What is wrong with the Quran?

[Debater Slayer]

Alright mate, I'll accept that.

The word Salam or Salima should be checked up if you like in ed lanes lexicon. The explanation spans 4 or 5 pages if I remember right.

It is instantaneous, immediate and vivid, the fact that it is absobloodylutely wrong to say that Islam means submission and not peace.

This is just about a word and its meaning.

If I say in transliteration Sallam annahu kadha it means "Sure I agree or concede" which is submission. If I say Silamun or Musaalimaathu it means "a person made peace".

You know something. Explaining this is embarrassing but I should not think that way because you may not know Arabic. Dont take my word. Look up any lexicon.

S.L.M could mean peace or an act of submission. It is based on the usage the meaning changes.

Peace

• Arabic dictionaries don't typically list nouns; they list the nouns' root verbs, and when I did look up the lexicon you mentioned (assuming it's the one in the link), I found سلم, the three-letter root of the root verb of salaam. A lot of nouns and mazeed verbs (verbs that have more letters than are in the root verb) are derived from that, so it's not very useful to point out that the "explanation" (which is a list of definitions for derivatives based on the verb) spans four or five pages.

• Since diacritics usually change the meaning of words, you need to specify which one you're talking about: salima is a root verb, but that's the root for both aslama (the verb from which the noun Islam is derived) and the noun salaam.

• "I agree or concede" would be "Sallamtu," not "sallam." "Sallama" is the third-person masculine singular past tense of the verb meaning "to submit [something]," "admit [something," or "concede/agree [with something]."

• I'm not sure what "silamun" is actually supposed to mean. As it stands, the word doesn't even make sense. I suspect its transcription that you posted may be based on a mispronunciation or a misspelling, or both.

• Finally, you didn't address the explanation on the Islamic website I linked to, which says that "Islam" indeed means "submission." What do you say about that? Do you think the Islamic website misunderstands Islam?

 

[firedragon]

• Arabic dictionaries don't typically list nouns; they list the nouns' root verbs, and when I did look up the lexicon you mentioned (assuming it's the one in the link), I found سلم, the three-letter root of the root verb of salaam. A lot of nouns and mazeed verbs (verbs that have more letters than are in the root verb) are derived from that, so it's not very useful to point out that the "explanation" (which is a list of definitions for derivatives based on the verb) spans four or five pages.

• Since diacritics usually change the meaning of words, you need to specify which one you're talking about: salima is a root verb, but that's the root for both aslama (the verb from which the noun Islam is derived) and the noun salaam.

• "I agree or concede" would be "Sallamtu," not "sallam." "Sallama" is the third-person masculine singular past tense of the verb meaning "to submit [something]," "admit [something," or "concede/agree [with something]."

• I'm not sure what "silamun" is actually supposed to mean. As it stands, the word doesn't even make sense. I suspect its transcription that you posted may be based on a mispronunciation or a misspelling, or both.

• Finally, you didn't address the explanation on the Islamic website I linked to, which says that "Islam" indeed means "submission." What do you say about that? Do you think the Islamic website misunderstands Islam?

Not at all. I think they just said it means submission which is correct. That does not mean it could never mean peace.

I respect your Arabic knowledge and I concede that I dont know how to explain the grammar like you did. I dont know how to explain third person masculine singular past tense etc since I never studied English grammar to that depth nor did I learn Arabic via the English language. Hope you understand. I dont translate Arabic into English when reading I just read it naturally.

And if I am to say that he submits or concedes I cannot say Sallamthu in Arabic. I have to say Sallam because it is part of a sentence. As a single word yes I would say Sallam.

If I am to say "he accepted thats correct and true" I would say Sallam annahoo kadhaa or Sallamdhdhaawa. Submission to God would be Sallam liamriullah. Yes. In all these cases its submission, but if I say Musaalamathun with someone that is he made peace with that person. Thus the root SLM could mean peace in the way it is used. Salaamaa. They made peace.

You spoke of Sallamthu which is with the and sukun. If its applied to a sulaasi mazeed its an action someone did. Like safarthu. Usage of slm could be in this case sulaasi mujarrid.

Silm. Peace or reconciliation.

 

[firedragon]

• I'm not sure what "silamun" is actually supposed to mean. As it stands, the word doesn't even make sense. I suspect its transcription that you posted may be based on a mispronunciation or a misspelling, or both.

Silmun. The act of making peace. Silaamun means he made peace, third party reference. Mate. I seriously dont know what you speak of here.

Peace.

 

[codex]

If you knew anything about @Debater Slayer you'd know this claim is absurd.

Earrrm. You too may not know who you are talking 2 bra.

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

Earrrm. You too may not know who you are talking 2 bra.

Was there a serious point behind this post?

 

[Notanumber]

I have just been chilling out by watching a recording of today’s episode of the BBC’s The Big Questions and the gay rights activist Peter Tatchell made a point of saying that the Quran does not condemn homosexuality. Has he been brainwashed or something?

Interestingly when Nicky Campbell asked the Muslim who had done most of the talking what she thought was the best country in the world to be a Muslim, she said England.

 

[Notanumber]

What percentage of Islamists are mentally ill?

Muhammad and Allah what an insane double act!

 

[Notanumber]

He makes some very good points.

Education is the key!

 

[paarsurrey]

What kind of an impression does the Quran make when read from the point of view of a person outside of the faith? Does it truly come across as a convincing word of God (as believers say), or yet another medieval man-made doctrine (as critics say) or something in between. To find out, I will read the Quran, front to back and collect my impressions. Others can chime in an comment, but please stay within the chapter I am discussion to prevent confusion. Not everything will be covered , only those things that jump out. But others can point to sections I should take a second look.

I will start with Al-Buqara (the Cow), which is the second chapter (sura) of the book.

Now from the very first, the surah states that the book is meant for the believers. (v2-v5)

This is the Scripture in which there is no doubt, containing guidance for those who are mindful (muttaqin) of God, who believe in the Unseen, keep up the prayer and spend from that which We have provided them; those who believe in the Revelation sent down to you (Muhammed), and those who have firm faith in the hereafter. Such people are following their Lord's guidance and it is they who shall prosper.

The description is unequivocal. Quran is for those who are already all in, believing in the God of Muhammed fully and unequivocally. This of course makes everyone else not welcome as a reader of the book. This feeling is exacerbated by the polemic of the next verse:- (v6)

As for those who disbelievers, it makes no difference whether you warn them or not; they will not believe. God has sealed their hearts and their ears, and their eyes are covered. They will have great torment.

The Quran is saying at the very beginning that convincing unbelievers is a lost cause, for God Himself has caused them to be insensitive of the message and has decreed that they will be greatly tormented for this unbelief. Not only does this open up the the whole can of worms regarding God's role in actively promoting unbelief; unbelief and how one can still morally defend torment for unbelief under such conditions - but Quran appears to have given up trying to convince disbelievers from the very beginning, and threatening them with torment and diatribes instead.

Overall, not at all inspiring so far. Hostile and negative in tone and content.

To be continued.

One is welcome to read Quran with an open mind. The non-believers are not discouraged from reading it , understanding. Naturally when one read a book, question do arise in one's mind. Quran does not forbid one from the questions, yet one must be on a look out for questions that are not reasonable and are not supported wisely and reasonably from the context of the verses and or explained elsewhere in the Quran itself.
Well, why did one not start from the first chapter of the Quran, as the next chapter is closely related to it? Please
Regards

 

[Fire_Monkey]

What kind of an impression does the Quran make when read from the point of view of a person outside of the faith? Does it truly come across as a convincing word of God (as believers say), or yet another medieval man-made doctrine (as critics say) or something in between. To find out, I will read the Quran, front to back and collect my impressions. Others can chime in an comment, but please stay within the chapter I am discussion to prevent confusion. Not everything will be covered , only those things that jump out. But others can point to sections I should take a second look.

I will start with Al-Buqara (the Cow), which is the second chapter (sura) of the book.

Now from the very first, the surah states that the book is meant for the believers. (v2-v5)

This is the Scripture in which there is no doubt, containing guidance for those who are mindful (muttaqin) of God, who believe in the Unseen, keep up the prayer and spend from that which We have provided them; those who believe in the Revelation sent down to you (Muhammed), and those who have firm faith in the hereafter. Such people are following their Lord's guidance and it is they who shall prosper.

The description is unequivocal. Quran is for those who are already all in, believing in the God of Muhammed fully and unequivocally. This of course makes everyone else not welcome as a reader of the book. This feeling is exacerbated by the polemic of the next verse:- (v6)

As for those who disbelievers, it makes no difference whether you warn them or not; they will not believe. God has sealed their hearts and their ears, and their eyes are covered. They will have great torment.

The Quran is saying at the very beginning that convincing unbelievers is a lost cause, for God Himself has caused them to be insensitive of the message and has decreed that they will be greatly tormented for this unbelief. Not only does this open up the the whole can of worms regarding God's role in actively promoting unbelief; unbelief and how one can still morally defend torment for unbelief under such conditions - but Quran appears to have given up trying to convince disbelievers from the very beginning, and threatening them with torment and diatribes instead.

Overall, not at all inspiring so far. Hostile and negative in tone and content.

To be continued.

I read the Koran from cover to cover about three years ago.

Cannot say I was impressed. Well, except for maybe from all those verses (surahs) that advocated violence being perpetrated upon infidels. Or anybody that did not accept the teachings of Mohammed. Who, btw, was a pedophile.

Rather, I found the reading dry and tedious, with none of the colorful imagery of the bible. Overall it left me wondering how sad it is that anybody could devote their lives to the propaganda in this book.

Here's more of what I'm speaking of......

The Quran's Verses of Violence

 

[paarsurrey]

What kind of an impression does the Quran make when read from the point of view of a person outside of the faith? Does it truly come across as a convincing word of God (as believers say), or yet another medieval man-made doctrine (as critics say) or something in between. To find out, I will read the Quran, front to back and collect my impressions. Others can chime in an comment, but please stay within the chapter I am discussion to prevent confusion. Not everything will be covered , only those things that jump out. But others can point to sections I should take a second look.

I will start with Al-Buqara (the Cow), which is the second chapter (sura) of the book.

Now from the very first, the surah states that the book is meant for the believers. (v2-v5)

This is the Scripture in which there is no doubt, containing guidance for those who are mindful (muttaqin) of God, who believe in the Unseen, keep up the prayer and spend from that which We have provided them; those who believe in the Revelation sent down to you (Muhammed), and those who have firm faith in the hereafter. Such people are following their Lord's guidance and it is they who shall prosper.

The description is unequivocal. Quran is for those who are already all in, believing in the God of Muhammed fully and unequivocally. This of course makes everyone else not welcome as a reader of the book. This feeling is exacerbated by the polemic of the next verse:- (v6)

As for those who disbelievers, it makes no difference whether you warn them or not; they will not believe. God has sealed their hearts and their ears, and their eyes are covered. They will have great torment.

The Quran is saying at the very beginning that convincing unbelievers is a lost cause, for God Himself has caused them to be insensitive of the message and has decreed that they will be greatly tormented for this unbelief. Not only does this open up the the whole can of worms regarding God's role in actively promoting unbelief; unbelief and how one can still morally defend torment for unbelief under such conditions - but Quran appears to have given up trying to convince disbelievers from the very beginning, and threatening them with torment and diatribes instead.

Overall, not at all inspiring so far. Hostile and negative in tone and content.

To be continued.

One is welcome to read Quran with an open mind. The non-believers are not discouraged from reading it , understanding. Naturally when one read a book, question do arise in one's mind. Quran does not forbid one from the questions, yet one must be on a look out for questions that are not reasonable and are not supported wisely and reasonably from the context of the verses and or explained elsewhere in the Quran itself.
Well, why did one not start from the first chapter of the Quran, as the next chapter is closely related to it? Please
Regards

Is one's study of Quran suspended?
Regards

 

[psychoslice]

I read the Koran from cover to cover about three years ago.

Cannot say I was impressed. Well, except for maybe from all those verses (surahs) that advocated violence being perpetrated upon infidels. Or anybody that did not accept the teachings of Mohammed. Who, btw, was a pedophile.

Rather, I found the reading dry and tedious, with none of the colorful imagery of the bible. Overall it left me wondering how sad it is that anybody could devote their lives to the propaganda in this book.

Here's more of what I'm speaking of......

The Quran's Verses of Violence

Yes I read it all through also, and I found it to be cold and lifeless, I read it with an open mind, one of the worse books I have ever read, the truth must be said.

 

[sayak83]

Is one's study of Quran suspended?
Regards

Yes, due to boredom. The long harangue accusing Jews of failing God was tedious. Will pick up in time.

 

[Cobol]

 

[InvestigateTruth]

Now, firstly, I consider the challenge to produce a chapter like the one in the Quran very odd. What can it possibly mean? How can one objectively judge quality like this? .

I spent quite some time to know what it means to produce a surrah like it.

It means, produce a surrah like it, in a sense that indeed you claim, God has revealed it to you, and that in fact, you mean it!. It means write a Surrah and actually claim that, every word of it, is the Word of God.
The idea in Quran is, God does not allow, any false Prophet, to write Surrahs like Quran, and claim it to be from God.
This does not necessarily mean that no body can compose a surrah that is similar with Surrahs of Quran in terms of style or literature quality, but what matters is to claim, it is from God, for the purpose of deceiving people.

 

[psychoslice]

View attachment 16557

Like, how could anyone with a brain believe this rubbish ???.

 

[psychoslice]

I spent quite some time to know what it means to produce a surrah like it.

It means, produce a surrah like it, in a sense that indeed you claim, God has revealed it to you, and that in fact, you mean it!. It means write a Surrah and actually claim that, every word of it, is the Word of God.
The idea in Quran is, God does not allow, any false Prophet, to write Surrahs like Quran, and claim it to be from God.
It does not mean no body can compose a surrah that are similar with Surrahs of Quran in terms of style, but what matters is to claim, it is from God, for the purpose of deceiving people. This cannot happen ever, and according to history, never has happened.

Yes the Quran is certainly not from any God, if there was such thing.

 

[Nakosis]

What kind of an impression does the Quran make when read from the point of view of a person outside of the faith? Does it truly come across as a convincing word of God (as believers say), or yet another medieval man-made doctrine (as critics say) or something in between.

Without faith there seems little reason to think Muhamad was more than a fictional character.

 

[psychoslice]

The so called god of the Quran is not a god at all, how could it ever be, it is full of hatred, it is an ugly beliefs system, all it wants to do is take over the world, to make the world a Muslim world, a filthy world, a world where all our freedom is taken away from us. yet there are so many idiots who are allowing this ugly belief system into their countries, what the hell is wrong here ????. Yes Islam is an ugly belief system, if you want to believe it or not, if you don't then I say you are blind and ignorant.

 

[Notanumber]

It has been written that Islam has no equivalent of the Pope, but what is the order of control?

When they achieve world domination who will be the headman?

Will they continue to fight amongst themselves?