Translation & Muslims

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.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

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.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

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

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

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.

 

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.

 

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

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

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

 

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.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

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.

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”.

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.

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.

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).

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.

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.

As is yours.

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.

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?

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.

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.

 

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.

 

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

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Michael

 

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

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Hi Flameguy

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

~~~~~~
cheers
zak

 

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

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.

Yes GOD does it Not Christians.

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.

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.

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.

Absolutely correct.

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

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.

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.

Yep that’s true.

This is a prophecy referring to the future. Once again Christians will not be doing the forcing.

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.

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.

 

You don't have to do that Adstar. I was just making a point to Revolvr.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

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.

Yes. There is also another, called Sura 9.

What exact verses before or after exculpate Sura 9's verses on making unbelievers to feel oppressed?

Agreed. This would be a better thing.

Was their butchery also required? Why is God spreading His message again by war? The whole Jesus thing was a misfire?

I know this was to Michael, but...no. :bugeye:

This isn't the spirit in which Michael intends the passage, as you well know.

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.

"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.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!