The qur'an

[astarath]

Nothing? Not one NT verse? I am quite familiar with Joseph Kony and the LRA as well as the voodoo tenets of it. They take text from the OT not the NT and use it to persecute and kill. I will wait but there are as posted by audodidact many Islamic scriptures encouraging pain and death. Not so in the NT.

 

[croak]

Quite to the contrary. Muslims who don't practice the faith in its entirety are quite peaceful but in the top 50 nations for persecution 47 of them are Muslim predominant nations. The 3 that are not are North Korea, China and Cuba

Like Vietnam and Laos? Russia? There are others, but I don't feel like checking the demographics of them to make sure.

 

[astarath]

Any NT text by the way condoning the LRA in any way?

 

[croak]

Nothing? Not one NT verse? I am quite familiar with Joseph Kony and the LRA as well as the voodoo tenets of it. They take text from the OT not the NT and use it to persecute and kill. I will wait but there are as posted by audodidact many Islamic scriptures encouraging pain and death. Not so in the NT.

So you completely ignore the OT? Some Christians would say you can't just toss out what you don't like. In any case, here's a pre-compiled list: Cruelty and Violence I know nothing of its veracity, but you wanted NT verses, so if you scroll down, there they are.

 

[croak]

Any NT text by the way condoning the LRA in any way?

The 'bad' texts are always easier to find than the good ones.

 

[ppɐʇɹnɯ]

Croak it is quite evident you don't understand Islam. The Quran is about

1. Hatred
2. Anger
3. Revenge
4. Violence
5. Death
6. Murder
7. War
8. Oppressing people.

And so on. I challenge you to find one verse in the Quran about tolerance or peace.

 

[astarath]

Funny. Of those, not a single one condones the actions of a Christian to be anything but loving. The quotes cited are NT quotes of what God did in the OT. Not a single one condones a Christian to act out of anything but love. The actions of wrath come only from God never from men. There is never a call for a Christian to be violent, hate or kill. The OC is there to show what passed away in the NC.

I will wait for a single verse that tells Christians to act in anger, hate, or violence. I can show you plenty that say to act only in love. Not one that says to kill.

 

[croak]

Croak it is quite evident you don't understand Islam. The Quran is about

1. Hatred
2. Anger
3. Revenge
4. Violence
5. Death
6. Murder
7. War
8. Oppressing people.

And so on. I challenge you to find one verse in the Quran about tolerance or peace.

Of course not, how could I? It can only be about those 8 things, right?

And ooh, a challenge. Am I allowed to be lazy again? Religious Tolerance in the Qur

 

[TJ73]

So you completely ignore the OT? Some Christians would say you can't just toss out what you don't like. In any case, here's a pre-compiled list: Cruelty and Violence I know nothing of its veracity, but you wanted NT verses, so if you scroll down, there they are.

What is interesting to note: Jesus,pbuh, came with a similar demading intention to reform people who were not following God. He used strong language and insited on death before dishonor, so to speak.He did not have a huge group and did not face violent opposition. but his words suggest he would have been just as ready to face anyone and follow God no matter what.
It may not taste so good in our mouths but we are not of the cloth from which prophets are cut.
Muhammed,pbuh, was directed by Allah,swt, to report what he was told, guidance and mercy from God and to defend Allah and His message and to stand firm giving the message . He fought when his work was interfered with and desisted when they did. Nothing inconsistent with God or any messages He gave prior.

 

[Autodidact]

As if nobody knew how to get a slave; of course they did. Except now there were more restrictions. And assuming wars against enemies of Islam ended and slaves earned their freedom or had no children, slavery would not exist. I don't think people expected that they would have enemies forever. That's the logic behind the argument that slavery would eventually die out as a result.

If you replaced the religion of Muslim slave traders with say, Christianity, or a pagan faith, the odds are they would have continued trading slaves. Slave trading by Arabs and others didn't start with Islam. There is a possibility that they were slightly more humane because they somewhat adhered to the Qur'an's limitations, or they might have been as brutal as everyone else.

Actually, in reality, the last nations on earth to abolish slavery were Muslim:

• 1960 Niger abolishes slavery[53]
• 1962 Saudi Arabia abolishes slavery
• 1962 Yemen abolishes slavery
• 1963 United Arab Emirates abolishes slavery
• 1970 Oman abolishes slavery
• 1981 Mauritania abolishes slavery

[wiki] That's right, slavery was legal in 6 Muslim countries until 1960.
And of course, today there are thousands of Sudanese slaves living in servitude in Northern Sudan, owned by devout, faithful Muslims.

The first jurisdiction to so was Vermont, an American colony, in 1777. The first country to do so was Iceland, in 1117. The first country in modern times was Poland/Lithuania, in 1588.

During this same period, Muslim slave traders continued to kidnap and enslave people from Eastern Europe, Southwest Asia, and Africa.

And if you assume the world slave market has died out, you would be mistaken. It goes by the name 'human trafficking' nowadays, but it's still slavery. People of all faiths can be involved in it.

They can, but only among Muslims is it still accepted.

From approximately 650 until around the 1960s the Arab slave trade continued in one form or another. The Moroccan Sultan Ismail Ibn Sharif "the Bloodthirsty" (1672–1727) raised a corps of 150,000 black slaves, called his Black Guard, who coerced the country into submission.[31] Historical accounts and references to slave-owning nobility in Arabia, Yemen and elsewhere are frequent into the early 1920s.[30] In 1953, sheikhs from Qatar attending the coronation of Queen Elizabeth II included slaves in their retinues, and they did so again on another visit five years later.[32]
As recently as the 1950s, Saudi Arabia's slave population was estimated at 450,000 — approximately 20% of the population.[33] It is estimated that as many as 200,000 black Sudanese children and women had been taken into slavery in Sudan during the Second Sudanese Civil War.[34][35] Slavery in Mauritania was legally abolished by laws passed in 1905, 1961, and 1981.[36] It was finally criminalized in August 2007.[37] It is estimated that up to 600,000 black Mauritanians, or 20% of Mauritania's population, are currently enslaved, many of them used as bonded labour.

[wiki]

The Qur'an didn't create a second-class status for women; it already existed. It can be argued that Islam improved their status, but you could likewise argue that women are still second-class citizens — fair enough

First, this is Islamic propaganda, history written by the victors. I will wager that you have not studied the history of women in the middle east prior to the 7th century, and don't know if Islam made their situation better or worse.

Second, the point is this. Muslims tell us that the qur'an is perfect. We can tell that it's God's message to us, because of its perfection, which cannot be duplicated by man. So it doesn't need to be just a little better than 6th century Arab barbarism. It needs to be perfect. Obviously, no one here thinks that owning people, discriminating against women and hating Jews is perfect. Therefore the qur'an is not perfect. Therefore it is not the word of God.

To be honest, you make it sound like only Muslim women live as second-class citizens. I would say most of the women alive today live as second-class citizens, and it would be ludicrous if you attributed that to Islam.

So you would as soon live as a woman in Yemen as in York? No real distinction between Saudi Arabia and Scotland, as far as you're concerned?

People have mentioned that the condemnation of Jews is in relation to historical events.

Yes, the historical events that Jews did not convert to Islam, and Muhammad had expected, which really irritated him. As usual, he and Allah were wrong.

Also, historically, Jew-hating was not as prevalent, especially compared to Christian Europe. Has the Qur'an magically changed during that time?

Why are we comparing perfection to what Muslims see as idolatry? Is that the best that God can do, not quite as bad as infidels?

I would say that, due to historical events blown out of proportion and the fact that scapegoating a people seems to always be in fashion, and especially due to the fact that prominent members of society espouse the view that, say, Jews in general are apes and pigs, the largely illiterate population would take them at their word.

And where are those prominent members of society getting those ideas, do you think?

In fact, there is no relationship between Islam and Muslims at all.

Now how did we get to that?

That's what SLAMH said. I find this frequently happens when debating religionists. They find themselves defending absurd positions as though they made sense. They have no choice, as their entire belief system is based on contradictions.

 

[Autodidact]

I don't go around blaming the Bible for the Lord's Resistance Army. And if you argue that, no, they aren't Christians, or no, the Bible speaks of love... well, it would be kind of hypocritical, wouldn't it? According to your reasoning, the words of the Bible are the reason people die at the hands of the LRA.

Oh, and they have slaves as well. I thought only Muslims had slaves.

Is someone here arguing that the Bible is perfect and brilliant, thereby demonstrating that Christianity is the one true religion?

 

[croak]

Is someone here arguing that the Bible is perfect and brilliant, thereby demonstrating that Christianity is the one true religion?

astarath seemed on the verge of it.

 

[ppɐʇɹnɯ]

Of course not, how could I? It can only be about those 8 things, right?

And ooh, a challenge. Am I allowed to be lazy again? Religious Tolerance in the Qur

Sorry I don't click strange links to Islamist propaganda websites.

 

[croak]

Actually, in reality, the last nations on earth to abolish slavery were Muslim:

• 1960 Niger abolishes slavery[53]
• 1962 Saudi Arabia abolishes slavery
• 1962 Yemen abolishes slavery
• 1963 United Arab Emirates abolishes slavery
• 1970 Oman abolishes slavery
• 1981 Mauritania abolishes slavery

[wiki] That's right, slavery was legal in 6 Muslim countries until 1960.
And of course, today there are thousands of Sudanese slaves living in servitude in Northern Sudan, owned by devout, faithful Muslims.

The first jurisdiction to so was Vermont, an American colony, in 1777. The first country to do so was Iceland, in 1117. The first country in modern times was Poland/Lithuania, in 1588.

During this same period, Muslim slave traders continued to kidnap and enslave people from Eastern Europe, Southwest Asia, and Africa.

Your point being...? Other countries might have abolished slavery, but it continued and still continues under different names.

See Contemporary slavery - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

They can, but only among Muslims is it still accepted.

A very simple Google search would tell you otherwise.

From approximately 650 until around the 1960s the Arab slave trade continued in one form or another. The Moroccan Sultan Ismail Ibn Sharif "the Bloodthirsty" (1672–1727) raised a corps of 150,000 black slaves, called his Black Guard, who coerced the country into submission.[31] Historical accounts and references to slave-owning nobility in Arabia, Yemen and elsewhere are frequent into the early 1920s.[30] In 1953, sheikhs from Qatar attending the coronation of Queen Elizabeth II included slaves in their retinues, and they did so again on another visit five years later.[32]
As recently as the 1950s, Saudi Arabia's slave population was estimated at 450,000 — approximately 20% of the population.[33] It is estimated that as many as 200,000 black Sudanese children and women had been taken into slavery in Sudan during the Second Sudanese Civil War.[34][35] Slavery in Mauritania was legally abolished by laws passed in 1905, 1961, and 1981.[36] It was finally criminalized in August 2007.[37] It is estimated that up to 600,000 black Mauritanians, or 20% of Mauritania's population, are currently enslaved, many of them used as bonded labour.

[wiki]

It was once openly accepted in many countries, and it isn't anymore. Your point?

First, this is Islamic propaganda, history written by the victors. I will wager that you have not studied the history of women in the middle east prior to the 7th century, and don't know if Islam made their situation better or worse.

And you have? I admit there is debate over it, not necessarily "Islamic propaganda". Also, did you not read my post? I clearly said it could be argued whether their situation was improved or not; my main point was that second-class status already existed.

Second, the point is this. Muslims tell us that the qur'an is perfect. We can tell that it's God's message to us, because of its perfection, which cannot be duplicated by man. So it doesn't need to be just a little better than 6th century Arab barbarism. It needs to be perfect. Obviously, no one here thinks that owning people, discriminating against women and hating Jews is perfect. Therefore the qur'an is not perfect. Therefore it is not the word of God.

It is argued that slavery would be regulated, and according to a source I cited earlier, by Islamic law, slavery should not exist at this present moment in time. Discrimination against women can also be argued in that, like the regulation of slavery, it was an incremental step. People are not going to suddenly free all of their slaves as soon as they hear a man say they should. Some will, sure, but considering slavery was a part of that society, it couldn't be dismantled overnight. If you were to tell a man from the South that a black should be able to become president while he had blacks working his plantation, he probably would probably laugh in your face. Now, after slavery had been abolished, and after the Civil Rights movement, and after so many years, a 'coloured' person has finally become president. Gradually. As for hating Jews, as I said, take it in historical context.

So you would as soon live as a woman in Yemen as in York? No real distinction between Saudi Arabia and Scotland, as far as you're concerned?

Nah, I'd rather live in Lebanon. Try asking a Lebanese Muslim woman what she thinks of Saudi Arabia. Some might actually prefer it, but I'm sure many would not.

Yes, the historical events that Jews did not convert to Islam, and Muhammad had expected, which really irritated him. As usual, he and Allah were wrong. Why are we comparing perfection to what Muslims see as idolatry? Is that the best that God can do, not quite as bad as infidels?

Ooorr... Jewish tribes attacked Muhammad's band of Muslims, so he fought back. Not to mention, had he not fought back, he would likely have been thought of a coward and his movement would have disintegrated. Not to mention they might have been annihilated.

And where are those prominent members of society getting those ideas, do you think?

Where does Glenn Beck get his ideas? People always want a scapegoat, whether they be Mexicans or Jews or Arabs.

That's what SLAMH said. I find this frequently happens when debating religionists. They find themselves defending absurd positions as though they made sense. They have no choice, as their entire belief system is based on contradictions.

That I can't comment on.

Now I'm actually going to sleep, which I planned to do before typing this up. And now it's twenty to six. Darn it, it was around quarter past five before.

 

[croak]

Sorry I don't click strange links to Islamist propaganda websites.

... xD

All right, I'll just copy the verses as listed on that site, and you can fact-check to your heart's delight:

“Fight in the way of God against those who fight against you, but begin not hostilities. Lo! God loveth not aggressors.”

(Qur’an, 2:190)

“Help ye one another unto righteousness and pious duty.” (Qur’an, 5:2)

“There is no compulsion in religion” (2:256)

“Had God willed, they had not been idolatrous. We have not set thee as a keeper over them, nor art thou responsible for them”

“Do not revile those unto whom they pray beside God, lest they wrongfully revile God through ignorance” (6:108)

“God does not forbid you to be kind to those who do not take arms against you. God loves those who are just” (60:8)

“Forgive and show indulgence to them…Whosoever surrendereth his purpose to God while doing good, his reward is with his Lord; and there shall no fear come upon them neither shall they grieve” (2:109-112).

“Do not allow your hatred of a folk who [once] stopped your going to the Inviolable Place of Worship [2] seduce you to transgress; but help ye one another unto righteousness and pious duty. Help not one another unto sin and transgression, but keep your duty to God” (5:2)

Religious Tolerance in the Qur

 

[Autodidact]

Your point being...? Other countries might have abolished slavery, but it continued and still continues under different names.

See Contemporary slavery - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Yes it does, in Muslim and non-Muslim countries. Nevertheless, outlawing slavery does help, and is a good thing. Do you agree?

A very simple Google search would tell you otherwise.

Actually, that would be your job.

Sudan is the only place where chattel slavery is not just surviving but experiencing a great revival. This renascence of the slave trade began in the mid-1980s and resulted directly from an upsurge of Islamism in Sudan at that time, and especially from the Islamist emphasis on the renewal of jihad. After gaining the upper-hand in Khartoum by about 1983, the Islamists' immediate goal was to transform the multi-ethnic, multi-religious population of Sudan into an Arab-dominated Muslim state, and to do so through jihad. Under Turabi's powerful influence, the ruler of the time, Ja‘far an-Numayri, declared himself to be (sounding like a caliph of old), the "rightly guided" leader of an Islamic state.
My Career Redeeming Slaves

by John Eibner
Middle East Quarterly
December 1999, pp. 3-16

It was once openly accepted in many countries, and it isn't anymore. Your point?

Muslim countries have lagged behind non-Muslim countries in ending slavery.

And you have?

I didn't make a claim; you did. I know very little about it.

I admit there is debate over it, not necessarily "Islamic propaganda". Also, did you not read my post? I clearly said it could be argued whether their situation was improved or not; my main point was that second-class status already existed.

And that makes the qur'an great how?

It is argued that slavery would be regulated, and according to a source I cited earlier, by Islamic law, slavery should not exist at this present moment in time.

And yet it does. Islam fails again.

Discrimination against women can also be argued in that, like the regulation of slavery, it was an incremental step.

Anything can be argued. The question is, is the argument correct? In any case, it doesn't speak very well for the perfection, the glory, the actual word of God, does it?

People are not going to suddenly free all of their slaves as soon as they hear a man say they should.

It would help.

Some will, sure, but considering slavery was a part of that society, it couldn't be dismantled overnight

Especially if there isn't the slightest pronouncement against it or effort to do so.

If you were to tell a man from the South that a black should be able to become president while he had blacks working his plantation, he probably would probably laugh in your face.

And he'd be wrong, as history as shown. Certainly, had slavery not been ended in the U.S., we would not have a Black President today.

Now, after slavery had been abolished, and after the Civil Rights movement, and after so many years, a 'coloured' person has finally become president.

Yes, and the first step was ending slavery. Islam never took that first step.

Gradually. As for hating Jews, as I said, take it in historical context.

I did. The context was, Muhammad expected the Jews to welcome him as a latter-day prophet. When they failed to do so, he declared war on them and conquered them.

Nah, I'd rather live in Lebanon. Try asking a Lebanese Muslim woman what she thinks of Saudi Arabia. Some might actually prefer it, but I'm sure many would not.

Are you deliberately missing my point, or did it really escape you?

Ooorr... Jewish tribes attacked Muhammad's band of Muslims, so he fought back.

Nope.

Not to mention, had he not fought back, he would likely have been thought of a coward and his movement would have disintegrated. Not to mention they might have been annihilated.

Not to mention he was the aggressor and raider.

Where does Glenn Beck get his ideas?

Not from the qur'an I don't think.

People always want a scapegoat, whether they be Mexicans or Jews or Arabs.

But should their holy books encourage and provide them, or guide them away from such evil thinking? Does God want us to hate Jews? Or love all people?

 

[ppɐʇɹnɯ]

... xD

All right, I'll just copy the verses as listed on that site, and you can fact-check to your heart's delight:


Religious Tolerance in the Qur

You're taking the said verses out of context. Take the first one.

“Help ye one another unto righteousness and pious duty.”

According to Tasfir, "helping" only applies to other Muslims. In fact Muslims are not allowed to have non-Muslim friends. There are even hadiths that Mohammed would wash himself if he made bodily contact with a Jew.

You are obviously grasping at straws. Autodidact has repeatedly proven you wrong on every single point. The quran is crap and so is Islam. Face it.

Oh and for today's dose of Free Speech:

 

[SLAMH]

But owning slaves is following the Qur'an, isn't it?

I dare you to bring up one verse that calls for owning slaves ?

Doesn't this violate the Qur'an?

No, it doesn't.

 

[Autodidact]

I dare you to bring up one verse that calls for owning slaves ?

Muslims are not commanded to own slaves. They're free not to. And they're also free to do so. Do you disagree?

Personally, I have one Christian friend whom I enjoy his company more than I do with some other Muslims friends.

Doesn't this violate the Qur'an?

No, it doesn't.

Qur'an (5:51) - "O you who believe! do not take the Jews and the Christians for friends; they are friends of each other; and whoever amongst you takes them for a friend, then surely he is one of them; surely Allah does not guide the unjust people."



So when it says not to take Christians for friends, it doesn't mean that you shouldn't take Christians for friends?

 

[SLAMH]

Lawful enslavement was restricted to two instances: capture in war (on the condition that the prisoner is not a Muslim), or birth in slavery. [wiki]

Though a free Muslim could not be enslaved, conversion to Islam by a non-Muslim slave did not require that he or she then should be liberated. Slave status was not affected by conversion to Islam. [Lewis, Bernard (1990). Race and Slavery in the Middle East. New York: Oxford University Press.p.9]

In theory free-born Muslims could not be enslaved, and the only way that a non-Muslim could be enslaved was being captured in the course of holy war.[Sikainga, Ahmad A. (1996). Slaves Into Workers: Emancipation and Labor in Colonial Sudan. University of Texas Press. ]


Bukhari: [FONT=&quot]Vol. 5-#512 Narrated Anas: ".....The prophet had their warriors killed, their offspring and woman taken as captives...."
[/FONT][FONT=&quot]Vol. 5-Chapter 67 Narrated Ibn Ishaq: The Ghazwa (attack upon) Uyaina bin

Hisn waged against Banu Al-Anbar, a branch of Banu Tamim. The prophet sent Uyaina to raid them. He raided them and killed some of them and took some others as captives.
[/FONT][FONT=&quot]
In the Sirat Rasulallah, Muhammad massacred 800 males and took their women and children as slaves. He kept at least one Jewish female named Rayhana as his concubine, and gave the rest away to the Muslims. The Sirat says (p466) "Then the apostle divided the property, wives, and children of Banu Qurayza among the Muslims....[/FONT]

Traditional Islamic law (fiqh) elaborates significantly on the Qur’anic material concerning slavery. The enslavement of war captives is regulated, along with the purchase and sale of slaves. While it is not permissible to enslave other Muslims, the jurists clarify that if a non-Muslim converts to Islam after enslavement, he or she remains a slave and may be lawfully purchased and sold like any other slave.
[Islam and Slavery]

"Slavery is a part of Islam. Slavery is part of jihad, and jihad will remain as long there is Islam."
[Al Fawzan – Sheik Saleh Al-Fawzan a member of the Senior Council of Clerics, Saudi Arabia's highest religious body]


Let me know if you want more.

​

How does this prove this,

may kill their opponents or enslave them, at their option. They usually chose to kill the men and enslave the women. If a person who is already a slave converts to Islam, this does not emancipate them.

Another thing,

Bukhari: Vol. 5-#512 Narrated Anas: ".....The prophet had their warriors killed, their offspring and woman taken as captives...."
Vol. 5-Chapter 67 Narrated Ibn Ishaq: The Ghazwa (attack upon) Uyaina bin

Hisn waged against Banu Al-Anbar, a branch of Banu Tamim. The prophet sent Uyaina to raid them. He raided them and killed some of them and took some others as captives.

In the Sirat Rasulallah, Muhammad massacred 800 males and took their women and children as slaves. He kept at least one Jewish female named Rayhana as his concubine, and gave the rest away to the Muslims. The Sirat says (p466) "Then the apostle divided the property, wives, and children of Banu Qurayza among the Muslims....

Can you talk about the reason of this Gazwa ? or do you want some one to tell you.