Not that I hate Muslims or anything but, you say you are peaceful people. Chapter 298 in the book of surra(if that's how you spell it). "Allah is an enemy to all unbelievers" "oh believers take not jews and christians for your friend, for they are one in the same" And "Fight unbelievers that are near to you, murder those who are of unbelievers" It says not to make friends with Jews and Christians, but a Muslim told me that it ment not to make allies with them. What do you think?
This is not an attack against Muslims, I just want to have some questions answered by actual Muslims.

Moderator's Note: This post is not the OP of the thread that was begun with the current title. The original OP was Roman's post just below. I moved several posts from a very related topic to this one and this post was actually older -I'm guessing that it may have actually inspired Roman's OP below, but I could be wrong.

dear Flame whatever guy

I hope you are well

Eeerrr thank you for posting a bit of the Quran.

would it be possible to tell me who translated the Quran you got that from???

~~~~~~~
cheers
zak

No clue lol, that's why I was asking. Is there a mistake in those verses?

Why is it that every time someone's like "Yo, Muslim dude, could you explain to me why this verse tells Muslims to kill all the Jews?" the Muslim's like "uh, yeah, which translation is that? Because the translator might be confusing the word 'kill' for something else."

WTF.

Why is it that every time someone's like "Yo, Muslim dude, could you explain to me why this verse tells Muslims to kill all the Jews?" the Muslim's like "uh, yeah, which translation is that? Because the translator might be confusing the word 'kill' for something else."

WTF.

you do know the koran basically states if your not a muslim you should be a christian or a jew right?

Well, no, I have no way of knowing that, because appearantly english translations are always wrong.

Heh, I think it's just a method to get out of a uncomfortable situation.
Quaran after all is an outdated book, at least compared to western civilization timeline.

Heh, I think it's just a method to get out of a uncomfortable situation.
Quaran after all is an outdated book, at least compared to western civilization timeline.

Well, yeah, but I want to hear sammy's reasoning apologetics.

you do know the koran basically states if your not a muslim you should be a christian or a jew right?

It also states that unbelievers should be "made to feel oppressed"; it gives this as one of the three possible outcomes for the "kuffar" - death, conversion, or dhimmitude (Q 9:29).

As has happened in Christianity, for a fact, and perhaps in Judaism. Also, what it might say and what Moslems follow are two different things. Obviously, Chrisitanity taken literally and followed strictly By the Book would make a Christian society very unfree and oppressive. The problem is (and luckily it isn't a problem in Lebanon or Syria), revolutionizing the society.

It also states that unbelievers should be "made to feel oppressed"; it gives this as one of the three possible outcomes for the "kuffar" - death, conversion, or dhimmitude (Q 9:29).

Yeah, and then sammy's like "but but that was like better than what they would do at the time!"

I like how the Lord God Allah is so concerned with contemporary, er, I mean, 7th century middle eastern politics that, rather than lay down a few holy words that were slightly better than current practices, came and out and flatly said "love everyone."

It's just more proof that Islam is a totally false religion.

If it is indeed false, Judaism must be as well. Christianity too. Seeing as both reolve around the same fundamental beliefs as Islam, or rather, Islam revolves on Abrahamic fundamental beliefs.

If it is indeed false, Judaism must be as well. Christianity too. Seeing as both reolve around the same fundamental beliefs as Islam, or rather, Islam revolves on Abrahamic fundamental beliefs.

Well duh.

If it is indeed false, Judaism must be as well. Christianity too. Seeing as both reolve around the same fundamental beliefs as Islam, or rather, Islam revolves on Abrahamic fundamental beliefs.

This statement couldn't be more wrong. Muslims believe the Old and New Testament are both false; that the Jews re-wrote the Old Testament and the Christians all fell for a hoax.

I can't speak for the Jews, but what Muslims believe is almost the exact antithesis of what Christians believe. They don't believe in "the Fall", nor in Jesus' crucifixion or resurrection, nor the need for salvation, nor of course, salvation through grace. Nor do they believe God is a God of love and grace and forgive thy neighbor and love your enemies.

Allah in fact doesn't appear to love anyone, least of all Jews and Christians, who are both cursed by Allah and dammed to eternal torture.

Muhammad tried, in vain, to link Allah to the Jewish and Christian God in order to claim legitimacy. He got particularly pissed at the Jews for rejecting his new cult, hence the eternal hatred of Jews as clearly written in the Qur'an many many times.

Moderator's Note: There is a very specific topic that deserves to be discussed without straying. If you would like to discuss another topic, please create that thread. However, I ask that we keep on the topic of translation with regard to Koranic texts, particularly with regard to how this applies to the understanding of non-Arabic speakers.

I've already discussed it before, so I'm not inclined to go into it again.

However, I can provide the references I used.

Translating the Untranslatable: A Survey of English Translations of the Quran (http://soundvision.com/Info/quran/english.asp)

Assessing English Translations of the Qur'an (http://www.meforum.org/article/717)

Thank you for the links. These are helpful. If you have a link to one of your previous posts, that would be good as well. If I run across it, I'll edit your post above and add it there.

Not worth it. It was a (Q)fest. :D

I've already discussed it before, so I'm not inclined to go into it again.

However, I can provide the references I used.

Translating the Untranslatable: A Survey of English Translations of the Quran (http://soundvision.com/Info/quran/english.asp)

Assessing English Translations of the Qur'an (http://www.meforum.org/article/717)

Thanks S.A.M. I will use one of your links below.

Let’s look at two different and respected translations of the same verse and see if they are substantially different. Both of these translations, Yusuf and Pickthall, come from the same Muslim web site (soundvision.com) and are commonly used by English speaking Muslims.

Abdullah Yusuf Ali:
009.029. Fight those who believe not in God nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by God and His Apostle, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.

Mohammed Marmaduke Pickthall:
09.29. Fight against such of those who have been given the Scripture as believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, and forbid not that which Allah hath forbidden by His messenger, and follow not the Religion of Truth, until they pay the tribute readily, being brought low.

Hmmmm, what’s this? Why, they both say the same thing! They both explicitly direct Muslims to make war against non-Muslims, or to subjugate Jews and Christians (People of the Book).

Lets make sure we have this right. What do respected Muslim jurists (clerics) say about these verses. I suppose both of them could be wrong. But that would be really bad since Muslims use these translations. Lets find out. Please direct your browser to the following link and scroll down to Verse 29:

http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/ABewley/tawba2.html

Whats this? As-Sawi and Ibn Juzayy, both agree! Seems we’ve lost nothing in translation. This verse is indeed “a command to fight the People of the Book”. Ibn Kathir says that the dhimmis must be “disgraced, humiliated and belittled”. Ibn Juzayy calls the subjugation a state of abasement. "You pay it while you are standing and I am sitting and the whip hanging is over your head."

Yes the quran is clear, but just as some "christians" twist the words of Jesus to preach war and violence, So do some muslims twist the words of the quran to try to make it out to be a book of peace.

But the Words of Jesus and the words of muhammad are clear enough to those who do not wilfully ignore them and trust in the doctrinal twists of men.


All Praise The Ancient Of Days

Thanks S.A.M. I will use one of your links below.


What does Sura 9 discuss?

So, if the angel Gabriel sent a message to Muhammad ONLY in Arabic, for a religion that is supposed to be spread over the earth, why was it not received in other languages?

Islam is not a new religion. Muhammed merely reiterated what has been known elsewhere in many other languages for thousands of years. For anyone to become a Muslim (ie a submitter to the right way, or to God) he has only to go back to the beginning of his own religion.

Recall the shahada does not say, I believe in the Arabic Quran, only that I believe in God and in the message of Muhammed. The message of Muhammed was that all prophets are from God.

You didn't answer the question.

I did.

The Quran is a recital which hints at what was given before. It states over and over that there have been previous messages and messengers, and that knowledge is the first step to salvation. That all prophets are from God and we should not discriminate between the prophets. Pluralism and syncretism are built into its verses.

Muhammed never claimed to devise a fresh approach but a back to basics approach. He wanted people to let go of the frills, the bells and whistles and reduce religious involvement to its common denominator. Faith, charity and tolerance.

The very first revelation to Muhammed was " Iqra, bi'ismi Rabbi" or "Read! in the name of the Lord".

The Quran (from Qiraat, the recitation) is a recital. So what should Muhammed read?

Nope, you still didn't answer the question. And what you did say is bs because many of the tenets of Islam have nothing to do with the other cults.

So, answer the question, please.

Mohammed was Arab, the revelation was given to him, he chose to spread the message. His language was Arabic.

Sam, you need not propagandize if you don't know the answer. Let someone with some knowledge of Islam answer instead.

I don't see the difficulty.

If I want to declare that I am a follower of Voltaire, for example, how valid would I be as a follower if I only read his message in translation?

The messenger is limited by his ability to spread the message, which may be language, location or freedom.

Sam, you need not propagandize if you don't know the answer. Let someone with some knowledge of Islam answer instead.

In general I would say God revealed things to individuals. Individuals then wrote it down in their own language. The bible is considered for example, to be the “inspired” word of God. The Koran on the other hand, is believed to be the EXACT word of Allah, not inspired.

Christianity has no issue with translations. True, translations can cause subtle differences in meaning. But you can get Bibles that include all possible variants on meanings. The Net Bible is excellent in this regard, though it has so many footnotes it’s a bit hard to read.

Islam is the only religion that claims it can never be fully understood except in the original language. Which does indeed cause a problem if Allah’s word was for the whole world.

I can think of two theories why this is. First, this gives all power of meaning to the Imams who describe the meanings in their Mosques. Second, it provides a convenient excuse when people see the violence and bigotry in the Koran, Muslims claim they are simply not understanding the true meaning. This is why I provided an example of 2 translations and Muslim cleric commentary to show this is not actually true.

You care correct in your perception S.A.M. is evading the question. His answer seems to be that the word of Allah is simply an extension of the Old and New Testament. However in my first post on this, #11, what Allah teaches is fundamentally the opposite of what Christianity says, and so different from the Old Testament that Muslims must claim the Torah was completely rewritten to hide the original meaning.

I have a Jewish friend who claims that the Quran is closer to the Torah than the Bible.

And by the Bible do you mean Jesus's Gospel or Paul's (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_the_Apostle) writings? Or do you mean the Nicaean Council (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_Nicaea) agreements?

Because the Bible is many other things besides the inspired word of God. And that is the problem with translations.

Did the Jews translate the Torah? I have no knowledge about this, but from what I have heard in the Middle East, Muslims do not consider Jews to have altered the religion, and in fact, all Jewish religious stuff is kosher for us.


. The Arabic word 'Kutub' literally means 'books' and the Qur'an uses this word to refer to revealed scriptures. Belief in all these books is a fundamental tenet of Islam.


"O People of the Book! Ye have no ground to stand upon unless ye stand fast by the Torah, (and) the Gospel." Qur'an Surah 5.68

Semantics is killing religion.

... what I have heard in the Middle East, Muslims do not consider Jews to have altered the religion, and in fact, all Jewish religious stuff is kosher for us.

“
"O People of the Book! Ye have no ground to stand upon unless ye stand fast by the Torah, (and) the Gospel." Qur'an Surah 5.68
”


S.A.M. By quoting 5:68 you are trying to say the Qur’an respects, and is derived from, the Torah and the Gospels. But you know that mainstream Islamic belief is that the Torah and Gospels were corrupted by early Jewish and Christian writers.

Islam believes the Torah and Gospels confirm the prophesy of Muhammad. They of course, do not, not in the least. Therefore those books must be corrupted and indeed we see this in the Qur’an.

Sura 3:3 proclaims that the Qur’an now revealed to Muhammad confirms what was written in the Torah and the Gospel. But:

003.024 This because they say: "The Fire shall not touch us but for a few numbered days": For their forgeries deceive them as to their own religion.

Confirms the belief the Torah was a forgery. This is further confirmed by respected Imam Asad who emphasizes that :

“it is to be borne in mind that the Gospel frequently mentioned in the Qur’an is not identical with what is known today as the Four Gospels, but refers to an original, since lost, revelation bestowed upon Jesus and known to his contemporaries under its Greek name of Evangelion (‘Good Tiding’), on which the Arabicized form Injil is based. It was probably the source from which the Synoptic Gospels derived much of their material and some of the teachings attributed to Jesus. The fact of its having been lost and forgotten is alluded to in the Qur’an in 5:14.”

The quote above can be found here: http://www.geocities.com/masad02/003

So let’s look at 5:14:

514. From those, too, who call themselves Christians, We did take a covenant, but they forgot a good part of the message that was sent them: so we estranged them, with enmity and hatred between the one and the other, to the day of judgment. And soon will Allah show them what it is they have done.

Again we see the belief the Gospels as Christians know them are not at all what Muslims believe. You quoted Sura 5:68, But continuing, 5:72 denies the divinity of Jesus – a key Christian belief. 5:73 denies the concept of the Trinity. Then in 5:78 the Jews are cursed by David and Jesus for their disobedience.

So as everyone can see clearly, your verse 5:68 is not nearly so ecumenically generous as a simple translation would make it appear. This is too short a space to list all of the evidence. Should I go on?

S.A.M., Islam must confront the reality of their beliefs instead of trying to hide them and blame critics as Islamophobes, if we are ever to see peace.

I don't see the difficulty.

If I want to declare that I am a follower of Voltaire, for example, how valid would I be as a follower if I only read his message in translation?

The messenger is limited by his ability to spread the message, which may be language, location or freedom.

Sam, I'm really not interested in your apologist bs. Go away.

Islam is the only religion that claims it can never be fully understood except in the original language. Which does indeed cause a problem if Allah’s word was for the whole world.

A contradiction. The message of the angel of Gabriel would have been told in every language, if such a message were legitimate. Claiming that a religion is language ONLY oriented is like saying the extinction of the dinosaurs was caused by a comet and that only people in North America should know it because that's where the comet landed.


I can think of two theories why this is. First, this gives all power of meaning to the Imams who describe the meanings in their Mosques. Second, it provides a convenient excuse when people see the violence and bigotry in the Koran, Muslims claim they are simply not understanding the true meaning.

Agreed.


You are correct in your perception S.A.M. is evading the question.

Part and parcel of Sam's posting style, to never actually answer a question, but instead to propagandize her cult at every turn.

S.A.M., Islam must confront the reality of their beliefs instead of trying to hide them and blame critics as Islamophobes, if we are ever to see peace.

Hmm according to your statements "mainstream Muslims" are following the "reality" of their "beliefs" as espoused in the snippets from various suras you have provided.

I'm sure if I read any book by randomly opening a page and reading a line here and there, I could write a review on it.

So what does Sura 9 discuss? Surely since you provided a line from it, you know what the sura is about? There are over a hundred other ayats in there.

Hmm according to your statements "mainstream Muslims" are following the "reality" of their "beliefs" as espoused in the snippets from various suras you have provided.

I'm sure if I read any book by randomly opening a page and reading a line here and there, I could write a review on it.

So what does Sura 9 discuss? Surely since you provided a line from it, you know what the sura is about? There are over a hundred other ayats in there.

SAM, SAM, SAM, I have cross-referenced multiple related Ayats from other Suras and also referenced Muslim scholarly opinion to derive a translation of 5:68. As everyone can see, there is nothing random about it. If you believe I am wrong on this translation, please by all means provide evidence and rationale.

Let's finish this concept before we move on to others.

SAM, SAM, SAM, I have cross-referenced multiple related Ayats from other Suras and also referenced Muslim scholarly opinion to derive a translation of 5:68. As everyone can see, there is nothing random about it. If you believe I am wrong on this translation, please by all means provide evidence and rationale.

Let's finish this concept before we move on to others.

Related to what? What do the different Suras have to do with each other?

And what is Sura 9 about?

Let's finish this concept before we move on to others.

Good luck. Sam will never allow a discussion on Islam without derailing the thread and plugging it up with propaganda.

Good luck. Sam will never allow a discussion on Islam without derailing the thread and plugging it up with propaganda.

maybe he is a muslim who is trying to educate someone who is ignorant? say you

maybe he is a muslim who is trying to educate someone who is ignorant? say you

Well you have to admit S.A.M. appears to have conceded my points and wants to change the subject.

Since S.A.M. is so interested in Sura 9, I suggest everyone read some of it before we continue.

http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/009.qmt.html

This link is a compendium of Muslim texts provided by the University of Southern California. It has 3 translations, YUSUFALI, PICKTHAL, and SHAKIR. Why don't we ALL read say the first 30 verses and then we can all intelligently discuss what this means and if the 3 translations are significantly different.

See post #1595224 (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1595224&postcount=75) for relevant bibliographic information.



you do know the koran basically states if your not a muslim you should be a christian or a jew right?

I would point to S.A.M.'s post (#22), which notes:



The Quran is a recital which hints at what was given before. It states over and over that there have been previous messages and messengers, and that knowledge is the first step to salvation. That all prophets are from God and we should not discriminate between the prophets.

Or, as author Karen Armstrong explains:


... the Quran insisted that its message was simply a "reminder" of truths that everybody knew. This was the primordial faith that had been preached to the whole of humanity by the prophets of the past. God had not left human beings in ignorance about the way they should live: he had sent messengers to every people on the face of the earth. Islamic tradition would later assert that there had been 124,000 such prophets, a symbolic number suggesting infinity. All had brought their people a divinely inspired scripture; they might express the truths of God's religion differently, but essentially the message was always the same. Now at last God had sent the Quraysh a prophet and a scripture. Constantly the Quran points out that Muhammad had not come to cancel the older religions, to contradict their prophets or to start a new faith. His message is the same as that of Abraham, Moses, David, Solomon, or Jesus. The Quran mentions only those prophets who were known to the Arabs, but today Muslim scholars argue that had Muhammad known about the Buddhists or Hindus, Australian Aborigines or Native Americans, the Quran would have endorsed their sages too, because all rightly guided religion that submitted wholly to God, refused to worship man-made deities and preached that justice and equality came from the same divine source. Hence Muhammad never asked Jews or Christians to accept Islam, unless they particularly wished to do so, because they had received perfectly valid revelations of their own. The Quran insists strongly that "there shall be no coercion in matters of faith," and commands Muslims to respect the beliefs of Jews and Christians, whom the Quran calls ahl al-kitab, a phrase usually translated "People of the Book" but which is more accurately rendered "people of an earlier revelation" ....

(Islam: A Short History (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1595224&postcount=75))

We might then look to (Q)'s question—


So, if the angel Gabriel sent a message to Muhammad ONLY in Arabic, for a religion that is supposed to be spread over the earth, why was it not received in other languages?

—and respond on two points:


(1) It is not clear, barring some evidence to the contrary, that the religion should be spread worldwide unless people around the world choose to accept the Quranic revelation.

(2) If people wish to accept that revelation, they might choose to learn Arabic at some point.

An aspect of this topic strikes me peculiarly. Part of it is the time we live in, and part of it is that I'm an American, and have thus been hearing for the last six years a flood of irrational and often hypocritical criticisms of Islam. Thus disclaimed, I would note the following:


• Translation issues exist in other Abramic religions. Among Christians you can frequently find arguments about Biblical translations. There are, for instance, some who insist that the King James Version is the only authentic English translation of the Bible. There was an argument about the Revised Standard Version, and also the New RSV that replaced it, as to the authenticity of the translation; the NRSV, as I remember reading, only exacerbated certain disagreements voiced by evangelical conservative Christians. The New American Standard Bible, as I recall, met strong criticism from evangelicals because it places the Hebrew Scriptures (Old Testament) in its own historical context, instead of considering the Hebrew experience a mere precursor to the Christian revelation through Jesus.

• The Bible is translated from a number of languages, while the Quran comes from one. To avoid translation problems with the Bible, one would need to specialize in several ancient languages.

• The Quranic canon was revealed to one prophet, which comparatively helps it escape a certain problem. The Biblical canon was set in the fourth century amid certain inflammatory debates that would see the Church officially adopt a certain belief that would, in later days, be persecuted as a heresy called "docetism"°. Given that the presuppositions in setting the canon include this heresy, how reliable can the canon be?

• The difference between a "Catholic" and "Protestant" Bible is that the latter simply excludes several books because they're too complicated for the Protestant idea of faith.

I mention these points in large part because the discussion I am accustomed to tends to treat Islam as unique for questions of translation, pretending suddenly that our own homegrown diverse Abramic monotheism—Christianity—is somehow devoid of these questions. It is valuable to bear in mind disagreements between various Christians because it should help us view Islam according to its own diverse contexts. The way I see it, Islam is another redemptive monotheistic faith, and should be regarded no differently.
____________________

Notes:

° docetism — Revolvr's point about the divinity of Jesus should be considered in this sense, too; if Jesus was not fully human, his crucifixion loses its symbolic, and thus redeeming, power. Protestants are not so affixed to this point as Catholic tradition, which persecuted docetism. The Protestant view seems to have no objection that Jesus' sacrifice was purely symbolic in the sense that, being divine, Jesus would be in a position to know what came next. It would be easier to put up with such an end if one knew it wasn't really the end. By that view, one thing Jesus did not endure on the cross was fear. The docetic outlook also complicates God's judgment because it implies that the one thing God still doesn't understand is what it means to be human. Nonetheless, which outlook is "correct"?

I am familiar with Karen Armstrong. Her study of comparative religions seems to have lost some objectivity once she became a Muslim apologist. Her statement you provide is simply wrong. So lets look in a little detail.

Armstrong says this: “Constantly the Quran points out that Muhammad had not come to cancel the older religions, to contradict their prophets or to start a new faith. His message is the same as that of Abraham, Moses, David, Solomon, or Jesus.”

The problem is that Muhammad does contradict Jesus rather severely. The Christian view of Heaven is not a paradise full of eager large breasted virgins (Muhammad’s appeal to the young male apparently). There is no atonement in Islam, nothing salvation is needed for. In Christianity the Fall, “original sin” from the OT results in a state of mankind that requires salvation; the entire concept of humanity is different. Muslims do not believe Jesus died on the cross at all – someone who looked like Jesus dies in his place. Jesus was just a man – a prophet, not divine. Muslims do not believe the Trinity; they think it is polytheism. One goes to Paradise if they are obedient enough to Allah. In Christianity one is saved by grace. There is no Holy Spirit in Islam. Man was not made in the image of God in Islam. Jesus did not prophesize Muhammad. Jesus speaks of forgiveness and love; Allah speaks of enmity and hate (see 5:14 above) among peoples.

Of course there are more differences. Jesus also says to beware of false prophets who can be identified as false if they contradict what he has said.

So clearly and without a shred of doubt Muhammad conflicts with the New Testament and Islam represents a completely new faith. This is why Islam must declare the Torah and Gospels as forgeries, which I have provided ample evidence for.

And how do you know that your idea of Christianity corresponds to the Gospel?

And please do not confuse issues. Islam validates the Taurat and the Injeel, not the Old and New Testaments. Those are two completely different animals

Well you have to admit S.A.M. appears to have conceded my points and wants to change the subject.

Since S.A.M. is so interested in Sura 9, I suggest everyone read some of it before we continue.

http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/009.qmt.html

This link is a compendium of Muslim texts provided by the University of Southern California. It has 3 translations, YUSUFALI, PICKTHAL, and SHAKIR. Why don't we ALL read say the first 30 verses and then we can all intelligently discuss what this means and if the 3 translations are significantly different.

Good, now I have to tell you that this resource is funded and provided by the House of Saud, ie Saudi Arabia and will reflect the Wahabi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad_ibn_Abd-al-Wahhab)ideology.

Still, what does, in a nutshell, Sura 9 discuss?

You can if you like read the whole sura and paraphrase the intent in 3 lines.

You can also read Maududi's introduction for the time of revelations of Sura 9

http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/maududi/mau9.html

Tiassa,

I should comment on and clarify a few other statements you have made. I had already acknowledged that there are some translation differences between various versions of the bible. If you want to see every possible translation for everything, the NETBible is very good. But can you cite a translation difference of any significance? Please consider that translation differences are not the same as interpretation differences.

The few items you mention are differences of interpretation not translation. This includes some differences of opinion in the Manliness vs. Godliness of Jesus. All Christians see Jesus as Divine; there is no translation issue here. The differences between various Christian denominations are primarily that of emphasis, not in core beliefs and not in translation.

When you say “Bible is translated from a number of languages” you leave an impression that is not correct. The New Testament was originally written in only ONE language – Greek. The Old Testament is primarily Hebrew, with some Aramaic.

You say this:

The difference between a "Catholic" and "Protestant" Bible is that the latter simply excludes several books because they're too complicated for the Protestant idea of faith.

Which is completely wrong. There is NO DIFFERENCE in the New Testament between the Catholics and the Protestants. There is a difference in the Old Testament. Around 100 AD Jewish rabbis revised their Scripture and established an official canon of Judaism, which excluded some portions of the Greek Septuagint. The material excluded was not found in Hebrew versions of the Jewish Scripture. When the Bible was canonized almost 300 years later, Roman Catholic and Orthodox Churches continued to base their Old Testament on the Septuagint. Protestant reformers in the 1500s decided to follow the official canon of Judaism for the Old Testament rather than the Septuagint, and the excluded material was placed in a separate section of the Bible called the Apocrypha.

When you say the Apocrypha was too complicated for the Protestants, you must also be saying these books are too complicated for the Jews too. Since that’s ridiculous, I conclude you are being disingenuous.

Since you are being disingenuous I see little reason to respond to you further. However I will say that the reason Islam is treated uniquely for questions of translation is precisely because the Muslims make it so, not because non-Muslims want it to be that way. In my opinion there is no problem translating the Qur’an. The whole problem was invented to hide the true contents of the Qur’an.

Does anyone have a copy of the Bible in the original language? Aramaic? The language of Jesus?

Is the Old Testament identical to the Torah?

Hmm interesting.

I just looked up the Aramaic bible online and it says that the original name of God in the bible is not Yahweh but according to the book of Ezra (in the Aramaic Bible) it is Elaw (or Allah or Eloh)

It also says the Aramaic Bible is not incorporated into the OldTestament.

What gives? :confused:

Muhammed never claimed to devise a fresh approach but a back to basics approach. He wanted people to let go of the frills, the bells and whistles and reduce religious involvement to its common denominator. Faith, charity and tolerance.

"Frills, bells and whistles"?? Which were these, exactly? He doesn't sound very tolerant based on the book he recited. "Love thy neighbour" is too complex, somehow?

Good, now I have to tell you that this resource is funded and provided by the House of Saud, ie Saudi Arabia and will reflect the Wahabi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad_ibn_Abd-al-Wahhab)ideology.

How odd. You described it as the perfect resource not too long ago. Maybe you don't read your own sources? Or is it something else?

One more interesting find: according to this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aramaic_of_Jesus#Rabboni_.28.CE.A1.CE.B1.CE.B2.CE. B2.CE.BF.CF.85.CE.BD.CE.B5.CE.B9.29)


Rabboni (Ραββουνει)

John 20:16

Jesus saith unto her, Mary. She turned herself, and saith unto him, Rabboni; which is to say, Master. (KJV)

Also in Mark 10:51. Hebrew form rabbi used as title of Jesus in Matthew 26:25,49; Mark 9:5, 11:21, 14:45; John 1:49, 4:31, 6:25, 9:2, 11:8.

In Aramaic, it could be (רבוני).

In Arabic, Rabbi is used to refer to God as in Ya Rabbi

And according to this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rabboni):



"Jesus saith unto her, Mary. She turned herself, and saith unto him, Rabboni; which is to say, Master."

Rabboni is not an Aramaic form of Rabbi, it is from the Hebrew "RB BNI" according to Albert Pike and means "Master of the Builders."



So what is the reference in the Hebrew bible for Rabbi? Is it Jesus or God?

Aaah! these translation issues! :)

And how do you know that your idea of Christianity corresponds to the Gospel?

And please do not confuse issues. Islam validates the Taurat and the Injeel, not the Old and New Testaments. Those are two completely different animals

SWEET SAM I am!

Took you long enough to bring up the Injeel and question the validity of the Gospel though. But I'm glad you did.

Folks, the Injeel SAM refers to is the Gospel according to Muhammad (PBUH). You see Muslims like to glibly say they believe in Jesus and the Gospels, and hey, we aren't much different right? This is what SAM was trying to do when he brought up the verse in the Qur'an about the Gospel.

But it isn't the Gospel we think of is it? No, it's the Muslim version which is completely different from what the rest of us think of when we hear Gospel. The Muslim Jesus is diametrically opposite the Christian Jesus as I have illustrated.

Got to hand it to you SAM this fools a lot of people in the West. Even fools people who should know better, like Karen Armstrong.

I honestly don't know much about the changes in the Gospel, except what little I have read on this site. :shrug:

Hard to sift through the information without an adequate background, so I could not really say what is what.

And I was under the impression that Christians knew the Gospels had been "adapted" by the Romans?

That Paul's writings are most influential?

That the Old Testament is only a part of the Torah?

Point being?

Oh, that point. Of course. "Unreliability".

Speaking of the Injeel, how unreliable is a book no one's ever seen, I wonder.

Why is it that every time someone's like "Yo, Muslim dude, could you explain to me why this verse tells Muslims to kill all the Jews?" the Muslim's like "uh, yeah, which translation is that? Because the translator might be confusing the word 'kill' for something else."

WTF.

The translation can be an issue; context is the biggest issue though.

I sometimes cannot be bothered when some matey asks why such and such a verse calls for x, y and z. 9 times out of 10 the person asking already has his mind set on how Muslims have to kill Jews and unbelievers. It is simply a waste of time.

But yeh, context is extremely important. It is absurd for someone to take one verse from the Quran and then say why do Muslims have to kill Jews or unbelievers (completely ignoring the rest of Quran). Some people approach the Quran and Islam like it is a trivial subject, it is not that simple, it is not black and white, hardly anything is. They don’t even understand that Muslims take interpretations of the verses from the Quran (the verse are not taken literally).

Islam places great emphasis on seeking knowledge. Seeking knowledge from the right people. Islam also places great emphasises on developing a relationship with the teacher, a master-student relationship. During the time of the Prophet, His Companions would always go to him for help in understanding the Quran and other teachings. Then those that excelled were granted permission to teach others, this chain has continued till today, 1400+ years. You’ll find scholars and Sufis today that have chains going back centuries, through the Companions and directly to the Prophet. If you visit a true scholar today and ask him about his Ijaza, he will tell you that he was given permission by such and such a scholar, who was given permission by such and such a scholar etc. all the way back to the Prophet. It is the same with Sufi orders, the 4 main orders all have chains leading directly back to the Prophet. These chains and networks are spread all over the World, the Middle-East, the Indian Sub-Continent, Africa, Europe etc.

Nowadays ‘knowledge’ of Islam is widely available through books and the Internet, however they cannot be substituted from learning directly from a Sheikh or Sufi master (tacit vs. explicit knowledge). That could be regarded as a weakness by some but I see it as a strength, first reason being it helps to uphold the authenticity of Islamic teachings.

Ghost, I’m glad you joined. Perhaps you can help us understand. SAM seems unwilling to provide any opinion.

I agree with your comments on how Islam is taught. That’s how it should be, insofar as learning as a Muslim. But that doesn’t mean non-Muslims cannot understand the enmity between Islam and other religions.

I have read large parts of the Qur’an, and read commentary by respected Islamic jurists. The impression I get in reading the Qur’an is that people who are not Islamic are cursed and the enemy of Islam, and they are by nature trying to destroy Islam. Yes I could pick out specific verses, but I’m talking about a general theme here, and this theme appears over and over again. It’s as if there are two people in the world, Muslims and non-Muslims forever locked in enmity and hatred between the two.

This is not a translation issue. It does exist. But I also see disagreement within the Muslim community on whether of not violence is appropriate. Certainly bin Ladin goes to great lengths using Qur’an scripture to justify his actions. So violence could be justified depending on your interpretation.

For example one group will say killing of innocents is forbidden. Another group will say that non-Muslims are never innocent. One group will say suicide is forbidden, another will say dying in Jihad is the only way to guarantee a trip to paradise. I also see a great deal of obfuscation. One group will say they believe in Jesus and the Gospels, but hide that they believe the Gospels are forgeries.

So given your valid discussion on how knowledge is gained, why is it there is such a broad range of beliefs? From Religion of Peace to worldwide supremacy and domination through Jihad?

This is a valid question not just irrational criticism, and I am truly trying to understand.

What gives? :confused:

You've been refuted, again. :D

You still have not told me what Sura 9 is about. :)

You've been refuted, again. :D

Refuted? Where? Lets see.

Sam: oh this book is crap

(Q): Really why?

Sam: See this line here? And this one here? And this one here? Its obviously irrational

(Q): What about the rest of the thousands of lines?

Sam: Oh I haven't read those, these were enough to form an opinion

(Q): Makes perfect sense to me.

Is this an example of atheistic rational thought?

SAM, you've lost it. You are not reading other's posts, you are not refuting anything, you are not contributing to this thread.

We are talking translation and interpretation, remember? Start another thread if you are so interested in Sura 9. Personally, I wouldn't go there.

SAM, you've lost it. You are not reading other's posts, you are not refuting anything, you are not contributing to this thread.

As I said before, any threads on Islam are derailed by sam and her propaganda, usually by something to do with the thread, but not often.

SAM, you've lost it. You are not reading other's posts, you are not refuting anything, you are not contributing to this thread.

We are talking translation and interpretation, remember? Start another thread if you are so interested in Sura 9. Personally, I wouldn't go there.

And I'm talking about reading something before translating or interpreting. Or do you just skip the part where you read a book before attempting to interpret it?

The reason I keep asking you about Sura 9 is because it is most often quoted by people who are asking questions like you. I want to know if any of those asking questions have even read the complete sura or understood what it means. For a long time there was a poster here who kept referring to its title as The Sword. When in fact Sura 9 is titled repentance (At-Tawbah).

I find it incredible that those asking questions feel they are equipped to do so without even bothering to read the whole Quran.

I find it incredible that those asking questions feel they are equipped to do so without even bothering to read the whole Quran.

Are you daft? People here HAVE read the Quran in it's entirety. That is the exactly the point, sam. But, it's propagandists like you who won't accept any translation other than propagandized translations.

Are you daft? People here HAVE read the Quran in it's entirety. That is the exactly the point, sam. But, it's propagandists like you who won't accept any translation other than propagandized translations.

You've read the whole Quran?

You've read the whole Quran?

See, you haven't been reading my posts in the past. Proof positive. :cool:

See, you haven't been reading my posts in the past. Proof positive. :cool:

Is that a yes or a no? :)

Are you daft? People here HAVE read the Quran in it's entirety. That is the exactly the point, sam. But, it's propagandists like you who won't accept any translation other than propagandized translations.

I don't see where you're going with this. To my knowledge, Sam (and lots of other Muslims) can read the Qur'an's original Arabic structure, meaning there is no need for translations.

And if you cannot read Arabic, (Q), how do you know that the translated versions are "propagandized"?

I don't see where you're going with this. To my knowledge, Sam (and lots of other Muslims) can read the Qur'an's original Arabic structure, meaning there is no need for translations.

Except, for those who can't read Arabic.


And if you cannot read Arabic, (Q), how do you know that the translated versions are "propagandized"?

They are propagandized on the premise that Muslim apologists are continuously moving the goalposts when it comes to interpreting the violence and oppression that is apparent in Muslim states, and claiming that it isn't initiated by the Quran.

Except, for those who can't read Arabic.

You targetted Sam by saying "propagandists like you", when she can actually read Arabic. Being able to speak Arabic, she wouldn't have to rely on translations. I'm well aware that not everyone can read Arabic.


They are propagandized on the premise that Muslim apologists are continuously moving the goalposts when it comes to interpreting the violence and oppression that is apparent in Muslim states, and claiming that it isn't initiated by the Quran.

Whole other topic. We're discussing the actual verses in the Qur'an, and what it means to dissect the lines without having a collaborative understanding and knowledge of the book as a whole.

Whole other topic. We're discussing the actual verses in the Qur'an, and what it means to dissect the lines without having a collaborative understanding and knowledge of the book as a whole.

Here's the OP, so it would appear to be on topic:

"Why is it that every time someone's like "Yo, Muslim dude, could you explain to me why this verse tells Muslims to kill all the Jews?" the Muslim's like "uh, yeah, which translation is that? Because the translator might be confusing the word 'kill' for something else."

Here's the OP, so it would appear to be on topic:

"Why is it that every time someone's like "Yo, Muslim dude, could you explain to me why this verse tells Muslims to kill all the Jews?" the Muslim's like "uh, yeah, which translation is that? Because the translator might be confusing the word 'kill' for something else."

Considering that there is no verse in the Qur'an that remotely resembles the demand for a genocide of all Jews, I'd say the opening topic is obsolete.

Considering that there is no verse in the Qur'an that remotely resembles the demand for a genocide of all Jews, I'd say the opening topic is obsolete.

Jews are considered non-believers, hence infidels. What exactly does the Quran say about infidels?

Jews are considered non-believers, hence infidels. What exactly does the Quran say about infidels?

Wrong. Jews are considered People of the Book.

I just looked up the Aramaic bible online and it says that the original name of God in the bible is not Yahweh but according to the book of Ezra (in the Aramaic Bible) it is Elaw (or Allah or Eloh)

Off topic: Elohim was the name of god for the northern tribes (if I recall correctly) which formed the Kingdom of Israel. Yahweh was the name used by the southern tribes (Judah and Benjamin) which formed the country of Judah.

Judah is the sole surviving tribe, yes? The only one to return from Babylon? The 10 tribes of Israel were lost in the Assyrian conquest even before Babylon.

I personally found it funny that Israel was accused of being the cause of God punishing the hebrews with the Assyrians. Because they were worshiping idols and doing stuff in the 'high places' and whatnot.

Anyway, the bible is an amalgam of different belief systems. This is why you often see the same story told several times differently.

Ezrah though... Wasn't that post Babylon? What was the name El being thrown around then for? Maybe nostalgia? Interesting.


On topic: Translation is harsh. Even in books which aren't so personal and apt to set large groups of people against each other. So, it's no surprise that there are translation difficulties in the Qu'ran. The Bible either, for that matter.

Off topic: Elohim was the name of god for the northern tribes (if I recall correctly) which formed the Kingdom of Israel. Yahweh was the name used by the southern tribes (Judah and Benjamin) which formed the country of Judah.

Thats interesting, I did not know Judah and Israel were separate.

What were the differences between the two? Which one of them adopted the God of the Canaanites?

What is the significance of Babylon?

Wrong. Jews are considered People of the Book.

So, the Quran DOESN'T criticize Jews for their refusal to recognize Muhammad as a prophet of God? I think it speaks rather harshly of this in the Quran, but the problem once again is in whose version of interpretation one follows and what actions have been taken or will take place that stand as evidence to the contrary.

What were the differences between the two? Which one of them adopted the God of the Canaanites?


Neither. They each worshiped the same god, the Hebrew god, the God of Abraham. Just called him by different names. The extent of the differences between the tribes is unknown as only one tribe survives and it blames the other tribes for all the problems.

By the way, you knew that the Book of the Law was 'found' in the temple by a priest in the reign of Josiah, a very young king? The Book of the Law, by the way, is the Torah. And, apparently, prior to this the hebrews had been living rather sinfully. Seems awfully convenient to me.

"Hey, look what I found!"

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20king%2022&version=31


What is the significance of Babylon?

My theory based on my reading of the bible is that much of the old testament was actually nationalistic propaganda meant to pull the surviving jews together and give them something to grasp onto. Much of the bible (chronicles and kings especially) seems written in the past tense and then suddenly changes to the present tense after the return from exile.

Ezra was a nationalist. As were most of the prophets that followed. They told the history of the jewish people in such a way as to imbue them with a sense of pride which had failed them during their time as slaves.

Judaism and Christianity are based on slave mentality. An overturning of the established order making the weak strong. The masters into servants. Etcetera.

This is why the story of the Exodus from Egypt plays such a crucial role. It's an allegory for Babylon. And, in fact, may never have happened historically.

What is the significance of Babylon?

Oh. But, I suppose you meant what is the significance in regards to El? Well, the Kingdom of Israel called god El so the name should have fallen into disuse by this time. The 10 tribes that composed Israel were scattered long before Babylon.

Hmm I was under the impression that when the Israelis moved to Canaan they adopted the God of Canaan as their own.


For the Canaanites, El (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_%28Canaanite_god%29) or Il was the supreme god, the father of mankind and all creatures. He may have been a desert god at some point as the myths say that he had two wives and built a sanctuary with them and his new children in the desert. El had fathered many gods, but most important were Hadad, Yam and Mot, each share similar attributes to the Roman-Greco gods: Zeus, Poseidon and Hades respectively.

According to the pantheon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canaanite_religion), known in Ugarit as 'ilhm (=Elohim) or the children of El (cf. the Biblical "sons of God"), supposedly obtained by Philo of Byblos from Sanchuniathon of Berythus (Beirut) the creator was known as Elion (Biblical El Elyon = God most High), who was the father of the divinities, and in the Greek sources he was married to Beruth (Beirut = the city). This marriage of the divinity with the city would seem to have Biblical parallels too with the stories of the link between Melkart and Tyre; Yahweh and Jerusalem; Chemosh and Moab; Tanit and Baal Hammon in Carthage. El Elyon is mentioned as 'God Most High' occurs in Genesis 14.18–19 as the God whose priest was Melchizedek king of Salem.

From the union of El Elyon and his consort was born Uranus and Ge, Greek names for the "Heaven" and the "Earth". This closely parallels the opening verse of Genesis 1:1 "In the beginning Elohim gave birth to the Heaven (Shemayim) and the Earth (Eretz)", and this would appear to be based upon this early Canaanite belief. This also has parallels with the story of the Babylonian Anunaki (i.e. = "Heaven and Earth"; Shamayim and Erets) too.

Oh. And on the topic of translation.
Here's an example from the bible.

Name one the 10 commandments.

Hmm I was under the impression that when the Israelis moved to Canaan they adopted the God of Canaan as their own.

Well. It's possible. At the least, the mythos were likely mixed. Just as Allah of Islam is most likely mixed up with preexisting myths of the tribes in Arabia (or whatever the hell it was called back then.)

Note the fact of the late 'discovery' of the book of the Law.

Anyway. The true origins of the myths can't really be known because of the available evidence. We know about the northern tribes mostly from what is said of them by the surviving tribe of Judah who blamed them for the wrath of god.

Medicine Woman has an interesting notion that the Hebrews fleeing Egypt murdered Moses because he didn't want to stop the wandering.

Who knows? What we do know is that the stories passed down in myth don't really match archeological evidence except sparingly.

Oh. And on the topic of translation.
Here's an example from the bible.

Name one the 10 commandments.

Love thy neighbor?

Bah!
You're supposed to say, "Thou shalt not kill." 9 out of 10 people will respond with that commandment when prodded. In fact, it may well be the only one they remember often.

Anyway.

The point is that it is a clear contradiction in that this commandment is laid down in clear and precise terms.
Thou shalt not kill.
No quibbling. No ambiguousness. No exceptions or dangling clauses.
Yet, God immediately after (well after a pause of wandering for a few years further) commands them to go into Canaan and kill everyone there.

Stammering is usually the result when christians are presented with this. They then go on to say that god can command you to kill if he wants (which I respond with the fact that this may be so, but then the commandments are worthless then). But, they generally settle in with the idea that the original word was not 'kill' but something more akin to 'murder'. Very different. Yet less contradictory.

Ah, I missed the memo. Sorry :)

Bah!
You're supposed to say, "Thou shalt not kill." 9 out of 10 people will respond with that commandment when prodded. In fact, it may well be the only one they remember often.

I was going to say, "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbors female slave."

One of my all time faves. :cool:

The fact that a book, any book, can be worded in such a way that when translated or analyzed can induce one human being to kill another means it is of more service to mankind as recyclable paper.

Considering that there is no verse in the Qur'an that remotely resembles the demand for a genocide of all Jews, I'd say the opening topic is obsolete.

Thus far we haven't really been talking about genocide, we have been talking about hate and enmity between Jews and Muslims.

But since you bring it up, tell me, in Islamic eschatology and tradition, what finally happens to the Jews?

Wrong. Jews are considered People of the Book.

You are being deceitful here!

What do you learn about the Jews in Sura 5? I'd really like your opinion. Is there any way to interpret this to say the Jews are good buddies of the Muslims?

The fact that a book, any book, can be worded in such a way that when translated or analyzed can induce one human being to kill another means it is of more service to mankind as recyclable paper.

Like the law?:rolleyes:

The fact that a book, any book, can be worded in such a way that when translated or analyzed can induce one human being to kill another means it is of more service to mankind as recyclable paper.

I disagree. But even if true, obviously not all religions are affected equally by this problem. All around the world people are being killed daily in the name of one God - Allah. If Islam were really a religion of peace, obviously we have here a catastrophic problem with either translation or interpretation. Why is this?

Or just plain demonisation

We have several Muslims participating in this thread. They are challenging the notion that there is hate and enmity toward non-Muslims in the Qur’an and Hadiths.

But I don’t know if you are genuinely arguing your point, or trying to hide the truth. I believe we can only go forward with the discussion of translation and interpretation issues after each one of you agrees to the following:


I renounce definitively not just "terrorism," but any intention to replace the U.S. Constitution or the constitutions of any non-Muslim state, with Sharia Law even by peaceful means.

I believe Muslims should be taught the imperative of coexisting peacefully as equals with non-Muslims on an indefinite basis.

I agree that comprehensive international programs in mosques all over the world should teach against the ideas of violent jihad and Islamic supremacism.


If all of the Muslims will simply reply “I agree”, then we could continue to discuss why some Muslims see the Qur’an and Hadiths as invitations to violence.

Like the law?:rolleyes:

The law tells people to kill? Actually seek out someone and kill them? Or are you referring to Islamic law?

The law tells people to kill? Actually seek out someone and kill them? Or are you referring to Islamic law?

Islamic law tells people to kill? Actually seek out someone and kill them?:rolleyes:

We have several Muslims participating in this thread. They are challenging the notion that there is hate and enmity toward non-Muslims in the Qur’an and Hadiths.

But I don’t know if you are genuinely arguing your point, or trying to hide the truth. I believe we can only go forward with the discussion of translation and interpretation issues after each one of you agrees to the following:


I renounce definitively not just "terrorism," but any intention to replace the U.S. Constitution or the constitutions of any non-Muslim state, with Sharia Law even by peaceful means.

I believe Muslims should be taught the imperative of coexisting peacefully as equals with non-Muslims on an indefinite basis.

I agree that comprehensive international programs in mosques all over the world should teach against the ideas of violent jihad and Islamic supremacism.


If all of the Muslims will simply reply “I agree”, then we could continue to discuss why some Muslims see the Qur’an and Hadiths as invitations to violence.

I always find it incredibly hilarious to read stuff like this.

What is the west so fearful of?

That everyone who immigrates to their countries will assimilate the way they did?

By genocide and wiping out of culture, language and people?

Har de har.

Show me one country where a Western people assimilated with the natives.

Show me one country where a Western people assimilated with the natives.Mexico.

You're extra touchy today. They weren't statements, if you look closely, you'll see they are questions.

If Audubon's Birds of America could be translated to 'go out and kill someone' then it would deserve to be trashed also. You know all too well that bibles are taken quite seriously by some folk to the point where the reader deems it appropriate to commit murder. Completely justified in their mind. Religious extremists have killed in the name of many religions.

Don't get so upset. I'm not trying to single out Islam. Lord knows enough Christians gained the inspiration to kill their fellow man from reading their bible. If just one death can be attributed to a biblical translation then it isn't a good book. School Boards & libraries would ban it in a heartbeat if it was any other book. Rest easy, that isn't going to happen but people will continue to die for no other reason than a translation of religious text. It's a goddamn shame.

I always find it incredibly hilarious to read stuff like this.

What is the west so fearful of?

That everyone who immigrates to their countries will assimilate the way they did?

By genocide and wiping out of culture, language and people?

Har de har.

Show me one country where a Western people assimilated with the natives.


I post this not out of fear, but to get to the motivations of those who post here.

Thanks for your answer though!

You targetted Sam by saying "propagandists like you", when she can actually read Arabic. Being able to speak Arabic, she wouldn't have to rely on translations. I'm well aware that not everyone can read Arabic. Interestingly, I had read the Arabic is a translation itself as the original Arbaic didn't have the diacritical mark - can anyone here read the Qur'an without the diacritical marks???

RE: Sura 9

Well I just read it. Pretty straight forward to me.


In a nut shell GOD doesn't like people who are either idol worshipers (Hindu/Shinto/Buddhists/etc..) or disbelievers (Atheists/Agnostics/etc..) and one day they will get theirs. Yup, copied straight from the Torah with the universality of the Bible. Really there is absolutely nothing new here.

It's pretty caveman type writing, nothing really of value in the modern person. But, lets be realistic, this sort of ick was probably very useful for ruling over all sorts of people from those living in Civilized Rome and ancient Egypt to tribal Arabs.

Maybe it's just me but in the modern age it just paints God as a petty sock-puppet like creature.

Arabic is usually written without the marks. Have you ever seen an Arabic newspaper?

The marks are for those who are not native speakers/

And yeah, I knew that would be your conclusion.

Mexico.

They speak the native language? The natives were Mexicans?:p

You are being deceitful here!

I’m afraid not.

[2:62] Surely, those who believe, those who are Jewish, the Christians, and the converts; anyone who (1) believes in GOD, and (2) believes in the Last Day, and (3) leads a righteous life, will receive their recompense from their Lord. They have nothing to fear, nor will they grieve.

The verse above clearly shows the pure acceptance of Judaism in the Islamic religion, and how their beliefs are respected and accepted on Judgement Day. Thus, they are People of the Book.


What do you learn about the Jews in Sura 5? I'd really like your opinion. Is there any way to interpret this to say the Jews are good buddies of the Muslims?

Let us take a glance at the referral to the Jews in Surah 5, keeping in mind the necessary contextual basis when quoting specific verses.

[5:18] (both) the Jews and the Christians say: we are sons of Allah, and his beloved. Say: why then doth he punish you for your sins? nay, ye are but men, of the men he created: he forgiveth whom he pleaseth, and he punisheth whom he pleaseth,: and to god belongeth the dominion of the heavens and the earth, and all that is between: and unto him is the final goal (of all).

The first reference to Jews in Surah 5 is above. This verse is quite clear, and shows no signs of aggression/dislike/hostility for the Jewish religion. The verse simply reiterates that, we are not “sons” of Allah, and we are all vulnerable to punishment if we sin. Allah will punish those (of any religion, or lack thereof) for their sins, but will also forgive if they truly seek forgiveness. This is not exclusive to Jews, although they are specified (along with Christians) because there is a common belief that they are naturally chosen to ascend to heaven, without having to earn anything.

[5:41] O Messenger! let not those grieve thee, who race each other into Unbelief: (whether it be) among those who say "We believe" with their lips but whose hearts have no Faith; or it be among the Jews- men who will listen to any lie- will listen even to others who have never so much as come to thee. They change the words from their (right) times and places: they say, "If ye are given this, take it, but if not, beware!" If any one's trial is intended by Allah, thou hast no authority in the least for him against Allah. For such- it is not Allah's will to purify their hearts. For them there is disgrace in this world, and in the Hereafter a heavy punishment.

Considering the revelation of this Surah, it is safe to say that taking great precaution in foreign alliances would be an understatement. Revealed after the treaty of Hudaibiyah, this verse deals with the Jewish deceit and support (at times) for the Quraish (refer to Battle of the Trench).

If we look at other verses (as we would if we actually read the entire Qur’an), it would be blatantly obvious that not all Jews are deceitful and untrustworthy.

[3:113-115] Not all of them are alike; a party of the people of the Scripture stand for the right, they recite the Verses of God during the hours of the night, prostrating themselves in prayer. They believe in God and the Last Day; they enjoin Al-Ma'rûf and forbid Al-Munkar ; and they hasten in (all) good works; and they are among the righteous. And whatever good they do, nothing will be rejected of them; for God knows well those who are Al-Muttaqûn.

As we can see, not every Jew is categorized as one predictable being. They are diverse, and the ones who follow their scriptures and place faith in Allah are well guided, just as the Muslims.

[3:199] Surely, some followers of the previous scriptures do believe in GOD, and in what was revealed to you, and in what was revealed to them. They reverence GOD, and they never trade away GOD's revelations for a cheap price. These will receive their recompense from their Lord. GOD is the most efficient in reckoning.

“Never trade away God’s revelations for a cheap price” can mean a lot of things. In addition to supporting those who follow previous scriptures, this verse tells us that the Jews who have not beguiled Islam and sought for its weakening/destruction through either: a) direct confrontation, or b) support for its enemies, will be rewarded.

[5:44] It was we who revealed the law (to Moses): therein was guidance and light. By its standard have been judged the Jews, by the prophets who bowed (as in Islam) to Allah's will, by the rabbis and the doctors of law: for to them was entrusted the protection of Allah's book, and they were witnesses thereto: therefore fear not men, but fear me, and sell not my Signs for a miserable price. If any do fail to judge by (the light of) what Allah hath revealed, they are (no better than) Unbelievers.

Merely stating that the Jews were the ones who were revealed God’s words, and were entrusted to its protection and glory. There is a warning, saying they should not “sell out”, or backstab other monotheists (Muslims and Christians) who share many of their values, morals, and ideologies because of the fear of other men, as only Allah should be feared. Again, no signs of discrimination or condemnation of Jews; not even close.

[5:51] O ye who believe! take not the Jews and the Christians for your friends: They are but friends to each other. And he amongst you that turns to them is of them. Verily Allah guideth not a people unjust.

Here is a commonly quoted verse trying to establish an atmosphere of disarray between Muslims and Christians/Jews. The word “friend” here is erroneously translated; the word is more along the lines of “guardian”, “protector”, or someone who you are very intimately dependant on.

Therefore, the new (and correct) translation should be read as follows.

[5:51] O ye who believe! take not the Jews and the Christians for your protectors: They are but protectors to each other. And he amongst you that turns to them is of them. Verily Allah guideth not a people unjust.

This verse merely encourages independance on behalf of Muslims, and says that we should support each other, because ultimately, blood is thicker than water.

(Note: Thanks to Sam for clearing me up on this verse a while back via PM).

[5:82] Strongest among men in enmity to the Believers wilt thou find the Jews and Pagans; and nearest among them in love to the Believers wilt thou find those who say, we are Christians: because amongst these are men devoted to learning and men who have renounced the world, and they are not arrogant.

Again, a clear reference to the personal ties between the Jews and Pagans (Quraysh) against the growing Islamic religion during the 600s. Keeping in mind the date and environment of the revelation, it is only natural that a certain degree of enmity would follow (Jewish conspiring against Islamic followers).

In all, it is important to remember in this Surah, as mentioned before:

[5:69] Those who believe (in the Quran), those who follow the Jewish (scriptures), and the Sabians and the Christians, any who believe in Allah and the Last Day, and the work righteousness, on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve.

Regardless of any Jewish wrongdoings, be it private or public, individual or in the form of a group, all firm believers of a single God and the hereafter can be forgiven, and those who lead a good life will having nothing to fear in the hereafter.

It is simple to take a few lines (likely mistranslated) about Jews and say, “look! Islam is harsh to the Jews,” but that does not get to the root of the problem. Many other factors must vitally be considered: revelation date, revelation setting, preceding and succeeding verses, and the general topic of the given Surah.

I hope this helped you a bit in understanding the Islamic perspective of the Jewish religion. If you want any sources, I’d be glad to refer you to some.

Arabic is usually written without the marks. Have you ever seen an Arabic newspaper?

The marks are for those who are not native speakers/

And yeah, I knew that would be your conclusion.Why - What do you get out of reading it?

I’m afraid not.

[2:62] Surely, those who believe, those who are Jewish, the Christians, and the converts; anyone who (1) believes in GOD, and (2) believes in the Last Day, and (3) leads a righteous life, will receive their recompense from their Lord. They have nothing to fear, nor will they grieve.

The verse above clearly shows the pure acceptance of Judaism in the Islamic religion, and how their beliefs are respected and accepted on Judgement Day. Thus, they are People of the Book.What does this tell you about polytheistic people like some ancient Hindu or modern day Shinto or what about Scientology or other monotheists like Mormons or even Baha'i?

What does the Sura9 say about them Kadark? I'm curious.


Also your summary is kind of sad in my mind:
This verse merely encourages independence on behalf of Muslims, and says that we should support each other, because ultimately, blood is thicker than water.

Blood is thicker than water?!?! You think BLOOD is ticker than water is something good to preach??? REALLY??!?!?

How about this: We are all humans and supporting one another is thicker than blood. You remember: The Universality thingy??? Human dignity over that of petty tribal bullshit.

And yeah, I knew that would be your conclusion.And I knew this would be your reply. It's really a why bother really?

We've had these same debates here over and over and they go nowhere. Remember I used to ask you the question of what does the Qur'an offer thats novel and enlightening. This is why. It's easy to say: Yeah, I knew that would be your conclusion, even about the entire Qur'an leaving us with the notion there was some deep meaning we somehow missed that SAM perceived or better, it's not a pie in the sky metaphysics book but a real life-manual.


Frankly it doesn't matter. We all agree that world philosophers do not flock to the Qur'an for deep insight. It's a fact. It isn't taught in Japan or China or Brazil or Russia or Germany or Africa or etc... yet Plato is and Socrates is. That seems to suggest the writings or Plato and Socrates are somehow better suited to the human condition than The Perfect Book. WEIRD HUH????

We all agree that there are no examples in history of the life-manual bearing fruit. We can take the last 1000 years and nothing all that great. We know that Japan nor China nor Brazil nor Russia nor Germany nor Africa nor etc... are modeling their societies to mirror that of past or present Islamic ones. It's not happening because it didn't work. If it had - they would, it doens't and they don't. Hell, most Islamic countries consider it a failure and are moving on to something else. This would seem to suggest the writings in Qur'an as a life-manual simply don't work.


It's just comes down to the same circle. If you can convince yourself that no human art form = good then I'm sure you can convince yourself that Sura9 somehow is a wonderfully tolerant outlook an humanity. How Kadark could have come away from 3 Perfect Suras and hundreds of Perfect words with: Blood is thicker than water?
:bugeye:

Only God herself knows.


Like I said, it seems pretty simple and straight forward to us,
Michael

Did you miss the part where it was revealed after the treaty of Hudaibiya? Were there Shinto or Bahai at the treaty? Why do you read verses in isolation rather than as part of the whole?

When the verses address the messenger, O Messenger, they obviously refer to an advice given not a general creed.

Do you people read all scriptures like this?:confused:

A verse here, a verse there?

The point is if there were a real God and if it really did give two craps then the Qur'an would be a Perfect Book of Humanity and be addressed to all peoples of the world. As it is there is no God and the book was a copy of very common stories and religions from in and around the Arab region.



Tell me this SAM, when you read the Sura9 what does that tell you about non-peoples of book? Like polytheistic Shinto or polytheistic Hindu or polytheistic Arabs? Is their beleif to be respected or not? Well?

Sura 9 is about the conditions of the Prophet and his companions during the breaking of the Hudaibiyah treaty. As such (as when reading about say, the incidence of Abraham in the desert) it tells me nothing about Shinto or Japanese people, unless they were secretly ensconsed in the Arab tribes

The point is if there were a real God and if it really did give two craps then the Qur'an would be a Perfect Book of Humanity and be addressed to all peoples of the world. As it is there is no God and the book was a copy of very common stories and religions from in and around the Arab region.



Tell me this SAM, when you read the Sura9 what does that tell you about non-peoples of book? Like polytheistic Shinto or polytheistic Hindu or polytheistic Arabs? Is their beleif to be respected or not? Well?

If there really is a God, why should He serve us? People may argue that Judaism cannot be real because it is too cruel; perhaps God is cruel? After all, do we not worship Him, and we serve Him (if he indeed is real), rather than he serve us?


Secondly, is it? Maybe it isn't to be respected. You know as well as I, however, that neither are they to be respected in Christianity, if you are trying to say otherwise.

Islamic law tells people to kill? Actually seek out someone and kill them?:rolleyes:

Sura 9: 29. Fight against such of those who have been given the Scripture as believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, and forbid not that which Allah hath forbidden by His messenger, and follow not the religion of truth, until they pay the tribute readily, being brought low.

30. And the Jews say:. Ezra is the son of Allah, and the Christians say: The Messiah is the son of Allah. That is their saying with their mouths. They imitate the saying of those who disbelieved of old. Allah (himself) fighteth against them. How perverse are they!

31. They have taken as lords beside Allah their rabbis and their monks and the Messiah son of Mary, when they were bidden to worship only One God. There is no god save Him. Be He glorified from all that they ascribe as partner (unto Him)!

Sura 4: 89. They long that ye should disbelieve even as they disbelieve, that ye may be upon a level (with them). So choose not friends from them till they forsake their homes in the way of Allah; if they turn back (to enmity) then take them and kill them wherever ye find them, and choose no friend nor helper from among them,

"So, wherever you find them, kill them, for whoever kills them shall have reward on the Day of Resurrection." - Buhkari

Geoff, firstly, if people followed their Abrahamic religion by-the-book, the world would be pure chaos.

And secondly, there is more chaos in the book of Genesis than the entire Koran.

If anyone wants to know the Islamic attitude to unbelievers, there is a whole sura called, believe it or not, The Unbelievers Sura 109. Look it up.

Sura 9 is about the conditions of the Prophet and his companions during the breaking of the Hudaibiyah treaty. As such (as when reading about say, the incidence of Abraham in the desert) it tells me nothing about Shinto or Japanese people, unless they were secretly ensconsed in the Arab tribesSo, you are saying that when words and pharses such as: "idol worshipers" "disbelievers" "wicked people" "disbelieving people" "evil people" etc...appear in the Qur'an that these in NO way have any relevance at all to modern day people?

NONE.

Islamic scholars all agree that there is no "moral to the story" so to speak - It's all simply a long winded triaid about something that was happening back 1500 years ago and no need for you to concern yourself.

So when a modern Japanese or ancient Indian were reading about how the One God considered polytheistic people "evil people" he/she should think this has nothing at all to do with his/her family who happen to be Shinto or Hindu. No No No - those polytheism are perfectly fine and dandy to the One God. Is that true SAM? The only polytheisms the One God gave two craps about were the ones in and around Arabia.

Seems like a colossal waste of time to include it in the "Perfect Book" - The Book that will guide all of Humanity to a wondrous bright future. But hey, if you say so.



Michael

Like it says in the Quran, the signs are all there for those who care to see.

But its interesting that people refer to verse such and such and ignore the rest that precede or follow it. e.g. Kadark gave several verses that showed that not all the people who are Jews or Christians are disbelievers, and to beware of those who have empty words on their lips and no faith in their hearts, which clearly separates religion from righteousness.

And Mormons wear magic underwear... riiiiight

Seems like a colossal waste of time to include it in the "Perfect Book" - The Book that will guide all of Humanity to a wondrous bright future. But hey, if you say so.



Michael

Again, is that the job of the book? After all, a strict, by-the-book Christian society isn't a bright future; it's hell. Just look at Plymouth.

I would not know that but I see that you are one of those who only practise to deceive. :)

Again, is that the job of the book? After all, a strict, by-the-book Christian society isn't a bright future; it's hell. Just look at Plymouth.

He's not really interested in learning. Notice how he ignored the reference to an entire sura on kuffar. There are some here who pretend an interest, but clearly are only interested in confirming their own beliefs. :shrug:

I HAVE IT NOW!

Haaa!

This is brilliant.
I am going to run an experiment.

I happen to know a Japanese girl that didn't know who Mohammad was. She has no clue and really really couldn't care less. YOU pick out a Japanese translation and I will print it and I will give it to her to read and then I'm asking her to write down what she think it means to her. What she gets out of it.

Hows that? I think it's fair enough experiment,

So give me the website of a reputable Japanese translation of sura 9 and we'll see what the everyday person thinks. Someone who probably doesn't even know what the word "Jew" means.

Michael

Again, is that the job of the book? After all, a strict, by-the-book Christian society isn't a bright future; it's hell. Just look at Plymouth.Hey you're preaching to the choir here mate. Screw a Xian society!!!

Sure, if she wants to follow Mohammed, all she has to do is get an Islamic teacher (as I did) to teach her the religion.

He's not really interested in learning. Notice how he ignored the reference to an entire sura on kuffar. There are some here who pretend an interest, but clearly are only interested in confirming their own beliefs. :shrug:
from wiki:

Kafir (Arabic: كافر kāfir; plural كفّار kuffār) is an Arabic word literally meaning "ingrate". In the Islamic doctrinal sense the term refers to a person who does not recognize Allah or the finality of the prophethood of Muhammad (i.e. any non-Muslim) or who hides, denies, or covers the truth. In cultural terms, it is seen as a derogatory term[1] used to describe an unbeliever, non-Muslims, apostate from Islam and even between Muslims of different sects. It is usually translated into English as "infidel" or "unbeliever."

The islamic law (sharia) distinguishes three types of kafirs:

1. kafir dhimmi
2. kafir harbi
3. kafir musta'min

Debate exists between some Muslim scholars as to whether the term applies to Jews and Christians, and later Zoroastrians, as these can also be regarded as Ahl-ul Kittab, People of the Book or Dhimmi ("protected people"). "Kafir" has been used historically to identify Hindus, Buddhists, and followers of non-denominational religions or local, pagan traditions. Some distinguish between Kafir and non-Muslims, as Kafir is used by the Qur'an for people who were guilty of rejection or non-acceptance of what it says is the truth, even after it has supposedly become fully apparent to them, while non-Muslim is primarily a term implying a person who does not ascribe to the Islamic faith.[2]

Sure, if she wants to follow Mohammed, all she has to do is get an Islamic teacher (as I did) to teach her the religion.

Since there are several Japanese Muslims it will not be a novel concept.

Sure, if she wants to follow Mohammed, all she has to do is get an Islamic teacher (as I did) to teach her the religion.You seem to suggest that I'm reading what I want to read into the verse. My point is this is what it seems to say plain as day. So, to settle the dispute I'm going to ask her to read it as a third party and we'll just see what she says it means to her.

Fair enough?

And? What does that have to do with Sura 109?

Well, this is beyond me now but I have a humble suggestion: focus on patriotism! I am FAR more patriotic than religious and would pick Syria over Islam anyday. Religion and Government......bad combo.


So...let's promote Patriotism!

You seem to suggest that I'm reading what I want to read into the verse. My point is this is what it seems to say plain as day. So, to settle the dispute I'm going to ask her to read it as a third party and we'll just see what she says it means to her.

Fair enough?

Not necessarily. Is she informed on the current situation in Iraq, etc, and is she pro-American? That would have to be cleared up before the experiment to eliminate any bias. Also, maturity level?

Please - don't go there - no appealing to authority. Give me the link and I'll ask her if she'll do it.

You seem to suggest that I'm reading what I want to read into the verse. My point is this is what it seems to say plain as day. So, to settle the dispute I'm going to ask her to read it as a third party and we'll just see what she says it means to her.

Fair enough?

Only if you give her the whole Quran and an Islamic teacher to explain how to read the verses.

The Quran is not a book to be taken or studied lightly.

It is a philosophy of life and needs investment of time effort and dedication.

Your implication is similar to the one where one can merely close one's eyes and become a Buddhist. '

It does not work like that.

Please - don't go there - no appealing to authority. Give me the link and I'll ask her if she'll do it.

On disbelievers?

Here
Its a small Sura and as its a Qul, its short and requires no contextual knowledge

Surah 109:
Al-Kafiroon (The Disbelievers, Atheists)

In the name of Allah, Most Gracious, Most Merciful

1. Say : O ye that reject Faith!

2. I worship not that which ye worship,

3. Nor will ye worship that which I worship.

4. And I will not worship that which ye have been wont to worship,

5. Nor will ye worship that which I worship.

6. To you be your Way, and to me mine.

Please - don't go there - no appealing to authority. Give me the link and I'll ask her if she'll do it.

Are you replying to me?

Not necessarily. Is she informed on the current situation in Iraq, etc, and is she pro-American? That would have to be cleared up before the experiment to eliminate any bias. Also, maturity level?She's admittedly a simple person. She doesn't watch news unless it's a "morning show" because other news is boring. Seriously she talk me that the other day. Even I was asking her about Buddha and Shinto and she really didn't seem to know too much. Like what Buddha's Indian name was - no idea. Is she pro-American? I know she likes Sex and City and can't wait for the movie. Is that pro-American? I'm sure if an Arab fashion design became popular she'd be pro-that fashion design.

My only worry is she may not get everything that's going on in the Sura BUT if it's in Japanese she will get an impression of sorts. We can agree right now to what I will ask. I was thinking:

Can you read this and just tell me what you think it means.

We'll see what we get

What does this tell you about polytheistic people like some ancient Hindu or modern day Shinto or what about Scientology or other monotheists like Mormons or even Baha'i?

Instead of laboriously studying the teachings of every religion you impose on me, I will simply ask you if they meet this criteria:

[2:285] The messenger has believed in what was sent down to him from his Lord, and so did the believers. They believe in GOD, His angels, His scripture, and His messengers: "We make no distinction among any of His messengers." They say, "We hear, and we obey. Forgive us, our Lord. To You is the ultimate destiny."


Blood is thicker than water?!?! You think BLOOD is ticker than water is something good to preach??? REALLY??!?!?

How about this: We are all humans and supporting one another is thicker than blood. You remember: The Universality thingy??? Human dignity over that of petty tribal bullshit.

Islam is a religion, Michael, meaning it is available for every single person who wishes to embrace it. Things that we cannot control, such as race, ethnicity, gender, etc, are not part of the qualifications. To be Muslim, you must believe in no God but Allah, and Muhammad as His messenger. Muslims believe strongly in the concept of ummah, and we are encouraged to help ourselves and be independent. Remember, Allah does not change what is in a people until they change what is in themselves.

Might I add that racially, Islam has no discrimination, unlike Christianity which is percieved as "for the White man only".

She's admittedly a simple person. She doesn't watch news unless it's a "morning show" because other news is boring. Seriously she talk me that the other day. Even I was asking her about Buddha and Shinto and she really didn't seem to know too much. Like what Buddha's Indian name was - no idea. Is she pro-American? I know she likes Sex and City and can't wait for the movie. Is that pro-American? I'm sure if an Arab fashion design became popular she'd be pro-that fashion design.

My only worry is she may not get everything that's going on in the Sura BUT if it's in Japanese she will get an impression of sorts. We can agree right now to what I will ask. I was thinking:

Can you read this and just tell me what you think it means.

We'll see what we get

I didn't necessarily mean pro-American politics, but just pro-American culture or life. It is still a bias, and might I add, quite a strong one too.

Also, it depends on maturity level and knowledge of the world. Perhaps she thinks herself as "American" and is not proud of her Japanese descent? Perhaps because of this, it will incline her to sway anti_Moslem, and her maturity level would affect this as well.

Are you replying to me?no that was because SAM was (and did) say that it's not possible to read and get anything out of the Qur'an without "serious" study.

Fine - if no one's interested then screw it. I won't waste my time. But I will say this. People of all walks of life can watch a play by Shakespeare and "get it". Actually, I'd say the more perfect the book the more apt it should be to be read by anyone and they be moved by the words.


I'm 100% the 99.999999999% of Muslims are not monks and don't spend all day studying The Good Book. They do their bit and move on. THESE are the types of people that the book should be making sense to - and if not then really it's a waste of time for 99.9999999999% of the people.

Michael

Instead of laboriously studying the teachings of every religion you impose on me, I will simply ask you if they meet this criteria:

[2:285] The messenger has believed in what was sent down to him from his Lord, and so did the believers. They believe in GOD, His angels, His scripture, and His messengers: "We make no distinction among any of His messengers." They say, "We hear, and we obey. Forgive us, our Lord. To You is the ultimate destiny." I'm not Shinto but I can tell you Shinto don't worship God's outside of Japan. They have a totally different mythos of how life began on Earth - actually I should say life in Japan. You see, when the Gods created life - it basically made Japan. So the story is focused mainly on Japan.

I little centric huh??? I find it kind of funny - and the Gods created Japan...

Might I add that racially, Islam has no discrimination, unlike Christianity which is percieved as "for the White man only".Oh please. China is Xian's biggest market! Also all of the Africans I know are Xian.

I didn't necessarily mean pro-American politics, but just pro-American culture or life. It is still a bias, and might I add, quite a strong one too.

Also, it depends on maturity level and knowledge of the world. Perhaps she thinks herself as "American" and is not proud of her Japanese descent? Perhaps because of this, it will incline her to sway anti_Moslem, and her maturity level would affect this as well.I'm saying she doens't even know whose Mohammad is. Never heard of him. She's never been to America. She study'd ballet in London. BUT she's never been to the USA. Her sister went on a Japanese tour of New York for shopping once.

I'm saying she doens't care for religion. I asked her once what happens when she dies and she said she'll be a ghost. I said a GHOST?!?? Well can you go to Australia??? She said - yeah but maybe I have to take a plane because it's a far way to float. I said you're kidding me. She said: Well I really don't know until I die.

That's true

Might I add that racially, Islam has no discrimination, unlike Christianity which is percieved as "for the White man only".

There are branches of Islam where Arabs are the top, your probably do not percieve that as discrimination though. You would need to search pretty hard to find no discrimination in any particular group.

In U.S the African Americans are some of the more serious Christians and also Latin American's too - they're not white. Having been around American Muslims i never felt any discrimination either though.

Well Kadark, I'm afraid so.

I very much appreciate you taking the time.

It's late for me so I won't cover all of Kadark's deceit, just the first part.

The first reference to the People of the Book is not 5:18, it's 5:5. What Kadark has done is precisely what Kadark blames everyone else of doing - taking verses out of context.

Let's look at the whole group of verses, 5:12 to 5:18 so that 5:18 can be made more clear.

5:12 Talks about the covenant with the Children of Israel and reminds them "...but if any of you, after this, resisteth faith, he hath truly wandered from the path or rectitude." OK so far.

5:13 "But because of their breach of their covenant, We cursed them, and made their hearts grow hard; they change the words from their (right) places and forget a good part of the message that was sent them..."

Oops! Looks like the Jews have breached their covenant (by rejecting Muhammad's (PBUH) prophesy). Now they are cursed and their hearts are hardened. As we will see later they also created a false Torah.

5:14 From those, too, who call themselves Christians, We did take a covenant, but they forgot a good part of the message that was sent them: so we estranged them, with enmity and hatred between the one and the other, to the day of judgment. And soon will Allah show them what it is they have done.

Well, things aren't looking too good for the Christians either are they? They forgot their message and now we see enmity and hatred already! We will see later the Christians also have a false Gospel.

5:15 O people of the Book! There hath come to you our Messenger, revealing to you much that ye used to hide in the Book, and passing over much (that is now unnecessary). There hath come to you from Allah a (new) light and a perspicuous Book,-

Allah is bemoaning the Jews have rejected Muhammad's message. Again a reference to the false Torah. They hid the prophesy of Muhammad (PBUH). Muhammad (PBUH) got really angry when the Jews rejected him.

5:16 Allah guides people. etc.

5:17 In blasphemy indeed are those that say that Allah is Christ the son of Mary. Say: "Who then hath the least power against Allah, if His will were to destroy Christ the son of Mary, his mother, and all every - one that is on the earth? For to Allah belongeth the dominion of the heavens and the earth, and all that is between. He createth what He pleaseth. For Allah hath power over all things."

Ouch! The blaspheming Christians are cursed too!

And now 5:18 begins to make sense:

5:18 (Both) the Jews and the Christians say: "We are sons of Allah, and his beloved." Say: "Why then doth He punish you for your sins? Nay, ye are but men,- of the men he hath created: He forgiveth whom He pleaseth, and He punisheth whom He pleaseth

Here the Jews say they are children of God. But next Allah asks why are they being punished? Then states they are not actually children of God, they are only men. This is because they rejected Muhammad (PBUH).

So, here we see Allah castigating both Jews and Christians, and cursing them. They are estranged, with enmity and hatred between the one and the other.

So folks, why do you think Kadark is leaving all of this out?

Likewise Kadark has taken the other verses out of context in his deceit. I can of course cover the rest of Sura 5 later. It goes downhill from here. We will see indeed the People of the book are unbelievers, kufr, and get a hint of what punishment awaits them.

Ibn Warraq, a well known Muslim jurist (cleric) says: “The supposedly noble sentiments are in fact a warning to Jews. ‘Behave, or else’ is the message. Far from abjuring violence, these verses aggressively point out that anyone opposing the Prophet will be killed, crucified, mutilated, and banished!”

Care to take another stab at it Kadark? This time not selectively filtering, not taking out of context?

By the way, after Kadark mentioned genocide earlier, I had asked him what happens to the Jews in the end-of-times. He didn't care to answer that either. Could it be because the Jews are slaughtered?

Like it says in the Quran, the signs are all there for those who care to see.

But its interesting that people refer to verse such and such and ignore the rest that precede or follow it. e.g. Kadark gave several verses that showed that not all the people who are Jews or Christians are disbelievers, and to beware of those who have empty words on their lips and no faith in their hearts, which clearly separates religion from righteousness.

This is too rich! You should take Kadark out to the woodshed. That's exactly what he did with 5:18 when he conveniently did not consider 5:12 - 5:18.

It's the Muslims who are doing this, not the kufr!

This is too rich! You should take Kadark out to the woodshed. That's exactly what he did with 5:18 when he conveniently did not consider 5:12 - 5:18.

It's the Muslims who are doing this, not the kufr!

Considering it was the Jews who broke the treaty of Hudaibiya, not at all.

Compare that to the Polish reaction to the Polish Jews when they saw them greeting Stalins army as liberators.

Do you imagine there was a general consensus in Poland at the time that not all Jews are bad?

Ibn Warraq is a pseudonym. :rolleyes:

I'm saying she doens't even know whose Mohammad is. Never heard of him. She's never been to America. She study'd ballet in London. BUT she's never been to the USA. Her sister went on a Japanese tour of New York for shopping once.

I'm saying she doens't care for religion. I asked her once what happens when she dies and she said she'll be a ghost. I said a GHOST?!?? Well can you go to Australia??? She said - yeah but maybe I have to take a plane because it's a far way to float. I said you're kidding me. She said: Well I really don't know until I die.

That's true
Yes, but being Japanese, is she pro-US?

The first reference to the People of the Book is not 5:18, it's 5:5. What Kadark has done is precisely what Kadark blames everyone else of doing - taking verses out of context.

No, you are misinterpreting what I’m saying. What I said was, “let’s look at the referral to the Jews”, not “let’s look at the referral to the People of the Book”. A rookie mistake already, I’ve noticed.


Let's look at the whole group of verses, 5:12 to 5:18 so that 5:18 can be made more clear.

5:12 Talks about the covenant with the Children of Israel and reminds them "...but if any of you, after this, resisteth faith, he hath truly wandered from the path or rectitude." OK so far.

I urge you to always post the complete verse without any of your own additions or exclusions of words in order to avoid corrupting the text. Lets look at the verse wholly:

[5:12] GOD had taken a covenant from the Children of Israel, and we raised among them twelve patriarchs. And GOD said, "I am with you, so long as you observe the Contact Prayers (Salat), give the obligatory charity (Zakat), and believe in My messengers and respect them, and continue to lend GOD a loan of righteousness. I will then remit your sins, and admit you into gardens with flowing streams. Anyone who disbelieves after this, has indeed strayed off the right path."

Basic summary: fulfill the requirements of Allah, and He will be with you.


5:13 "But because of their breach of their covenant, We cursed them, and made their hearts grow hard; they change the words from their (right) places and forget a good part of the message that was sent them..."

Oops! Looks like the Jews have breached their covenant (by rejecting Muhammad's (PBUH) prophesy). Now they are cursed and their hearts are hardened. As we will see later they also created a false Torah.

[5:13] It was a consequence of their violating the covenant that we condemned them, and we caused their hearts to become hardened. Consequently, they took the words out of context, and disregarded some of the commandments given to them. You will continue to witness betrayal from them, excepting a few of them. You shall pardon them, and disregard them. GOD loves those who are benevolent.

I find it humorous (not in a good way, I can assure you) that you seem to cut the verse in half. Without the verse in its entirety, there is no formal objectivity, and misunderstanding will certainly follow. Here are the parts you (accidentally, I’m sure) skipped.

"You will continue to witness betrayal from them, excepting a few of them."

The corruption (as in, changing of words/interpretations) of the Torah is not the crime of all Jews. Likewise, not all Jews follow the changed scripture, which is an important aspect against generalizing.

"You shall pardon them, and disregard them. GOD loves those who are benevolent."

I think this is quite self-explanatory. Allah tells us to pardon them, and loves those who are benevolent. I suppose you didn’t find this sentence an integral tenet of the full verse. I wonder why?


5:14 From those, too, who call themselves Christians, We did take a covenant, but they forgot a good part of the message that was sent them: so we estranged them, with enmity and hatred between the one and the other, to the day of judgment. And soon will Allah show them what it is they have done.

Well, things aren't looking too good for the Christians either are they? They forgot their message and now we see enmity and hatred already! We will see later the Christians also have a false Gospel.

[5:14] Also from those who said, "We are Christian," we took their covenant. But they disregarded some of the commandments given to them. Consequently, we condemned them to animosity and hatred among themselves, until the Day of Resurrection. GOD will then inform them of everything they had done.

There are some observations you failed to make: the Christians who are responsible for the disregarding of the scriptures are responsible. The Christians who followed that blindly accepted the altered verses also face a certain blame, but not the same degree, as common intuition would indicate. The perpetrators will be informed on the Day of Resurrection, and those who do their research will be rewarded. The matter is not as simple as just reading the scripture.


5:15 O people of the Book! There hath come to you our Messenger, revealing to you much that ye used to hide in the Book, and passing over much (that is now unnecessary). There hath come to you from Allah a (new) light and a perspicuous Book,-

Allah is bemoaning the Jews have rejected Muhammad's message. Again a reference to the false Torah. They hid the prophesy of Muhammad (PBUH). Muhammad (PBUH) got really angry when the Jews rejected him.

[5:15] O people of the scripture, our messenger has come to you to proclaim for you many things you have concealed in the scripture, and to pardon many other transgressions you have committed. A beacon has come to you from GOD, and a profound scripture.

What do you think Muhammad’s purpose as messenger was? He was not set to introduce a new idea, but rather to restore the message of the prophets before him, whose words have been altered, ignored, or destroyed. As we can see from “and to pardon many other transgressions you have committed”, the verse is indicative of forgiveness and a second chance.


5:17 In blasphemy indeed are those that say that Allah is Christ the son of Mary. Say: "Who then hath the least power against Allah, if His will were to destroy Christ the son of Mary, his mother, and all every - one that is on the earth? For to Allah belongeth the dominion of the heavens and the earth, and all that is between. He createth what He pleaseth. For Allah hath power over all things."

Ouch! The blaspheming Christians are cursed too!

Which Christians do you refer to, then? There are plenty of Christian denominations who hold God and Jesus as two separately functioning entities; some religious interpretations claim both are one; others believe in a trinity. Considering there are many different Christian ideologies, grouping them into one religion is not practical, and is unfair for the sake of argument.


And now 5:18 begins to make sense:

5:18 (Both) the Jews and the Christians say: "We are sons of Allah, and his beloved." Say: "Why then doth He punish you for your sins? Nay, ye are but men,- of the men he hath created: He forgiveth whom He pleaseth, and He punisheth whom He pleaseth

Here the Jews say they are children of God. But next Allah asks why are they being punished? Then states they are not actually children of God, they are only men. This is because they rejected Muhammad (PBUH).

Muhammad has no relevance to this verse, I’m afraid. God does not have children, which basically means that nobody is immune from punishment because they claim to be God’s “chosen ones”. All actions and the subsequent consequences are the responsibility of each person. This is not limited exclusively to religious followers.


So, here we see Allah castigating both Jews and Christians, and cursing them. They are estranged, with enmity and hatred between the one and the other.

Palpably incorrect. Both religion’s followers have deviated from the path set by God, which is why a final attempt to correct their mistakes has been established, through the proposition of a second chance. It is up to each individual to make the decision of acceptance.


So folks, why do you think Kadark is leaving all of this out?

Likewise Kadark has taken the other verses out of context in his deceit. I can of course cover the rest of Sura 5 later. It goes downhill from here. We will see indeed the People of the book are unbelievers, kufr, and get a hint of what punishment awaits them.

I was quoting the verses that directly used the word “Jews”, mainly because of the opening topic and subsequent posts concerning particularly the Judaic religion.


By the way, after Kadark mentioned genocide earlier, I had asked him what happens to the Jews in the end-of-times. He didn't care to answer that either. Could it be because the Jews are slaughtered?

The devout Jews who follow believe in Allah, his scriptures, and his messengers are all destined to be rewarded in the hereafter. Those who corrupt the religion’s teachings to implement their own ideologies, be it political or religious, will incur a grievous penalty. The matter isn’t as simple as, “you’re a Christian, so you automatically are destined to …”. After all, only Allah truly knows who is deserving of what in the hereafter.

Yes, but being Japanese, is she pro-US?She wouldn't know what pro-US even means. I don't think she even knows there's a war going on - of if so where at or why or who is involved. She did once ask me why America has a stupid president so she isn't completely out of the loop! BUT I think that was because she likes to watch David Letteman and his "Famous Speeches" skit :)

I love that one :D
Great Moments In Presidential Speeches (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cvsS0d41DLE)

She wouldn't know what pro-US even means. I don't think she even knows there's a war going on - of if so where at or why or who is involved. She did once ask me why America has a stupid president so she isn't completely out of the loop! BUT I think that was because she likes to watch David Letteman and his "Famous Speeches" skit :)

I love that one :D
Great Moments In Presidential Speeches (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cvsS0d41DLE)

Is your friend, by any chance, imaginary?

Hi Kadark,

I have a question. Just your opinion. Suppose someone like me knows quite well about God. But I tell God to go get stuffed I go my way you go yours - what do you suppose, from what you have read, will happen to me in the hereafter?

Another question, we know there are a lot of Buddhists, Shinto, Hindus out there that have heard about Islam and get the message of the One God and Mohammad etc.. etc... as many of them have similarly disregarded Mohammad's message and continue to practice their own beleif - what do you suppose happens to them in the hereafter?

Lastly, I always find it interesting that supposedly the message is "spectacular" yet most Muslims I know regard Mohammad in the same manner as Xians regard Jesus or Catholics Mary. Even praying to Mohammad instead of God at times. Why do you suppose Humans act like this. Don't you find it interesting? In reality, if we were to be honest, Mohammad could have been a talking broom. I mean - it was the message that was important right?

Is your friend, by any chance, imaginary?

http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/6053/3193/640/CIMG2197.jpg



Lots of Japanese really really couldn't care about the Middle East and America. Their History is more China and Amercia. And they simply just don't know or care to know anything about Muslims. It's really not a part of their culture at all.

Japanese exist in a world called Japan.

OK I asked TWO Japanese.
The girl, Emi, said it didn`t make sense and had no interest. So she said nothing. (actually she asked: Is this a Test?!? and said "this makes no sense" - so like I said she just didnt care to give me an answer)
The guy, Toshi, actually likes history. He said this was just like Christian but more extreme (note: wiki say sura 9 is the most extreme so I am sure that if we were to pick a violent part of armagedon it`d be the sam). Bascially because I made it open ended question: Read this what do you think Toshi just tried to explain that we don`t live in 10th century Europe or Middle East and we now have medicine and tv and computers and don`t need this "brain washing stuff to get information".

So in summary Sura9 was just like Christian stuff but more extreme. He said he thought Chrisitian usually talked about myth stories of killing but this passage (as translated) said "to kill". But really he still thought they were pretty much the same. And so I guess that`s my summary.

MII

PS: I always say the two are like green peas in a pod.

So did you show them the sura on disbelievers (109)? I'd like their take on that. And yours as well. Lets see how objective you can be.

Also what do these two Japanese think of the Samurai and the Bushido creed?

Do the consider it a medieval backward or tribal practice?

No, you are misinterpreting what I’m saying. What I said was, “let’s look at the referral to the Jews”, not “let’s look at the referral to the People of the Book”. A rookie mistake already, I’ve noticed.

I was wondering if you would criticize me on this, but then I thought, no, Kadark is too sharp to play such a silly semantic game.


The devout Jews who follow believe in Allah, his scriptures, and his messengers are all destined to be rewarded in the hereafter. Those who corrupt the religion’s teachings to implement their own ideologies, be it political or religious, will incur a grievous penalty. The matter isn’t as simple as, “you’re a Christian, so you automatically are destined to …”. After all, only Allah truly knows who is deserving of what in the hereafter.

OK so if we were to summarize v5:12=5:18 would it go something like this:

The Jews had a covenant with God. But they breached their covenant, at least some percentage of them. In doing so they "changed the words" of the Torah (corrupted it). Those who did so are cursed.

The Christians also had a covenant, but they forgot it, at least some percentage of them. So those that did are estranged, with enmity and hatred.

So Allah says there is a new messenger now who Christians and Jews should follow. The new messenger reveals what has been lost (or removed) from their old covenant.

The Christians likewise are blasphemous by believing in the divinity of Christ, and not following this new messenger. Those Christians who missed this boat are going to be punished too.

In the end-of-times those Jews who follow this new messenger will be rewarded, those who do not will be slaughtered.

Is that a fair, but brief summary?

Hi Kadark,

I have a question. Just your opinion. Suppose someone like me knows quite well about God. But I tell God to go get stuffed I go my way you go yours - what do you suppose, from what you have read, will happen to me in the hereafter?

I do believe I posted the requirements earlier: do you believe in God fully, and accept Him as your master? Do you believe in the scriptures He has sent to guide mankind? Do you believe in His angels? Do you believe in His messengers? You cannot simply acknowledge a God but reject Him with contempt.


Another question, we know there are a lot of Buddhists, Shinto, Hindus out there that have heard about Islam and get the message of the One God and Mohammad etc.. etc... as many of them have similarly disregarded Mohammad's message and continue to practice their own beleif - what do you suppose happens to them in the hereafter?

I don't know the specific belief systems, moral codes, and mono/polytheist values of their ideologies. Refer to Surah 2, verse 285. Do you meet those standards?


Lastly, I always find it interesting that supposedly the message is "spectacular" yet most Muslims I know regard Mohammad in the same manner as Xians regard Jesus or Catholics Mary. Even praying to Mohammad instead of God at times. Why do you suppose Humans act like this. Don't you find it interesting? In reality, if we were to be honest, Mohammad could have been a talking broom. I mean - it was the message that was important right?

I honestly don't know of any Muslims who pray to Muhammad in place of Allah. Praying to any human (even if they are a Prophet) is one of the gravest sins in Islam. Only Allah is worthy of worship.

"[I testify that] there is none worthy of worship except God, and [I testify that] Muhammad is the messenger of God."

So did you show them the sura on disbelievers (109)? I'd like their take on that. And yours as well. Lets see how objective you can be.

Also what do these two Japanese think of the Samurai and the Bushido creed?

Do the consider it a medieval backward or tribal practice?I'll take a look.

Toshi said that back then Japanese people didn't really care too much about religion (except in 640s there was a war between Buddhist and Shinto - Buddhists won and so Buddhism was incorporated into the Japanese government). As to Samurai all he said was they didn't care either so long as what ever religion didn't have any power. Samurai killed many Buddhists when they had started to gain power (and become a country within a country) and also they killed a bunch of Christians when they did the same. Because Buddhism and Shinto were common beliefs at the time of Japanese unification, as long as they didn't try for power, Samurai didn't seem to care.

As for their ethic and moral code - I'll ask him next time.

I do believe I posted the requirements earlier: do you believe in God fully, and accept Him as your master?Kardark could you imagine if you saw all these people praying to a lizard statue "King Crom of Planet Perses Omicron 8" :bugeye:

Accept an imaginary idea as one's Master? It's as ludicrous as praying to King Crom.


....and Muhammad is the messenger of God."It's amazing you'd even consider putting a mere piss-ant mortal in the same sentence with God creator of Reality itself?!?!

Puuuulease...

And I noticed you put "[I]the" messenger - even lifting him above any other messengers.

I think you can see by you're own statement how Mohammad is elevated to this rock-God status. Basically every good myth needs a man at the center of it and Islam makes no exception.


I saw a woman on the news the other day shouting out to Mohammad to curse these suicide bombers. In times of desperation the true feeling come out.

It's only human,
Michael

So you pose to me questions that seem sincere, and upon receiving answers you cannot counter, you simply insult the religion? It's small wonder why people don't take you seriously. If you cannot comprehend/acknowledge the difference between Allah and Muhammad, then I truly feel sorry for you - and for myself - for having wasted such valuable time.

So you pose to me questions that seem sincere, and upon receiving answers you cannot counter, you simply insult the religion? It's small wonder why people don't take you seriously. If you cannot comprehend/acknowledge the difference between Allah and Muhammad, then I truly feel sorry for you - and for myself - for having wasted such valuable time.

Don't feel singled out Kadark. Michael denigrates all faiths equally.

So you pose to me questions that seem sincere, and upon receiving answers you cannot counter, you simply insult the religion? It's small wonder why people don't take you seriously. If you cannot comprehend/acknowledge the difference between Allah and Muhammad, then I truly feel sorry for you - and for myself - for having wasted such valuable time.Kadark - your response is: I really really really really do beleive in God and I really really really do believe that Mohammad was special to this God.

There is no argument - yes I agree you really do beleive that's the case. But, that being the case I wonder what you would think if you saw a lot of people that really really really did beleive in Lrrr of the Planet Omicron Persei 8? Because you may not know it, and you may not beleive it, but there as much evidence for Lrrr as there is that Mohammad was a Prophet to a God - which is to say ZERO, ZILCH, NADDA.

So what to do?
Well we could go in circles...
Or.... one would expect that if there was a really God and a real messenger - that the message would be special. But it's not special to anyone that is not Muslim. Unlike Plato or Aristotle or Kent, whose ideas and wittings are indeed revered by people from secular modern day Chinese to Muslims living in Malaysia, the Qur'an simply doens't have that appeal. Ask you're self Why Kadark?

Why is it that the most perfect book ever is not appreciated by the majority of people - outside of Islam. And honestly, if it's perfect then why Kadark, do Muslims that become Atheist think it's not worth the paper it's written on? Why? It seems even an atheist, if logical, WILL HAVE TO agree to the tenets if the arguments are well made. One could only imagine a Book with GOD as the author would match Aristotle - but it doesn't.

Why is what you should ask yourself?

I asked those Japaneses (well it may as well have just been Toshi). And from his reading of this (http://www.theholyquran.org/?x=s_main&kid=17)translation the Sura9 passage instructed people to commit murder. It doesn't just talk about people who committed murder for God (like the Bible or Torah) it tells people to actually go out and kill other people. This is what he called "extreme version of Bible". This was his reading, I didn't do anything other than ask him to read it and tell me what it says.

So sure Kadark you may really really really really really beleive in God but that doesn't change the fact that people are killing other people because they really really really think the Qur'an is telling them to really really really go kill people for NOT really really really believing the Qur'an.

Again for thr sake of a circle:
Academically Communism works great.
Practically Communism is an utter failure.
Who is to blame - the system or the people?

You opt for people - well fine, I can't logically argue with your opinion as it's just that - an opinion.

Logically which is more perfect a Book that inspires all that read it to adhere to peace or a Book that inspires some people to commit murder in it's name? Which? Assuming God can make both books: Which is more perfect? Of course you'll pick the latter, but one would think the former would be more Perfect - that is if you like the idea of peace. So where do we go? back to - opt for blaming the people - they misinterpret. Well fine, I can't logically argue with an opinion as it's just that - an opinion. Funny that the Japanese guy got that EXACT SAME misinterpretation? Don't you agree.

We demonstrated that art and math and science slows, stagnates and eventually comes to a grinding halt under any religious theocracy. Including Xiantiy including Islam including Buddhism etc... but no no no Michael, Islam is "perfect" ergo it's the people's fault again. Or better yet, who needs some art?!?!??! CAN YOU BELIEVE THAT LAST STATEMENT??? Whio needs so art?

Jesus - why don't we just go back to the trees, grab a banana and give up on this whole large brain walking upright thing. It didn't work!


So yes Kadark I am sincere, but we've been over this ground and I don't think there's anything left so ALL we're left with is Lrrr of the Planet Omicron Persei 8

http://www.geocities.com/zoidberg_fan/scanart/lrr_dude.gif

Don't feel singled out Kadark. Michael denigrates all faiths equally.I wouldn't say "denigrates" - how about "treats objectively"?

Do you know, animals have no apparent religion. Perhaps the ones without religion are the ones going back to the trees. Ever think about that?

So did you show them the sura on disbelievers (109)?
[109:0] In the name of God, Most Gracious, Most Merciful

[109:1] Say, "O you disbelievers.

[109:2] "I do not worship what you worship.

[109:3] "Nor do you worship what I worship.

[109:4] "Nor will I ever worship what you worship.

[109:5] "Nor will you ever worship what I worship.

[109:6] "To you is your religion, and to me is my religion."


This is pretty OK, not the best but pretty good. I suppose it's the best one could expect from monotheism. It's probably one of best peaces of advice you could give the common person.

HOWEVER I will re-write it and, do the impossible, make it better:

[109:0] In the name of Peace
[109:1] Say, "O you of Humanity.
[109:2] "I do not worship what you worship.
[109:3] "Nor do you worship what I worship.
[109:4] "Nor will I ever worship what you worship.
[109:5] "Nor will you ever worship what I worship.
[109:6] "To you is your beleif, and to me is mine.
[109:7] "We both may be right and we both may be wrong.
[109:8] "Regardless, always love your fellow Humans - they are your brothers and your sisters, your mothers and your fathers"

The last sentence is incorrectly translated

It should read, to you be your way and to me be mine.

And no everyone is not my brother father mother or sister, there are serial killers and pedophiles and torturers out there

The last sentence is incorrectly translated

It should read, to you be your way and to me be mine.

And no everyone is not my brother father mother or sister, there are serial killers and pedophiles and torturers out thereYesss SAM feel the hate - let it flow in your veins... come to the Dark Side of Force where we have hope for Humanity....

Yesss SAM feel the hate - let it flow in your veins... come to the Dark Side of Force where we have hope for Humanity....

Why don't you look in the mirror Michael

The ones most obsessed with religion here - yourself, Geoff and (Q)- all such bastions of rationality and tolerance - but only in theory. :rolleyes:

The really rational, tolerant ones -spurious, Bells, James- you should take a few lessons from them.

The Qur'anic passage is inherently bigoted - it starts out drawing a line in the sand: "disbelievers" is another way of saying "they who have their head in their arse and, unlike us, are wrong"

Either God is a Twit or this is a 6th Century Cult of Personality attempting to sound Humanistic and failing.

Al-Kafiroon means He who rejects the faith (could be atheist, agnostic or of a different faith)

In a religious book, any religious book, have you seen a similar chapter on those who reject the teachings?

It's NOT intolerant NOT to accept bigotry.


[109:1] Say, "O you disbelievers.


Pleease SAM, what feeling does this passage bring up in you when you think of "disbelievers"? Probably combined with Sura9 and off with their bloody head!

Look I said it's an OK attempt, probably as good as monotheism can do.

You mean like calling a homosexual gay?

A disbeliever is a disbeliever. Its not a slur. Like atheist, goyim. or nastik. Its a completely acceptable way to refer to a person not of the faith.

Its how traditionally a disbeliever would refer to himself. In poems, in songs. Even today, it is commonly used in Indian songs, like romantic songs where the lover claims to have become a kafir on meeting his lady love since he could worship only her.

Please do not impose your orientalism on us.

In a religious book, any religious book, have you seen a similar chapter on those who reject the teachings?And they are equally as bad.

I think we can agree that at least Philosophers are better at describing the Human condition in a non-bigoted manner - don't you? It's pretty much impossible to do so with most any "religion".

I wouldn't say "denigrates" - how about "treats objectively"?

I'm not so sure it's objective. Consider this statement:

"We demonstrated that art and math and science slows, stagnates and eventually comes to a grinding halt under any religious theocracy. Including Xiantiy including Islam..."

Now do this for me. Go find yourself a list of all Nobel prize winners in science. Count the Jews, Christians and Muslims and atheists. Tell me what you find.

And they are equally as bad.

I think we can agree that at least Philosophers are better at describing the Human condition in a non-bigoted manner - don't you? It's pretty much impossible to do so with most any "religion".

You're no philosopher, don't worry.

And the human condition as described by philosophers is not very useful to the layman.

Has a person living in a Theocracy even won a Nobel Prize?

crap I have to run ....

Has a person living in a Theocracy even won a Nobel Prize?

crap I have to run ....

I do believe that it is the persons living in theocracies who made the earliest advancements in the scientific method.

OTOH it was the people living in secular societies who invented weapons of mass destruction and moved the battlefield to the civilians.

Al-Kafiroon means He who rejects the faith (could be atheist, agnostic or of a different faith)

In a religious book, any religious book, have you seen a similar chapter on those who reject the teachings?

No, not insofar as how they are treated. Jesus said to love your enemies, love your neighbor. Jesus specifically sought out sinners, like prostitutes, IRS employees, lawyers...

What does Allah say about non-believers? What's their fate?

No, not insofar as how they are treated. Jesus said to love your enemies, love your neighbor. Jesus specifically sought out sinners, like prostitutes, IRS employees, lawyers...

What does Allah say about non-believers? What's their fate?

Like the fate of believers, that is for God to decide. And Jesus did say he did not come to change the law, he came with the sword to pit family against family. Besides, does Jesus override God? Where does it say that?

In fact, how do you know what Jesus said? Not everything he said was recovered.

OKay, Michael, since you are quite intelligent (honestly), what do you think of the fact that the Book of Genesis has far more violence than the Qu'ran entirely?

In fact, how do you know what Jesus said? Not everything he said was recovered.

Do you have a link to what's missing?

Also, I summarized Kadark's comments on 5:12-5:18. Did I do an OK job? See post 150.

Thanks.

Has a person living in a Theocracy even won a Nobel Prize in Science?

crap I have to run ....

Has a person living in a Theocracy even won a Nobel Prize in Science?

crap I have to run ....

That israeli guy........

OKay, Michael, since you are quite intelligent (honestly), what do you think of the fact that the Book of Genesis has far more violence than the Qu'ran entirely?I'm certainly not a fan of the Bible.

I agree it's full of violence and pure bullshit.

BUT there is a big difference in a story telling of how God told So and So to kill So and So and God flooded the Earth and God murdered bla bla bla and God hardened the heart of the Pharaoh who killed some people and God sent in a ghost to kill some male children in Egypt yadda yadda yadda ...

Even though there's a lot of that stuff in there it's a lot different than telling YOU that you can justify the killing of so and so for whatever reasons.... or telling you to kill so and so.

Its a huge step from telling people God kills for whatever reasons and telling people they can kill for whatever reasons.

OKay, Michael, since you are quite intelligent (honestly), what do you think of the fact that the Book of Genesis has far more violence than the Qu'ran entirely?

The OT has many descriptions of ancient Middle Eastern warfare. Numbers is particularly gruesome. I'm suprised Holleywood hasn't made more movies of it.

But since you asked Michael, let me quote Michael from post 156: "[The Koran] doesn't just talk about people who committed murder for God (like the Bible or Torah) it tells people to actually go out and kill other people."

He is basically right. The difference is, in the OT God helps the Jewish people in specific ancient battles. In the Qur'an, Allah does this but in addition gives general commands to strike down kufr where you find them in Jihad - provided the Muslims can rationalize that it is a defensive war. And the Qur'an makes it very easy to rationalize the need for defensive war since kufr are inherently enemies of Islam and are by nature making mischief.

You mean a preemptive strike for suspected WMDs?

On atheists:

"[The infidels] say, 'It is only our life in this world, we die and we live, and naught destroys us but time!'" [Sura Mecca]

The OT has many descriptions of ancient Middle Eastern warfare. Numbers is particularly gruesome. I'm suprised Holleywood hasn't made more movies of it.

But since you asked Michael, let me quote Michael from post 156: "[The Koran] doesn't just talk about people who committed murder for God (like the Bible or Torah) it tells people to actually go out and kill other people."

He is basically right. The difference is, in the OT God helps the Jewish people in specific ancient battles. In the Qur'an, Allah does this but in addition gives general commands to strike down kufr where you find them in Jihad - provided the Muslims can rationalize that it is a defensive war. And the Qur'an makes it very easy to rationalize the need for defensive war since kufr are inherently enemies of Islam and are by nature making mischief.

You mean like this?

You must kill those who worship another god. Exodus 22:20

Kill any friends or family that worship a god that is different than your own. Deuteronomy 13:6-10

Kill all the inhabitants of any city where you find people that worship differently than you. Deuteronomy 13:12-16

Kill everyone who has religious views that are different than your own. Deuteronomy 17:2-7

Kill anyone who refuses to listen to a priest. Deuteronomy 17:12-13

Kill any false prophets. Deuteronomy 18:20

Any city that doesn’t receive the followers of Jesus will be destroyed in a manner even more savage than that of Sodom and Gomorrah. Mark 6:11

Jude reminds us that God destroys those who don’t believe in him. Jude 5

Don’t associate with non-Christians. Don’t receive them into your house or even exchange greeting with them. 2 John 1:10

Shun those who disagree with your religious views. Romans 16:17

Paul, knowing that their faith would crumble if subjected to free and critical inquiry, tells his followers to avoid philosophy. Colossians 2:8

Whoever denies “that Jesus is the Christ” is a liar and an anti-Christ. 1 John 2:22

Christians are “of God;” everyone else is wicked. 1 John 5:19

The non-Christian is “a deceiver and an anti-Christ” 2 John 1:7

Anyone who doesn’t share Paul’s beliefs has “an evil heart.” Hebrews 3:12

False Jews are members of “the synagogue of Satan.” Revelations 2:9, 3:9

Everyone will have to worship Jesus -- whether they want to or not. Philippians 2:10

A Christian can not be accused of any wrongdoing. Romans 8:33

:D

Its easy enough to selectively cut ans paste anything to prove a point.

You mean a preemptive strike for suspected WMDs?Exactly and wrong for the exact same reasons. (at least on that topic we seem to consistently agree).


On atheists:

"[The infidels] say, 'It is only our life in this world, we die and we live, and naught destroys us but time!'" [Sura Mecca]I'd agree EXCEPT I'd make sure the person understands by "we" I mean not just "we" atheists for Allah but also you Atheists for Zeus as well!!!

We are actually both Atheists for many a God!


(Again, I feel the passage could be better written).

You mean like this?

You must kill those who worship another god. Exodus 22:20

Kill any friends or family that worship a god that is different than your own. Deuteronomy 13:6-10

Kill all the inhabitants of any city where you find people that worship differently than you. Deuteronomy 13:12-16

Kill everyone who has religious views that are different than your own. Deuteronomy 17:2-7

Kill anyone who refuses to listen to a priest. Deuteronomy 17:12-13

Kill any false prophets. Deuteronomy 18:20

Any city that doesn’t receive the followers of Jesus will be destroyed in a manner even more savage than that of Sodom and Gomorrah. Mark 6:11

Jude reminds us that God destroys those who don’t believe in him. Jude 5

Don’t associate with non-Christians. Don’t receive them into your house or even exchange greeting with them. 2 John 1:10

Shun those who disagree with your religious views. Romans 16:17

Paul, knowing that their faith would crumble if subjected to free and critical inquiry, tells his followers to avoid philosophy. Colossians 2:8

Whoever denies “that Jesus is the Christ” is a liar and an anti-Christ. 1 John 2:22

Christians are “of God;” everyone else is wicked. 1 John 5:19

The non-Christian is “a deceiver and an anti-Christ” 2 John 1:7

Anyone who doesn’t share Paul’s beliefs has “an evil heart.” Hebrews 3:12

False Jews are members of “the synagogue of Satan.” Revelations 2:9, 3:9

Everyone will have to worship Jesus -- whether they want to or not. Philippians 2:10

A Christian can not be accused of any wrongdoing. Romans 8:33

:D

Its easy enough to selectively cut ans paste anything to prove a point.I think the point is proven and I totally agree here. The Bible is equally as violent and equally justifies violence in the name of beleif.

Monotheism at it's worse,
Michael

Exactly and wrong for the exact same reasons. (at least on that topic we seem to consistently agree).

I'd agree EXCEPT I'd make sure the person understands by "we" I mean not just "we" atheists for Allah but also you Atheists for Zeus as well!!!

We are actually both Atheists for many a God!


(Again, I feel the passage could be better written).

I think we've been through the Zeus thing already. I do hope I don't have to keep on repeating the same arguments over and over?

By the way, are you ashamed to call yourself an atheist?

I think the point is proven and I totally agree here. The Bible is equally as violent and equally justifies violence in the name of beleif.

Monotheism at it's worse,
Michael

And I disagree. Context is everything. I doubt if you had a close friend and found out not only that he had betrayed you, but had done so using your trust, you would be oh so holier than thou about it. You can't even tolerate an alternate viewpoint which indicates how deeply conservative your viewpoint really is.

All your views to me appear rooted in fantasy, not reality.

All your views to me appear rooted in fantasy, not reality.:rolleyes: We are talking about invisible unknowable Gods correct?


I would tell anyone who asked I'm atheist (not an Atheist) and the fact is for most Gods, you are too.


How is this taken out of context?

20 But a prophet who presumes to speak in my name anything I have not commanded him to say, or a prophet who speaks in the name of other gods, must be put to death."

21 You may say to yourselves, "How can we know when a message has not been spoken by the LORD ?"

22 If what a prophet proclaims in the name of the LORD does not take place or come true, that is a message the LORD has not spoken. That prophet has spoken presumptuously. Do not be afraid of him.

So S.A.M. if Islam is a religion of peace, why are Muslims killing people every day in the name of Allah. Have they interpreted it wrong?

:rolleyes: We are talking about invisible unknowable Gods correct?


I would tell anyone who asked I'm atheist (not an Atheist) and the fact is for most Gods, you are too..

So if someone were to say: O atheist! You would be deeply offended?



How is this taken out of context?

20 But a prophet who presumes to speak in my name anything I have not commanded him to say, or a prophet who speaks in the name of other gods, must be put to death."

21 You may say to yourselves, "How can we know when a message has not been spoken by the LORD ?"

22 If what a prophet proclaims in the name of the LORD does not take place or come true, that is a message the LORD has not spoken. That prophet has spoken presumptuously. Do not be afraid of him



How is 3 lines from somewhere context? What is the original?

Why do you read scriptures by lines? What is this method of reading?

So S.A.M. if Islam is a religion of peace, why are Muslims killing people every day in the name of Allah. Have they interpreted it wrong?

Same reasons Christians are killing for God and Jews are killing for Yhwh.

Revolvr

SAM made the point, weather she sticks by it or not, that Xianity is literally coated in violent commands from God to kill kill and kill some more (actually it's kind of funny God talking in the first person like that, Auugg someone get a pen, GOD'S telling me something about killing again....).

Michael

So if someone were to say: O atheist! You would be deeply offended?If the person is telling the World kill all Atheists and I'm in a room with a bunch of people nodding "yes my master" - yeah, I might be a bit offended!


I simply stated the verse was poorly written. It was an attempt at sounding humanistic but not an honest attempt at being humanistic. You did see the rewrite?

You mean like this?


Its easy enough to selectively cut ans paste anything to prove a point.

SAM, I have tried to take concepts developed over a number of verses. Yet you refuse to help me understand what they mean. Why is that?

It all depends on the version:) Maybe the NIV is written for modernity?


15 “The LORD your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among you, from your countrymen, you shall listen to him. 16 “This is according to all that you asked of the LORD your God in Horeb on the day of the assembly, saying, ‘Let me not hear again the voice of the LORD my God, let me not see this great fire anymore, or I will die.’ 17 “The LORD said to me, ‘They have spoken well. 18 ‘I will raise up a prophet from among their countrymen like you, and I will put My words in his mouth, and he shall speak to them all that I command him. 19 ‘It shall come about that whoever will not listen to My words which he shall speak in My name, I Myself will require it of him. 20 ‘But the prophet who speaks a word presumptuously in My name which I have not commanded him to speak, or which he speaks in the name of other gods, that prophet shall die.’ 21 “You may say in your heart, ‘How will we know the word which the LORD has not spoken?’ 22 “When a prophet speaks in the name of the LORD, if the thing does not come about or come true, that is the thing which the LORD has not spoken. The prophet has spoken it presumptuously; you shall not be afraid of him.

SAM, I have tried to take concepts developed over a number of verses. Yet you refuse to help me understand what they mean. Why is that?

Don't be silly, I'm not going to waste my time on you. :p

It all depends on the version:) Maybe the NIV is written for modernity?
*lots of blue*

I am not going to go blind here Michael, if you cannot communicate in balck and white.

If the person is telling the World kill all Atheists and I'm in a room with a bunch of people nodding "yes my master" - yeah, I might be a bit offended!


I simply stated the verse was poorly written. It was an attempt at sounding humanistic but not an honest attempt at being humanistic. You did see the rewrite?

Hmm so if the verse had said instead:

"Mind not the atheists for they are delusional fools, who lack faith, pity them instead, for God loves those who show mercy to the afflicted"

you would have felt it a more objective analysis?:p

Revolvr

SAM made the point, weather she sticks by it or not, that Xianity is literally coated in violent commands from God to kill kill and kill some more (actually it's kind of funny God talking in the first person like that, Auugg someone get a pen, GOD'S telling me something about killing again....).

Michael

Michael, any moral equivalence between Islam and Christianity doesn't stand the test of reality. There have been over 10,000 Islamic terrorist attacks since 9/11, excluding the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and excluding the genocide of some 200,000 in the Islamic wars in Sudan.

Over the same period of time, how many Christian terrorist attacks have there been? Zero.

By taking verses out of context and not even quoting them correctly, SAM does what he claims everyone else does. He correctly makes the point that these verses do not actually result in Christians killing in the name of God. Therefore taking things out of context fails. Which is correct. There is of course no Christian teaching that allows killing in the name of God or Jesus.

So either Islam is a religion of peace and millions of Muslims are wrong, or it is not a religion of peace. And after almost 200 posts we are no closer to the answer. SAM is doing her best to keep the discussion off balance by changing the subject. And it's working.

I have tried to avoid taking verses out of context, vis-a-vis 5:12 - 5:18 but get no response.

I thought America was under God? Obvious Christian terrorism.

Not to mention Christian on Christian terrorism (WWI WWII), Christian on Muslim terrorism (Iraq I, II, III, Afghanistan, Palestine, Pakistan, Iran), Christian on Jewish terrorism (Holocaust)

Millions dead.

Don't be silly, I'm not going to waste my time on you. :p

No SAM, you're "wasting" a lot of time here. There's another reason. And since that seems to be the only attempt here to take things in context, I figure you would jump at it.

No SAM, you're "wasting" a lot of time here. There's another reason. And since that seems to be the only attempt here to take things in context, I figure you would jump at it.

No reason, See my post count? I argue only with people I like to argue with. Idoits and the brain dead are on ignore.:p

No reason, See my post count? I argue only with people I like to argue with. Idoits and the brain dead are on ignore.:p

ooooh ouch! Getting a bit testy are we SAM? People don't resort to name calling until after they have lost the logic arguments.

So I will assume I am correct in my interpretation of Sura 5. You've been very helpful.

I am not going to go blind here Michael, if you cannot communicate in balck and white.basically the NI "version" said the person "will die" not that God would kill them or that you should kill them.

My guess is this version has been re-interpreted to be less violent.

"Mind not the atheists for they are delusional fools, who lack faith, pity them instead, for God loves those who show mercy to the afflicted"

you would have felt it a more objective analysis?:pYou're getting there:

"Mind not the people who have a beleif different then yours for you can never know if they, or you, are the delusional fools. They may lack your faith but retain their own, talk with them instead, for your own logic is much better for you than anything you could read in this book"

You're getting there:

"Mind not the people who have a beleif different then yours for you can never know if they, or you, are the delusional fools. They may lack your faith but retain their own, talk with them instead, for your own logic is much better for you than anything you could read in this book"

I think this covers it much more objectively :)

"[The infidels] say, 'It is only our life in this world, we die and we live, and naught destroys us but time!'"

basically the NI "version" said the person "will die" not that God would kill them or that you should kill them.

My guess is this version has been re-interpreted to be less violent.

Does it matter? I doubt even if it said kill, people would go out and start killing.

People only kill for 3 reasons: zar, zan and zameen.

Other things are just excuses. :p

Kadark - your response is: I really really really really do beleive in God and I really really really do believe that Mohammad was special to this God.

Of course this is what I believe, but it is also the answer to your question. To be a genuine Muslim, you must profess the shahadah and make distinction between the role of Allah, and the role of His messengers.


There is no argument - yes I agree you really do beleive that's the case. But, that being the case I wonder what you would think if you saw a lot of people that really really really did beleive in Lrrr of the Planet Omicron Persei 8? Because you may not know it, and you may not beleive it, but there as much evidence for Lrrr as there is that Mohammad was a Prophet to a God - which is to say ZERO, ZILCH, NADDA.

That’s fine, Michael. There is no enforcement of religion upon anyone, as that would be insincere. If Islam is the path I (or a billion and a half others) chose to select, then that is my choice; likewise, others are free to believe any other prophet without ostrasization. As the verse has been quoted time and again, “To you be your way, and to me be mine”.


So what to do?
Well we could go in circles...
Or.... one would expect that if there was a really God and a real messenger - that the message would be special. But it's not special to anyone that is not Muslim. Unlike Plato or Aristotle or Kent, whose ideas and wittings are indeed revered by people from secular modern day Chinese to Muslims living in Malaysia, the Qur'an simply doens't have that appeal. Ask you're self Why Kadark?

Why does Islam have to be a special way of life? This is a common misunderstanding, and I can’t say I blame you for regurgitating this lame argument. Islam is a practical, simple way of life; it reiterates the religions of Abraham that came before it. At this point, with your thoughtless referral to entire nations, I can safely say you are unfairly generalizing and stereotyping on a massive level. China has a large (and growing) Muslim population, and some nations near it (Indonesia, for example) have enormous Muslim populations. Besides, using this dull logic, I could simply reverse the situation upon you and your lack of belief: why does atheism have very little appeal worldwide? Considering only a minute (being generous) percent of the human population would ascribe themselves as atheists, what is it about a lack of belief that is so repulsive to the overwhelming majority of mankind? Ask yourself why, Michael.


Why is it that the most perfect book ever is not appreciated by the majority of people - outside of Islam. And honestly, if it's perfect then why Kadark, do Muslims that become Atheist think it's not worth the paper it's written on? Why? It seems even an atheist, if logical, WILL HAVE TO agree to the tenets if the arguments are well made. One could only imagine a Book with GOD as the author would match Aristotle - but it doesn't.

There are a lot of ways to tackle your proposition, Michael. I could do it in sheer numbers, global influence, and/or modern day application. There are many more Muslims than those revered by the writings of Aristotle; Muhammad, Allah’s messenger, is arguably the most influential man is history, easily surpassing Aristotle (see Michael Hart’s [non-Muslim] list). Also, how many non-Muslims worldwide have actually read the Qur’an and have made a concerted effort to discover the religion’s teachings? In all likelihood, very few. Even the people today who know of Islam and criticize/reject it cannot say with complete honesty that they’ve read the book from cover to cover. I may be generalizing myself here, but what are the chances that most people today who disagree/insult Islam only read hate sites and nitpick at out-of-context verses? Where is the objectivity in that, Michael? It is only logical to me that if everyone was given a formal teaching of the religion, the Islamic population would be substantially greater.


I asked those Japaneses (well it may as well have just been Toshi). And from his reading of this translation the Sura9 passage instructed people to commit murder. It doesn't just talk about people who committed murder for God (like the Bible or Torah) it tells people to actually go out and kill other people. This is what he called "extreme version of Bible". This was his reading, I didn't do anything other than ask him to read it and tell me what it says.

Well, it’s a shame Toshi was only given a few isolated verses of a single Surah with no background information or contextual understanding. Perhaps if you enlightened Toshi on the Surah’s revelation (as in timing), along with the actual environment/setting at the time, perhaps he would change is opinion. It’s remarkable how you can shape a person’s view on such a large religion on the basis of a few singled-out verses. What you’re doing isn’t fair to Islam as a religion, nor to Toshi as a person, along with the uneducated people Toshi socializes with (and whose minds he influences).


So sure Kadark you may really really really really really beleive in God but that doesn't change the fact that people are killing other people because they really really really think the Qur'an is telling them to really really really go kill people for NOT really really really believing the Qur'an.

This is more of a political argument, but I’m willing to indulge. Under the assumption that we’re referring to modern day happenings, what events, I ask you, correspond with Muslims killing in the name of religion? The hotspots for Muslim violence are Palestine and Iraq, yet it doesn’t take the sharpest knife in the drawer to realize these particular hostilities are not due to religion, but rather land/governmental/foreign-intervention related conflict. There may be an iota of Muslims who kill for religion, although they obviously don’t reflect the majority with their dysfunctional and uncommon characteristics.


Again for thr sake of a circle:
Academically Communism works great.
Practically Communism is an utter failure.
Who is to blame - the system or the people?

There are some immediate flaws I see with this “argument”, one being that communism is a specific system of state, whereas Islam is first and foremost a religion. Along with that, Islam is not of communist nature, completely blowing out the fire (assuming ever existent) of your illogical argument. You have tried this in the past, Michael, and it really hasn’t solved anything: you cannot compare communism to Islam.


You opt for people - well fine, I can't logically argue with your opinion as it's just that - an opinion.

As is yours.


Logically which is more perfect a Book that inspires all that read it to adhere to peace or a Book that inspires some people to commit murder in it's name?

This is under the erroneous assumption that the Qur’an inspires its adherents to commit murder in its name. If you can find such a verse, immediately notify me. Let me predict (no, I’m not a psychic): you’re going to quote Surah 9, right? Before you quote isolated verses from a Surah, please ensure me that you will read the whole Surah (not just a single or few verses), and you will study (at least to some degree) the background. What predicament did Muhammad and Islam’s followers face during the revelation? What injustices had been committed beforehand? These are just some guidelines to consider when you study the inspiration of a Surah.


Which? Assuming God can make both books: Which is more perfect? Of course you'll pick the latter, but one would think the former would be more Perfect - that is if you like the idea of peace.

Again, you are referring to the Qur’an as a book that demands the killing of disbelievers in its name. This is not so. How many times must you read [109:6] to comprehend its message and teachings?


So where do we go? back to - opt for blaming the people - they misinterpret. Well fine, I can't logically argue with an opinion as it's just that - an opinion. Funny that the Japanese guy got that EXACT SAME misinterpretation? Don't you agree.

It would certainly be funny if it weren’t so deceptive. Since your Japanese friend is seemingly clueless (perhaps in a vegetative state, from my readings), I cannot take his judgement on Islam (well, anything for that matter) with any merit. As I’ve said to you, I will say directly to your friend: educate yourself on more than a lone verse. Instead of working your way from the Surah outward, focus on the broader issues first and then work your way through the individual verses. Teach your friend about Islam first - you know, the basics (such as the five pillars). Afterwards, read the Qur’an, and before starting each Surah, briefly go over a summary on its timing and setting. Then, after you’ve made the effort to truly educate yourself on Islam in a neutral fashion, I will listen carefully to your criticisms. Until then, your friend’s view on Islam is simply an opinion, and as we all know, opinions are formed from facts. If you don’t know the facts, then there’s no basis to your opinion. Also, as a side note, your using of friends to further your argument is not very legitimate. For argument’s sake, I could create a few imaginary friends, claiming they were atheist until I gave them the Qur’an to read. As you can see, such tests are ridiculously flawed and laughable when (attempted to be) used as evidence.


We demonstrated that art and math and science slows, stagnates and eventually comes to a grinding halt under any religious theocracy. Including Xiantiy including Islam including Buddhism etc... but no no no Michael, Islam is "perfect" ergo it's the people's fault again. Or better yet, who needs some art?!?!??! CAN YOU BELIEVE THAT LAST STATEMENT??? Whio needs so art?

This truly is desperation, Michael. Mocking me, using deflated, countered arguments as if they’re original - what’s new with you? Not much, it seems. Read the flourishing of math and sciences (upon many other subjects) under the Abbasids. You are taught to believe that only secularism encourages and produces results in the different fields of knowledge, whereas religion stagnates such subjects. The reality is quite contrary to this, and one need look no further than a history book, the comments of historians, or anything else of that nature. Go and find out where our modern scientific endeavours and methods originated from, before making such unsupported, asinine comments in the foreseeable future.

Check out Injustice, Intolerance, Cruelty and Violence :

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/quran/


Anyone who has read it and understood it knows the quran is an EVIL book as these literally HUNDREDS of verses from it will prove.

Islam (which means "surrender") demands total control of it's believers on all matters. It has nothing to do with democracy or freedom and were it not a religion, islam would be roundly condemned by all right thinking people and the quran burnt as a book openly promoting evil.

Besides, using this dull logic, I could simply reverse the situation upon you and your lack of belief: why does atheism have very little appeal worldwide? Considering only a minute (being generous) percent of the human population would ascribe themselves as atheists, what is it about a lack of belief that is so repulsive to the overwhelming majority of mankind? Ask yourself why, Michael.Great question. I suppose until we nail down the DNA sequence we can just agree that Religion offered a survival benefit to populations of humans that practiced.

I'd never say total atheism is suited for most of humanity. That said I know a lot of Japanese that are atheists and a lot of Chinese as well as many Europeans. Of course I know ex-Muslims that are atheist too.

I think that the lack of beleif is repulsive because people don't like the idea of dieing AND that being the complete and utter end of their consciousness. I don't blame them - I don't like the idea one bit either! I'd be more than happy to have more life, but alas that's simply not the case.

Well, it’s a shame Toshi was only given a few isolated verses of a single Surah with no background information or contextual understanding. Perhaps if you enlightened Toshi on the Surah’s revelation (as in timing), along with the actual environment/setting at the time, perhaps he would change is opinion. It’s remarkable how you can shape a person’s view on such a large religion on the basis of a few singled-out verses. What you’re doing isn’t fair to Islam as a religion, nor to Toshi as a person, along with the uneducated people Toshi socializes with (and whose minds he influences).Fair enough - although I think Toshi is Atheist? I'll ask him next time. Also, I will explain that the Sura was isolated and if taken in a fuller context it wasn't really meant to be taken in such an extreme manner.

Also I need to remember to ask him about bushido.

Japanese are funny. He is definitely a Japanese guy. Really pro-Japan and Japanese history and food and culture. Which is fine. But he's always like: Japanese music, girls, food, x x x x x is sooo great. It's like Japan is Japanese's religion?!?! God it's almost as bad as Americans ;)

Michael

It would certainly be funny if it weren’t so deceptive. Since your Japanese friend is seemingly clueless (perhaps in a vegetative state, from my readings), I cannot take his judgement on Islam (well, anything for that matter) with any merit. As I’ve said to you, I will say directly to your friend: educate yourself on more than a lone verse. Instead of working your way from the Surah outward, focus on the broader issues first and then work your way through the individual verses. Teach your friend about Islam first - you know, the basics (such as the five pillars). Afterwards, read the Qur’an, and before starting each Surah, briefly go over a summary on its timing and setting. Then, after you’ve made the effort to truly educate yourself on Islam in a neutral fashion, I will listen carefully to your criticisms. Until then, your friend’s view on Islam is simply an opinion, and as we all know, opinions are formed from facts. If you don’t know the facts, then there’s no basis to your opinion. Also, as a side note, your using of friends to further your argument is not very legitimate. For argument’s sake, I could create a few imaginary friends, claiming they were atheist until I gave them the Qur’an to read. As you can see, such tests are ridiculously flawed and laughable when (attempted to be) used as evidence.I think that we can compare Communism with Islam. We can compare Communism with Buddhism if we want to. We can compare Islam and Buddhism or Chrsitianity and Feudalism.

There will be some similarity and some dissimilarities.

One thing is that Communism as an idea didn't work. Historically this is true. Also Historically true is that Islam didn't produce an egalitarian society. That is also true. We must agree to this Kadark - it's a historically fact. Perhaps in 200 years people will look back and say: Boy that Secular Republic idea was f*cked! We'll have to wait and see. As for now it has unleashed more human potential than any other system that came before it. I mean God, we went from thinking ether held stuff together to splitting the atom and traveling to the moon - in ONE generation.

Anyway.

As for the Qur'an inspiring people to commit murder - well some people are and do. They are by the Bible too - don't get me wrong. They are by atheist writings as well. My question was more of possibilities. IF God can do anything then he can make any book. IF books can be classified as Perfect then some are more so than others. IF a Qur'an can be written that is impossible to interpret to commit murder IS it better than a book than can not even be possible to commit murder. As God can make either (he can do "anything") then which is more perfect?

(note: I'm note sure if I wrote the well but I have to get going it busy around here until the end of the week)

That aside,
What do you think abou this - because really bugs me and I have brought this up before. My buddy Reza lived in Japan 10 years ago. Way pre-911, pre-Iraq gulfwarII etc... Why in Hell would some Japanese numb-nut go to a Mosque in Tokyo and in a matter of months want to go on a Jihad and kill infidels??? That's bloody crazy. Now I'm sure this wouldn't be a Wahabi cult because Reza was Shia.

Why?

I mean come on - if the shoe fits as they say.

It's hard to tell me Islam is great when my buddy's mom wouldn't shake my hand because that would be touching an infidel or whatever. It's hard to say Islam is great when we see woman covered tip to toe or sentenced to 200 lashes for being with a man.

I know these are isolated situations but they do add up and give a really bad impression.

If we look at the society as a whole it just doens't seem to be working.


Oh, and for the record, Islam has never even come close to inspiring the massive attrocities that the Europeans committed in the name of Christianity. Those guys were sick. SICK. They slaved, they killed, the murdered, they obliterated whole peoples and entire civilization and cultures vanished under they Christian onslaught.




The common ground:
I'm sure that Islam been good for many people. To this I agree. As a matter of fact I know it's a fact.

Do you agree that atheism has been good for many an ex-Muslims?

My buddy Reza seems to think it has been really great for him, he says he's much much happier atheist than as Muslim.

Well? Do you agree?
Michael

PS: Kadark you're a nice person, don't take my literary attack as a personal attack. I seriously have nothing against you or SAM or anyone. And while I don't like monotheism I don't single Islam out as any worse than Christianity :D

No clue lol, that's why I was asking. Is there a mistake in those verses?

Hi Flameguy

pls can you refer me to the link you picked this from??? that may give us a clue.

~~~~~~
cheers
zak

You mean like this?

You must kill those who worship another god. Exodus 22:20

Kill any friends or family that worship a god that is different than your own. Deuteronomy 13:6-10

Kill all the inhabitants of any city where you find people that worship differently than you. Deuteronomy 13:12-16

Kill everyone who has religious views that are different than your own. Deuteronomy 17:2-7

Kill anyone who refuses to listen to a priest. Deuteronomy 17:12-13

Kill any false prophets. Deuteronomy 18:20

All Laws given to the Jews. Not to Christians. Jesus put an end to us carrying out wrath for God.


Any city that doesn’t receive the followers of Jesus will be destroyed in a manner even more savage than that of Sodom and Gomorrah. Mark 6:11

A prophecy of the end time destruction that will be brought upon those who have rejected the Messiah Jesus in the wrath that will happen upon His return . This destruction will not be carried out by Christians.


Jude reminds us that God destroys those who don’t believe in him. Jude 5

Yes GOD does it Not Christians.


Don’t associate with non-Christians. Don’t receive them into your house or even exchange greeting with them. 2 John 1:10

This is not referring to people who have a different religion this is referring to people who bring a false Gospel, it is referring to false preachers.

2 John 1
0 If anyone comes to you and does not bring this doctrine, do not receive him into your house nor greet him; 11 for he who greets him shares in his evil deeds.



Shun those who disagree with your religious views. Romans 16:17

This is referring to people within Christianity who teach a doctrine country to the Gospel.

Romans 16
17 Now I urge you, brethren, note those who cause divisions and offenses, contrary to the doctrine which you learned, and avoid them. 18 For those who are such do not serve our Lord Jesus[d] Christ, but their own belly, and by smooth words and flattering speech deceive the hearts of the simple.




Paul, knowing that their faith would crumble if subjected to free and critical inquiry, tells his followers to avoid philosophy. Colossians 2:8

The wisdom of God is greater than the Wisdom of man and philosophy is all about the wisdom of man, So if people rely on philosophy they will be relying on wisdom that cannot save.


Whoever denies “that Jesus is the Christ” is a liar and an anti-Christ. 1 John 2:22

Absolutely correct.


Christians are “of God;” everyone else is wicked. 1 John 5:19

All those who reject the Love of the Truth are wicked. Yep.



The non-Christian is “a deceiver and an anti-Christ” 2 John 1:7

This is referring to people who claimed that Jesus came as a Spirit and did not have physical form.

2 John 1
7 For many deceivers have gone out into the world who do not confess Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist. 8 Look to yourselves, that we do not lose those things we worked for, but that we may receive a full reward.

So yes those who claim that Jesus did not come in a flesh body are deceivers and anti-christs.




Anyone who doesn’t share Paul’s beliefs has “an evil heart.” Hebrews 3:12

This verse is a verse to Christians who depart from belief. One would have to first believe and then depart from belief to be what Paul is referring to here.

Hebrews 3
12 Beware, brethren, lest there be in any of you an evil heart of unbelief in departing from the living God;

And again this verse has nothing to do with violence.



False Jews are members of “the synagogue of Satan.” Revelations 2:9, 3:9

Yep that’s true.


Everyone will have to worship Jesus -- whether they want to or not. Philippians 2:10

This is a prophecy referring to the future. Once again Christians will not be doing the forcing.


A Christian can not be accused of any wrongdoing. Romans 8:33

Romans 8
33 Who shall bring a charge against God’s elect? It is God who justifies. 34 Who is he who condemns? It is Christ who died, and furthermore is also risen, who is even at the right hand of God, who also makes intercession for us. 35 Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword?

This is not stating that at all. It is saying when we are justified by Jesus on the day of Judgement no one will be able to lay an accusation against those who God forgiven and made good.


:D

Its easy enough to selectively cut ans paste anything to prove a point.

Cut and pasting does nothing when the one cutting and pasting does not read or understand the context of what they are quoting.


All Praise The Ancient Of Days

Moderator's Note: This is a topic about translation with regard to the Koran, please keep it on that topic and avoid the temptation to turn it into a battle between mythical dogmas or it will be closed.

*lots of unnecessary explanations*

You don't have to do that Adstar. I was just making a point to Revolvr. :)

Geoff, firstly, if people followed their Abrahamic religion by-the-book, the world would be pure chaos.

And secondly, there is more chaos in the book of Genesis than the entire Koran.

Possibly so: but what I need is fair treatment among everyone. In fairness, there are parts of the OT and NT that I think should be expunged; I have no reason to conclude that the people who decided on the elements included therein were any more rightly guided I at least try to be. Similarly, there are elements of the Quran that should at least be dismissed, if not removed outright. The situations are in parallel.


If anyone wants to know the Islamic attitude to unbelievers, there is a whole sura called, believe it or not, The Unbelievers Sura 109. Look it up.

Yes. There is also another, called Sura 9.


Like it says in the Quran, the signs are all there for those who care to see.

But its interesting that people refer to verse such and such and ignore the rest that precede or follow it. e.g. Kadark gave several verses that showed that not all the people who are Jews or Christians are disbelievers, and to beware of those who have empty words on their lips and no faith in their hearts, which clearly separates religion from righteousness.

What exact verses before or after exculpate Sura 9's verses on making unbelievers to feel oppressed?


Well, this is beyond me now but I have a humble suggestion: focus on patriotism! I am FAR more patriotic than religious and would pick Syria over Islam anyday. Religion and Government......bad combo.


So...let's promote Patriotism!

Agreed. This would be a better thing.


Considering it was the Jews who broke the treaty of Hudaibiya, not at all.

Was their butchery also required? Why is God spreading His message again by war? The whole Jesus thing was a misfire?


Do you know, animals have no apparent religion. Perhaps the ones without religion are the ones going back to the trees. Ever think about that?

I know this was to Michael, but...no. :bugeye:


The last sentence is incorrectly translated

It should read, to you be your way and to me be mine.

And no everyone is not my brother father mother or sister, there are serial killers and pedophiles and torturers out there

This isn't the spirit in which Michael intends the passage, as you well know.


Why don't you look in the mirror Michael

The ones most obsessed with religion here - yourself, Geoff and (Q)- all such bastions of rationality and tolerance - but only in theory. :rolleyes:

The really rational, tolerant ones -spurious, Bells, James- you should take a few lessons from them.

Wrong. As usual. Sorry.

I prefer - no, demand - that religion get its affairs out of the persecution of its nonadherents. It's a simple concept. Those who don't want to belong to you: leave them alone. A proviso: preach to them, if you must or want. This is fine. But your right to inhibit their lives ends at their nose and their belongings. This is not presently the case in any islamic country worldwide, with marginal exceptions for Syria and Turkey. And there is an undercurrent of conservative interpretation in every one of these countries against the dhimmi, whether legal or not. Hell, the Maldives just suspended citizenship for all non-muslims. Can one even imagine the secular democracies of the West doing such a thing? How could it be possible? And yet there it is: the same kind of intolerance and disregard accorded an insect is given to non-muslims in many, many of these countries.

Can it all be laid at the feet of the West? Certainly not; it is absurd to pretend that the continuation of the ancient policies towards non-believers - safely ensconced in a literal reading of the Quran, and a liberal application of the concept therein - represents some kind of sea change that the US, or George Bush, or even George Washington, are ultimately responsible for. Yet the argument gets made - quite baselessly - again and again: "it's all your fault. You are responsible for our outrages. You are the ones to be blamed." Antisemitism rises. Hatred rises. Pogroms of the other occur. The Barbary pirates, well prior to any American diplomacy, raid American shipping on the basis that their religion permits it, even demands it, independent of other factors. Is this, too, the fault of those eternal obstinates, the unbelievers?

Something is wrong. Something needs fixing. The claims of the Golden past need to be lived up to in the present. The intolerance of other religions by islamic societies - not everywhere and not all, but pervasively and generally and frequently - needs to be admitted to; it is one thing whether one country or another exploits other nations, but this is a problem common to all international diplomacy. It is quite another whether they also persecute their own members for decisions of harmless conscience.


Al-Kafiroon means He who rejects the faith (could be atheist, agnostic or of a different faith)

In a religious book, any religious book, have you seen a similar chapter on those who reject the teachings?

"Kuffar" is an offensive term, Sam, because of the context in which it's used to justify oppression. I know you don't think anything of it, because it doesn't affect you, but it's equivalent to the "n-word", frankly. Please don't use it. Thanks.

PS: Skin, I did mention literalism in there. :D

So did you show them the sura on disbelievers (109)? I'd like their take on that. And yours as well. Lets see how objective you can be.

Also what do these two Japanese think of the Samurai and the Bushido creed?

Do the consider it a medieval backward or tribal practice?OK I talked to Toshi.

As I said to Kadark that I would, I started out by saying something along the lines of: Toshi, remember that passage I asked you to read. Well, it may have sounded extreme but really reading a couple lines out of context isn't going to give you the big picture. You'd really need to read the whole book or a large portion of it to get the fuller picture. So you shouldn't base your opinion on just those couple of paragraphs.

He agree.

Then I asked him: So what do you think of the Samurai and Bushido.

Reply:

Toshi: "Michael, why do you ask me such stupid questions. I know that I am not going to understand the conteext of the few lines you asked me to read and you are not going to understand what Bushido unless you take your own advice and stop asking stupid questions and read the whole book. So why don't you take you own advice huh?"

Michael *opens mouth*

Toshi: *interrupts me* "Huh?"

Michael *opens mouth*

Toshi: *interrupts me* "Huh?"

Michael " come on just tell me a summary"

Toshi: Just shut up and read a book! Stop asking me to do stupid reading and asking stupid questions always ...... :mad:" To ask me "What is Bushido" is like me asking "Tell me all about the West" - it's too general and a stupid question.



(note: This is the exact reason why these forums are popular :p


Anyway, so, that was kind of a waste of time. BUT, as you know it's impossible for me to "shut up" - I did try to get some information :D


Samurai were very very different depending on which era you are talking about. I have read about the unification of Japan and so I know a little about Nobunaga, Hideyoshi and Ieyasu. That was pre-Tokugawa and so they didn't have any sort of "Bushido" philosophy per say. For about 300 years under Tokugawa the general educational level for most Japanese was greatly lifted and it was during this time that Bushido was developed. However, what was it? Hard to say as Toshi didn't really say anything other than get a book and ask me a specific question I am not going to teach you about Bushido. But it seems Samurai are similar to knights, some good, some bad and each person developed it for themselves.


Bushido: The Soul of Japan (http://books.google.com.au/books?id=O5lG4UNq7AAC&dq=bushido+the+soul+of+japan&pg=PP1&ots=bCdR5VKQr0&sig=z16cat6R_LeJlb9fTGuRAnjASYo&prev=http://www.google.com.au/search?q=Bushido:+The+Soul+of+Japan&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&sa=X&oi=print&ct=title&cad=one-book-with-thumbnail&hl=en)

GeoffP,

Good post :)

Michael

Lastly, on post, while I may have taken Sura9 out of context and perhaps it's meaning was not fully appreciated. It did translate in Japanese as telling the reader to go out and "kill non-believers".

That was a direct translation.

To counter this with Sura109 has some problems. Sura109 starts by delineating US from Them "Say O unbelievers...".

It isn't a matter of "am I proud to be atheist" - that's totally besides the point. Why the US versus THEM attitude?

Sura109 doesn't do anything to convince me that the main message in the Qur'an is one of peace for all of humanity. Definitely not in regards to any other people who don't beleive as the author does. They are singled out as "unbelievers". "Unbeliever" is the Qur'an's nice way of saying "someone who is wrong". As if the truth is self evident to the reader and the "unbeliever" is simply and idiot and too blind and stupid to see it. Sura109 is a poor attempt at bringing humanity together. So much so that I have concluded that either the author is an idiot or that isn't the author's real intention.

Which is it? Author idiocy or duplicity?

In my mind pluralistic society has surpassed this us versus them primitive stage in social development.

Michael: Judging by your reply to my post, it seems that you're (at this point) simply saying the same things over and over again. Is atheism better suited for you and your friends? Great. Don't hesitate to pursue that path, my friend. If you know that Islam is a falsehood, then you have nothing to worry about. If you are genuinely concerned as to how Islam treats atheists and won't accept a negative answer, then perhaps you are insecure about your lack of faith. In that case, I'm not the man to talk to.


PS: Kadark you're a nice person, don't take my literary attack as a personal attack. I seriously have nothing against you or SAM or anyone. And while I don't like monotheism I don't single Islam out as any worse than Christianity

No problem. I wouldn't respond to you if I thought you were personally attacking me.

What we need Kadark is a very very specific question that can be debated. The reason why what I type is repetitive is because this is where we are stuck. While I am happy to try a different angle it's still boils to the same thing.

Anyway I think we agree with one another on many topics IF we are to take a cold hard logical look at them.

For example. here are four topics we have discussed time and again:


Do you agree with me that there is NO evidence for any Gods or Goddesses?

Do you agree with me that we do NOT know the exact day the Qur'an was written?

Do you agree with me that we do NOT know all of the names of the authors AND which parts were written down by whom in the Qur'an?

Do you agree with me that the oldest Qur'an are NOT identical to modern day Qur'an?

Oh, just out of curiosity, you do agree that atheism has been good for many ex-Muslims?


I personally know many ex-Muslims that said they never truely felt "happy" until they became atheistic towards Islam.

I answered your question. If you or your friends are pleased with atheism, then go ahead and pursue that particular path. There is no gun to your head, Michael.

If you're an atheist, you should have no worries about what the Islamic perspective is of atheists in the hereafter.

I answered your question. If you or your friends are pleased with atheism, then go ahead and pursue that particular path. There is no gun to your head, Michael.

If you're an atheist, you should have no worries about what the Islamic perspective is of atheists in the hereafter.

Perhaps he is concerned about the Islamic perspective of atheists in the now?

I answered your question. If you or your friends are pleased with atheism, then go ahead and pursue that particular path. There is no gun to your head, Michael.

If you're an atheist, you should have no worries about what the Islamic perspective is of atheists in the hereafter.Let me make sure I am getting you right.

You agree that yes, for some people, atheism is better than Islam?


Also, is you answer YES for questions 1-4.

(I'm simply trying to be clear here. That way less going in circles and less me re-stating the same question)

I think Islam is the best choice for every person. I also think that not every person will accept it, for a number of reasons. If you don't want to, then it's your choice. If you do, then that's your choice as well.

This is where I seem to think we are going into a circle.

To me it doesn't make sense to say "Islam is the best choice for every person" and set about explaining why it isn't. Obviously if by "best choice" we mean "are happy living with this ideology" then we MUST both agree that no Islam is not the best choice for everyone.

What makes more sense is to say:
Islam is the best choice for Kadark but not the best choice for everyone in the world because not every person in the world is happy to accept it - for what ever reasons.

Do you agree to this?


As I personally know ex-Muslims: Some are now Buddhist, some are now Xian and some are now atheists I'd say Islam is obviously not the best choice for some people.

Also Q 1-4 you agree to YES for each question?

To me it doesn't make sense to say "Islam is the best choice for every person" and set about explaining why it isn't. Obviously if by "best choice" we mean "are happy living with this ideology" then we MUST both agree that no Islam is not the best choice for everyone.

I seriously don't know what the problem is. Either you accept the religion, or you don't. No need to overcomplicate something so simple.


What makes more sense is to say:
Islam is the best choice for Kadark but not the best choice for everyone in the world because not every person in the world is happy to accept it - for what ever reasons.

I wouldn't say that I'm the only person happy with Islam. Add over a billion people, and we'll get somewhere.


As I personally know ex-Muslims: Some are now Buddhist, some are now Xian and some are now atheists I'd say Islam is obviously not the best choice for some people.

Good.

For.

Them.


Also Q 1-4 you agree to YES for each question?

Obviously not. What an obnoxious question. Anyway, I'm off to catch a little shuteye.

OK I talked to Toshi.

Good, his answer was as I expected. :cool:

I seriously don't know what the problem is. Either you accept the religion, or you don't. No need to overcomplicate something so simple.You are answering a different question. This one: Do all people accept Islam? Then the answer is no, not all people accept Islam.

My question was: Do you agree that Islam is the not the best choice of beleif for everyone in the world for what ever reasons.


To this you seem to be saying no.

Why?

I'm atheist but I accept that atheism isn't the best choice of beleif for all people. Probably some people would be much happier as a Muslim or Scientologist. I've definitely heard many Buddhists say Buddhism isn't the best choice for everyone. At stake here is accepting the notion that there is no one way for everyone. This is why I complained about Sura109 and both why its plain to see how both Sura109 and Sura9 are so derogatory towards "unbelievers". It's this exact sort of intolerance that causes all wars. From those that are started by atheists (like the Cultural Revolution) to those started by Catholic against the Muslims in Spain.


While you may not agree, THIS is yet one of many reasons why the Qur'an can not be written by a God OR that God is a petty pin-dick.

It's like this: What is something enlightening in the Qur'an. Well, I read it and came to the conclusion that anyone who doesn't beleive as me is wrong. "an unbeliever" OH and my God is going to make them pay Hell for not thinking like me.

Yeah... so deep man.

I don't know if one could take any more water out of such a shallow pool!

NOW do you see my point?


Also, surely you agree to this Kadark?

Michael

I think if people learned Islam from a teacher than from hate sites, a lot more people would find it agrees with them. I have known many agnostics and atheists who have converted to Islam because they were personally dissatisfied with their atheism and found, on a study of the religion, that it made sense to them.

One example, because I know he won't mind me outing him as an ex-agnostic atheist, he's a sweetheart :D
http://www.mikeghouse.net/

Obviously not. What an obnoxious question. Anyway, I'm off to catch a little shuteye.This is why I continue to ask these questions. They are so utterly straightforward yet you still seem to think there could be any other answer than YES for each question.

See here:

There is no evidence for God. This is a fact. If you disagree then provide the evidence.

We already agreed that no one knows who the nor each person who wrote the Qur'an. This is also a fact. If you disagree then provide the names and the date.

I can post script of the oldest Qur'an and where it doesn't match with modern Qur'an. Many Muslim experts study this sort of thing. If you want me to post to excepts I'd be happy to do so.

Michael

When you read it out aloud, does the oldest Quran sound any different?

I think if people learned Islam from a teacher than from hate sites, a lot more people would find it agrees with them. I have known many agnostics and atheists who have converted to Islam because they were personally dissatisfied with their atheism and found, on a study of the religion, that it made sense to them.

One example, because I know he won't mind me outing him as an ex-agnostic atheist, he's a sweetheart :D
http://www.mikeghouse.net/You know, if he is happier being Muslim than atheist then I think that's great.

It may seem like I am battling against your beleif. But really that isn't the case. I'm not out trying to convert people to atheism. But this is a debate forum and I try to do exactly that.

I wonder SAM do you think it great when a Muslim loses faith in Islam and God but gain happiness and content? Which is more important?

Michael

I remember after a long debate with DiamondHearts they asked: THEN what beleif do you think people should have for a belief?

I said anything.

I wonder SAM do you think it great when a Muslim loses faith in Islam and God but gain happiness and content? Which is more important?

Michael

I would say that person has a lot of other issues besides religion. What I do see is that such people think they should re-educate other people, ie promote their beliefs. Its funny actually.

When you read it out aloud, does the oldest Quran sound any different?That's a good question. Perhaps it does or perhaps it doesn't but, apparently, the message is different.

Would you like me to look up the reference?

I beleive it suggests there are thousands of small differences.

Would it matter?
Would it make your Qur'an any different if tomorrow Muslim scholars unearthed the oldest Qur'an in existence and it had many difference and perhaps a few extra chapters?

It seems to me one can not be better than Perfect?

Michael

I would say that person has a lot of other issues besides religion. What I do see is that such people think they should re-educate other people, ie promote their beliefs. Its funny actually.Ever hear of "On Fire for the Lord"

It goes both ways.


One ex-Muslim now atheist (that lives in the USA) told me he always felt watched and never felt comfortable in Islam after his "epiphany" he said life instantly became brighter, better and he was happier. He never looked back.

I'd say he much more stable than me :D

OH and you didn't answer my question.

Which is better in your mind - Belief in God and sadness or lacking a beleif but having personal happiness?

There are many Buddhist monks that are very happy - they lack a beleif in God.

That's a good question. Perhaps it does or perhaps it doesn't but, apparently, the message is different.

Would you like me to look up the reference?

I beleive it suggests there are thousands of small differences.

Would it matter?
Would it make your Qur'an any different if tomorrow Muslim scholars unearthed the oldest Qur'an in existence and it had many difference and perhaps a few extra chapters?

It seems to me one can not be better than Perfect?

Michael

As far as I know (and I have looked at Puins work on the Sana'a manuscript), the differences are not in meaning, just refinement in the written text. When one considers that the Kufi script was invented specifically for the Quran and during its evolution, the recitation was written down (phonetically) in other scripts, which were scripta defectiva, any such finding does not surprise me in the least.

What I do know is that the tradition of tajweed is as old as the Quran and has a continuous isnad. So I'm not worried about any earth shaking discoveries here.

OH and you didn't answer my question.

Which is better in your mind - Belief in God and sadness or lacking a beleif but having personal happiness?

There are many Buddhist monks that are very happy - they lack a beleif in God.

Since I have no desire to be a monk and some monks have also found the same happiness in skinning Banpos its an irrelevant question.

Ever hear of "On Fire for the Lord"

It goes both ways.


One ex-Muslim now atheist (that lives in the USA) told me he always felt watched and never felt comfortable in Islam after his "epiphany" he said life instantly became brighter, better and he was happier. He never looked back.

I'd say he much more stable than me :D

So basically he felt oppressed under a dictatorship and ran away to make a better life for himself. Good for him. Does he care about the people he left behind or is he happy not having any responsibilities?

I'm not saying you SAM - people, anyone.

Which is better a person who retains faith but is unhappy or a person that lacks faith but is happy?

I'm not saying you SAM - people, anyone.

Which is better a person who retains faith but is unhappy or a person that lacks faith but is happy?

Unlike you I have no desire to decide what is right for everyone else. Some people find happiness in abandoning their culture, others in abandoning their family, still others in abandoning their religion. Right or wrong, according to me, is a subjective issue in such cases. People can rationalise just about everything they want to do.

So basically he felt oppressed under a dictatorship and ran away to make a better life for himself. Good for him. Does he care about the people he left behind or is he happy not having any responsibilities?He has a wife and works hard. He's close to 45 I think. Some people in his family are pretty well off. Some of his family now live in the USA. I think any of his family could if they wanted to - his sister married an American she met working in UAE who is an oil executive. They live well. (well not him - he's a researcher like us! He's poor!) My point is his family is fine and are not any different than any other family regardless of religion.

Also, I said he is atheist in regards to God. To my surprise he's superstitious! Funny huh?

Regardless he told me he was much happier and isn't that more important??? Happiness in this one life or potential happiness AFTER being dead :bugeye:

Unlike you I have no desire to decide what is right for everyone else. Some people find happiness in abandoning their culture, others in abandoning their family, still others in abandoning their religion. Right or wrong, according to me, is a subjective issue in such cases. People can rationalise just about everything they want to do.You know, you always do this. I may be pigheaded but your ... ... .... wishy washy. No, you're ... ... .... .. . whatever - you just ... oh yeah, you are elusive.

I don't mind elusive in general conversation but in a debate it's a time waster.