than stick to their cherished notions, reinforced by visits to Pastor Google and Bishop YouTube.

He writes:

‘The first step in learning about Islam is to know the right words. The language of Islam is dualistic. There is a division of humanity into believer and kafir (unbeliever). Humanity is divided into those who believe Mohammed is the prophet of Allah and those who do not. Kafir is the actual word the Koran uses for non-Muslims…………’ (‘An Abridged Koran - The Islamic Trilogy Book 4’).

Islam does not teach that the world is divided into believers (necessarily Muslims) and ‘kafirs’ (necessarily non-Muslims).

As you know, the word ‘kāfir’ was first used to describe the act of burying seed in the ground; and is now used of anyone – anyone at all, including a Muslim – who acknowledges a religious truth, but who then pretends that it is a lie – or that it does not apply to a given situation – in order to excuse their sinful behaviour. For example:

We both know that the consumption of alcohol is forbidden in Islam. Some time ago I attended the funeral of a work colleague (a Christian). Afterwards, at the memorial celebration, I was offered a pint of beer. I politely refused. Had I thought: ‘Well…..it’s a special occasion; the prohibition cannot possibly apply in this exceptional case. Yeah…it’ll be fine ’; and had I then drank the beer; that would have been an act of ‘kufr’.

‘Kufr’ is akin to what you might call a sin against the Holy Spirit; resisting a professed truth. All of us – at some time or other – will be guilty of ‘kufr’.

Warner writes: ‘In Islam, Christians and Jews are infidels and “People of the Book”’.

As you know, Christian and Jews are indeed referred to as ‘People of the Book’. This is an honorific title. They are not (as a group) unbelievers – although a portion might well be! It is worth noting that a Muslim may marry a Jewish or Christian woman; and that she has an absolute right, not only to retain her Faith, but to practise it. My wife, for example, is a Catholic. A Muslim may not marry an unbeliever.

Warner goes on to misquote a number of Qur’anic verses. Referring to Ghafir 35, for example, he writes:

‘They (Kafirs) who dispute the signs (Koran verses) of Allah without authority having reached them are greatly hated by Allah and the believers. So Allah seals up every arrogant, disdainful heart.’

The first thing to be aware off is that there are no parentheses in the Qur’an. Words in parenthesis are always those of the translator. Warner is deliberately attempted to mislead his reader; to give the impression that the verse is attacking those who dispute the Qur’an.

Here is the verse (shown in bold) in its context:

‘My people, I fear for you on the Day you will cry out to one another, the Day you will turn tail and flee with no one to defend you from Allāh! Whoever Allāh leaves to stray will have no one to guide him. Joseph came to you before with clear signs, but you never ceased to doubt the message he brought you. When he died, you said, “Allāh will not send another messenger.”’

‘In this way Allāh leaves the doubting rebels to stray – those who dispute Allāh’s messages, with no authority given to them, are doing something that is loathed by Allāh and by those who believe. In this way Allāh seals up the heart of every arrogant tyrant. Pharaoh said, ‘Haman, build me a tall tower so that I may reach the ropes that lead to the heavens to look for this God of Moses. I am convinced that he is lying.’ In this way the evil of Pharaoh’s deed was made alluring to him and he was barred from the right path – his scheming led only to ruin. The believer said, ‘My people, follow me! I will guide you to the right path. My people, the life of this world is only a brief enjoyment; it is the Hereafter that is the lasting home. Whoever does evil will be repaid with its like; whoever does good and believes, be it a man or a woman, will enter Paradise and be provided for without measure. My people, why do I call you to salvation when you call me to the Fire? You call me to disbelieve in Allāh and to associate with Him things of which I have no knowledge; I call you to the Mighty, the Forgiving One. There is no doubt that what you call me to serve is not fit to be invoked either in this world or the Hereafter: our return is to Allāh alone, and it will be the rebels who will inhabit the Fire. (One Day) you will remember what I am saying to you now, so I commit my case to Allāh: Allāh is well aware of His servants.’ (Ghafir: 32-44).

As you can see, these verses refer to Pharaoh, and to his behaviour towards the Jews. He is the ‘arrogant tyrant’. Moses is the ‘believer’ who calls the Jews to righteousness.

Here two more of Warner’s distortions (this time of the sūrah Al-Fatiha). He writes:

‘In the Name of Allah, the Compassionate, the Merciful. Praise be to Allah, Lord of the worlds. The Compassionate, the Merciful. King of the Judgment Day. Only You do we worship, and to You alone do we ask for help. Keep us on the straight and narrow path. The path of those that You favor; not the path of those who anger You (the Jews) nor the path of those who go astray (the Christians).’

The first distortion in found in verse 7: ‘The path of those that You favor; not the path of those who anger You (the Jews) nor the path of those who go astray (the Christians).’

This sūrah makes no mention of Jews and Christians (in order to mislead, Warner has inserted each in parenthesis).

The words ‘those who anger You’ are the second distortion. The verb used here is not attributed to Allāh (subḥānahu ūta'āla) at all; and so the correct rendition of verse 7 is: .

‘…..the path of those You have blessed, those who incur no anger and who have not gone astray.’

The meaning is clear: The blessing of Allāh (subḥānahu ūta'āla) falls on those who refrain from annoying others; on those who do not lead others into the sin of anger.

May Allāh (subḥānahu ūta'āla) continue to bless you, and your family.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Question: "Why is it, that when the initial news of the lunatic in NZ broke out, everybody's initial assumption was that it was another attack carried out by Islamic terrorists?"

I don't know. I wasn't aware of that. I will try to research it more. It makes sense to me that this happened. You don't need to prove it. But if you can provide some support for this statement it would make it easier for me to respond.

I don't have any data on it. I'm assuming it. And it also shows in the press communications during the brief period between learning about an incident and then later finding out what actually happened or is happening.

Whenever we hear about a shooting somewhere, we immediatly consider the very real possibility of it being islamic terrorists. Except when the shooting is in the US. Then we assume it is yet another american deranged gun-nut.

The reason why we make these initial assumptions, is because we just go by statistical probability. And in this day and age, when there are mass indiscriminate shootings reported (outside of the US), more often then not it consists of an islamic terrorist attack. That's why.

Because Islamic terrorist attacks are a real, almost common, thing and not isolated incidents like the dude in NZ or the one in Norway several years ago.

So the question reall, is why is it that such incidents are so common in islamic circles?
We have come to expect them because they happen so often. But why do they happen so often?
That's the real question. And imo, it is impossible to answer that question without mentioning Islam.

Question: "What is it about Islam that fuels these militant jihadists and extremist theology?"

I have some theories on this. It will take some time to type up my full answer. However, most simply, I think that Militant Jihad and the Extremist Muslim Theology are are fueled by multiple factors where each of the factors amplify and support each other. The result is somewhat like a feedback loop or a perfect storm.

But even so, there must be an initial seed to puts it into motion. What is that seed?

Question: "Do you recognize / acknowledge, that the problem of Islamic extremism is a lot more serious then the problem of Christian or Jewish extremism (which most definitely also exists)?"

Yes. I recognize and acknowledge the the problem of Islamic extremism is a lot more serious then the problem of Christian or Jewish extremism.

Question: "[If so], Why is this? What is the actual problem, if Islam itself isn't the thing that fuels it somehow?"

I don't know. At this point I'm working on the Qur'an not on Islam.

The quran IS islam.

However, your answer of "i don't know" is quite interesting in my opinion. Even more interesting is the addition that you are working yourself through the quran.
Because earlier you said that islam is NOT the problem.

So, it seems as if you ruled out islam as the problem without informing yourself first. Without asking yourself these tough questions. So I wonder how you concluded that islam is apparantly not the problem, without going through that exercise?

It sounds as if you just "decided" this and then ran with it.

Does this answer your questions to your satisfaction?

My questions weren't really designed to gain answers, but rather to get people to think about it.
It is my opinion that Islam's very essence provides the seeds for militant jihad. Islam's very nature, invites dogmatic adherence to a book deemed perfect. It very much is more inviting of fundamentalist / extremist interpretation then other religions like christianity.

This is why radical muslims are a lot more radical then radical christians. Islam is also a religion of war, contrary to popular opinion. Jesus is presented more like some type of John Lennon hippy, while Mohammed literally is an army commander. In that sense, Islam is very much more "militaristic" then its abrahamic counterparts.

Edit: Now I see both of your replies. Apologies, I did not see them or read them in order. And now I understand the context of your question and why Islam is the focus and not the Qur'an. My answers do not change. If you would like me to further elaborate, please let me know.

I don't know how you can talk about Islam while ignoring the Quran or how you can talk about the Quran and ignore Islam.

They are one and the same. The Quran literally is what islam is.

 

[sooda]

I don't have any data on it. I'm assuming it. And it also shows in the press communications during the brief period between learning about an incident and then later finding out what actually happened or is happening.

Whenever we hear about a shooting somewhere, we immediatly consider the very real possibility of it being islamic terrorists. Except when the shooting is in the US. Then we assume it is yet another american deranged gun-nut.

The reason why we make these initial assumptions, is because we just go by statistical probability. And in this day and age, when there are mass indiscriminate shootings reported (outside of the US), more often then not it consists of an islamic terrorist attack. That's why.

Because Islamic terrorist attacks are a real, almost common, thing and not isolated incidents like the dude in NZ or the one in Norway several years ago.

So the question reall, is why is it that such incidents are so common in islamic circles?
We have come to expect them because they happen so often. But why do they happen so often?
That's the real question. And imo, it is impossible to answer that question without mentioning Islam.



But even so, there must be an initial seed to puts it into motion. What is that seed?



The quran IS islam.

However, your answer of "i don't know" is quite interesting in my opinion. Even more interesting is the addition that you are working yourself through the quran.
Because earlier you said that islam is NOT the problem.

So, it seems as if you ruled out islam as the problem without informing yourself first. Without asking yourself these tough questions. So I wonder how you concluded that islam is apparantly not the problem, without going through that exercise?

It sounds as if you just "decided" this and then ran with it.





My questions weren't really designed to gain answers, but rather to get people to think about it.
It is my opinion that Islam's very essence provides the seeds for militant jihad. Islam's very nature, invites dogmatic adherence to a book deemed perfect. It very much is more inviting of fundamentalist / extremist interpretation then other religions like christianity.

This is why radical muslims are a lot more radical then radical christians. Islam is also a religion of war, contrary to popular opinion. Jesus is presented more like some type of John Lennon hippy, while Mohammed literally is an army commander. In that sense, Islam is very much more "militaristic" then its abrahamic counterparts.



I don't know how you can talk about Islam while ignoring the Quran or how you can talk about the Quran and ignore Islam.

They are one and the same. The Quran literally is what islam is.

Where did your "expertise" on Islam come from?

 

[sooda]

 

[Niblo]

Where did your "expertise" on Islam come from?

I don't have 'expertise', I have a quantity of knowledge; gained by study, and by discussion with - and correction from - those whose knowledge is greater than my own (folk not too difficult to find!). Is there a better way to learn?

 

[dybmh]

I don't have any data on it. I'm assuming it. And it also shows in the press communications during the brief period between learning about an incident and then later finding out what actually happened or is happening.

Whenever we hear about a shooting somewhere, we immediatly consider the very real possibility of it being islamic terrorists. Except when the shooting is in the US. Then we assume it is yet another american deranged gun-nut.

The reason why we make these initial assumptions, is because we just go by statistical probability. And in this day and age, when there are mass indiscriminate shootings reported (outside of the US), more often then not it consists of an islamic terrorist attack. That's why.

Because Islamic terrorist attacks are a real, almost common, thing and not isolated incidents like the dude in NZ or the one in Norway several years ago.

So the question reall, is why is it that such incidents are so common in islamic circles?
We have come to expect them because they happen so often. But why do they happen so often?
That's the real question. And imo, it is impossible to answer that question without mentioning Islam.



But even so, there must be an initial seed to puts it into motion. What is that seed?



The quran IS islam.

However, your answer of "i don't know" is quite interesting in my opinion. Even more interesting is the addition that you are working yourself through the quran.
Because earlier you said that islam is NOT the problem.

So, it seems as if you ruled out islam as the problem without informing yourself first. Without asking yourself these tough questions. So I wonder how you concluded that islam is apparantly not the problem, without going through that exercise?

It sounds as if you just "decided" this and then ran with it.





My questions weren't really designed to gain answers, but rather to get people to think about it.
It is my opinion that Islam's very essence provides the seeds for militant jihad. Islam's very nature, invites dogmatic adherence to a book deemed perfect. It very much is more inviting of fundamentalist / extremist interpretation then other religions like christianity.

This is why radical muslims are a lot more radical then radical christians. Islam is also a religion of war, contrary to popular opinion. Jesus is presented more like some type of John Lennon hippy, while Mohammed literally is an army commander. In that sense, Islam is very much more "militaristic" then its abrahamic counterparts.



I don't know how you can talk about Islam while ignoring the Quran or how you can talk about the Quran and ignore Islam.

They are one and the same. The Quran literally is what islam is.

I appreciate your feedback; would u like to read my response?

 

[sooda]

I don't have 'expertise', I have a quantity of knowledge; gained by study, and by discussion with - and correction from - those whose knowledge is greater than my own (folk not too difficult to find!). Is there a better way to learn?

You do know your stuff..

I meant to ask TagliatelliMonster.. He's young and he posts on several other religious forums..

 

[Niblo]

You do know your stuff..

I meant to ask TagliatelliMonster.. He's young and he posts on several other religious forums..

Ahh, but there is so much more stuff to learn! Don't yet know TagliatelliMonster...would remember that name . Will look out for him, God willing.

 

[sooda]

Ahh, but there is so much more stuff to learn! Don't yet know TagliatelliMonster...would remember that name . Will look out for him, God willing.

He's on this thread and very anti Muslim.

 

[dybmh]

II mean to ask TagliatelliMonster.. He's young and he posts on several other religious forums..

Are u saying the TagliateMonster is al dente?

 

[ManSinha]

That's not an answer to the question that was actually asked.

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