The Qur'an: Intentions vs. Effects

[The_Fisher_King]

Do we agree that the version of Islam motivating a Terrorist is not congruent with the Qur'an?

It depends how you define a terrorist.

Why do u think it would backfire?

I'm not saying it would backfire, but it runs that risk. The idea that the (non-Muslim) media might take upon itself the role of supreme interpreter of the Qur'an would quite possibly both rile many Muslims and further convince some non-Muslims that the media/society is kowtowing to a group whom one should not be kowtowing to (or that the media is controlled by Muslims).

 

[loverofhumanity]

I see you've dodged my question about the definition of a terrorist..

I didn’t dodge anything. The Quran promotes only righteous deeds and forbids any form of aggression. So terrorism which is an unprovoked act of aggression is strictly forbidden in the Quran.

The Quran both defines terrorism and forbids it in Sura 2:190

2:190 Fight for the sake of God those that fight against you, but do not attack them first. God does not love aggressors.


N J Dawood

 

[The_Fisher_King]

1. To be tolerant towards all Faiths

Erm, there are plenty of verses that suggest an intolerance of disbelievers..

Not to kill

Killing is justified under certain circumstances.

 

[The_Fisher_King]

I didn’t dodge anything. The Quran promotes only righteous deeds and forbids any form of aggression. So terrorism which is an unprovoked act of aggression is strictly forbidden in the Quran.

The Quran both defines terrorism and forbids it in Sura 2:190

2:190 Fight for the sake of God those that fight against you, but do not attack them first. God does not love aggressors.


N J Dawood

That's a very broad definition of terrorism. But if we stick with that definition, the problem is, who started it? A 'terrorist' could claim that they are not acting as aggressors, they are responding to an act of aggression perpetrated by someone else.

 

[loverofhumanity]

Erm, there are plenty of verses that suggest an intolerance of disbelievers..



Killing is justified under certain circumstances.

2:190 only permits self defense as I’ve quoted earlier.

2:190 Fight for the sake of God those that fight against you, but do not attack them first. God does not love aggressors.

8:61

And if they incline to peace, do thou incline to it; and put thy trust in God; He is the All-hearing, the All-knowing.

109:1-6

Say: O disbelievers!
I worship not that which ye worship;
Nor worship ye that which I worship.
And I shall not worship that which ye worship.
Nor will ye worship that which I worship.
Unto you your religion, and unto me my religion.

 

[loverofhumanity]

That's a very broad definition of terrorism. But if we stick with that definition, the problem is, who started it? A 'terrorist' could claim that they are not acting as aggressors, they are responding to an act of aggression perpetrated by someone else.

In that verse they can only defend if attacked first not kill innocent people which is what terrorism involves. The people killed in New York had not attacked Muslims but were going about their daily business.

The rules only apply in a war but even then from that verse they cannot attack innocent people.

 

[The_Fisher_King]

2:190 only permits self defense as I’ve quoted earlier.

2:190 Fight for the sake of God those that fight against you, but do not attack them first. God does not love aggressors.

8:61

And if they incline to peace, do thou incline to it; and put thy trust in God; He is the All-hearing, the All-knowing.

109:1-6

Say: O disbelievers!
I worship not that which ye worship;
Nor worship ye that which I worship.
And I shall not worship that which ye worship.
Nor will ye worship that which I worship.
Unto you your religion, and unto me my religion.

I agree that we should leave people to their beliefs. But what about the verses on disbelievers burning in the Hellfire?

 

[The_Fisher_King]

In that verse they can only defend if attacked first not kill innocent people which is what terrorism involves. The people killed in New York had not attacked Muslims but were going about their daily business.

The rules only apply in a war but even then from that verse they cannot attack innocent people.

Ah, so now we have the beginnings of a tighter definition of terrorism - attacking/killing innocent people, which I quite agree is not mandated by the Qur'an.

 

[loverofhumanity]

I agree that we should leave people to their beliefs. But what about the verses on disbelievers burning in the Hellfire?

A spiritual condition. To fall into a lower state worse than that of an animal and to be deprived of the blessings of God.

 

[dybmh]

Erm, there are plenty of verses that suggest an intolerance of disbelievers

You are right, but, for me, and many others, the definition of who are "disbelievers" is important.

But even more important. In the verses you cite, who is intolerant? I think it is Allah, who is intolerant. People, Muslims, are encouraged to be tolerant. The punitive action, the intolerance is supposed to be left for Allah.

 

[loverofhumanity]

You are right, but, for me, and many others, the definition of who are "disbelievers" is important.

But even more important. In the verses you cite, who is intolerant? I think it is Allah, who is intolerant. People, Muslims, are encouraged to be tolerant. The punitive action, the intolerance is supposed to be left for Allah.

The Quran says God is a God Of Peace

59:23

He is God, there is no god but Him, the Sovereign, the Holy, the Peace Giver,

59:23 He is Allah, there is no god except He. He is the King, the Pure, the Peace, the Confirmer, the Watchful, the Almighty, the Compeller, the Sublime. Exalted is Allah, above all that they associate!

 

[dybmh]

The Quran says God is a God Of Peace

59:23

He is God, there is no god but Him, the Sovereign, the Holy, the Peace Giver,

59:23 He is Allah, there is no god except He. He is the King, the Pure, the Peace, the Confirmer, the Watchful, the Almighty, the Compeller, the Sublime. Exalted is Allah, above all that they associate!

Yes. I agree with the Qur'an verse you have posted here. My comment about intolerance is very important when demilitarizing specific verses in the Qur'an used by dangerous terrorists to support their pursuits and recruit others to their cause.

Any intolerance or punitive action should be left to Allah.

Sidebar: The Verses about self defense fall into a different catagory.

 

[The_Fisher_King]

A spiritual condition. To fall into a lower state worse than that of an animal and to be deprived of the blessings of God.

That's a bit of a stretch..

 

[The_Fisher_King]

You are right, but, for me, and many others, the definition of who are "disbelievers" is important.

How would you define disbelief?

But even more important. In the verses you cite, who is intolerant? I think it is Allah, who is intolerant. People, Muslims, are encouraged to be tolerant. The punitive action, the intolerance is supposed to be left for Allah.

If Allah is intolerant, and I am a servant of Allah, it is only natural that the one might lead to the other.

 

[Shad]

So terrorism which is an unprovoked act of aggression is strictly forbidden in the Quran.

There are Islamic terrorists which claim they are/were provoked such as Hamas.

 

[james dixon]

Erm, I don't think so. There is such a thing as a bad Muslim.

I see it differently,

From one eye I see ----

someone who is a bad person.,.,.,.,
& from the other eye I see---------
the accuser falsely accusing.,.,.,.,.,.,.
a religion for one’s own failings

What do the others here see?
I wonder -

 

[paarsurrey]

I believe it's respectful to take people at their words, until you have reason not to. With that, what I've heard from Muslims over and over again, concerning the Quran, is:

A - The Quran is the perfect, unalterable, timeless word of god.

So step one in this conversation is to determine whether we can agree with claim A? But this is the context in which I think about the book. It seems disrespectful to not take Muslims at their word. Now, an important 2nd claim is this:

B - The Quran is clear and easy to understand.

At several points in the book, it declares itself to be clear and easy to understand. When taken in the context of it also being perfect, I think I'm on safe ground concluding that the book should be easy to understand. I've read the book cover to cover, and I've studied two other translations, although not cover to cover. What I've found across three different translations is that the various translators arrive at very similar translations. In other words, I think it's fair to say that we can understand the key points in this perfect and easy to understand book if all we have is good translations.

So, that's the context for my criticisms of the Quran. I await feedback on this context, and then I will explain my criticisms of the book. Fair enough?

It is heartening to note that one has studied Quran from cover to cover from translation. There is absolutely no problem if Quran is understood from its verses in the context, some verses preceding and some verses following. It is also made clear in other places of Quran.

Regards

 

[The_Fisher_King]

I see it differently,

From one eye I see ----

someone who is a bad person.,.,.,.,
& from the other eye I see---------
the accuser falsely accusing.,.,.,.,.,.,.
a religion for one’s own failings

What do the others here see?
I wonder -

I'm afraid I don't follow.

 

[paarsurrey]

In my view, we need to find the answer to your point from Quran, and Muslim recorded traditions.

The Quran claims to be guidance for all humanity.
As regards to claiming it to be 'timeless', nothing in the Quran as far as I know exist that claims the Shria Law is everlastingly beneficial. There are verses in Quran, that alludes the Rites are beneficial to an appointed time, which according to recorded Hadithes, the appointed time, is when the Mahdi comes, with a new Book and new teachings.
The Quran claims to be a clear Book, but at the same time it says some of its verses are figurative, and no one knows their interpretations except those who God has given them knowledge and calls them 'Well-grounded in knowledge". In another word, Quran is a clear Book to understand. So, for instance, it clearly says, some of its verses are figurative, and to know their interpretation, you need to learn from the well-grounded in knowledge. Is this not clear enough to understand? But, what happened in Islam, everyone uses his own mind to interpret rather than learning from the Well grounded in knowledge who according to Traditions, and even the Quran, are the progeny of Muhammad.

"But, what happened in Islam, everyone uses his own mind to interpret rather than learning from the Well grounded in knowledge who according to Traditions, and even the Quran, are the progeny of Muhammad." Unquote

There is no mention of any physical "progeny of Muhammad" in Quran.
If yes, please Quote from Quran. Please establish your viewpoint from the verses of Quran only which is the focus of this discussion/debate.

Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

I think the part that is assumed both by Critics and Terrorists is that "perfect, unalterable, and timeless" means that each verse is literal and should be taken literally on its own.

I think that there are some very disturbing verses in the Qur'an if they are taken literally on their own. But limits are put on these verses as the Qur'an proceeds.

Literal interpretation is the cause of the problem. Both the Critics and the Terrorists agree on this literal interpretation. This means that both the Critics and the Terrorists have the same mindset when approaching the Qur'an.

If someone says: "perfect, unalterable, and timeless" I don't think that means each verse is literally true on its own.

Thoughts?

"Literal interpretation is the cause of the problem. Both the Critics and the Terrorists agree on this literal interpretation. This means that both the Critics and the Terrorists have the same mindset when approaching the Qur'an."

There is no problem with any verse of Quran if it is understood from the context verses and other verses of Quran.

Regards