5 ms·

> I have you saying that the quran is violent, and I have hundreds of millions of muslims telling me that it's a book of peace. Why not try reading it and maki

by jnbiche 11y ago

> I have you saying that the quran is violent, and I have hundreds of millions of muslims telling me that it's a book of peace. Why not try reading it and making up your mind for yourself? I happen to share the opinion of the parent poster about the founder of Islam, but at the same time, the Qu'ran is a very interesting and in parts beautiful work of literature. Furthermore, Islam has given rise to some peaceful and open-minded groups, the Sufi tradition comes to mind (although yes, even the Sufis have suffered violent splinter groups over the centuries).

acqq 11y ago
Qu'ran is available online and searchable, search for the word "slay" for example: http://quran.com/search?q=slay http://quran.com/search?q=slay "And slay them wherever ye find them, and drive them out of the places whence they drove you out, for persecution is worse than slaughter. And fight not with them at the Inviolable Place of Worship until they first attack you there, but if they attack you (there) then slay them. Such is the reward of disbelievers." Also search "disbelievers." And on sunnah.com search "stoned."
- jnbiche 11y ago
  I'm very aware of those passages and others that reflect the religion's violent origins, having actually read the book, or most of it (have you?). If you were disagreeing with me, did you miss the part of my comment where I said I shared the parent's opinion of Muhammed (and yours as well, I presume)? I simply was encouraging someone wondering about the Quran to read it himself so he could make up his own mind, regardless of our opinions. Obviously, in the interest of fairness, similar passages about stoning/slaying can be found in the Tanakh/Old Testament. Luckily, few Christians or Jews take those passages literally today.
  - acqq 11y ago
    Yes, reading the Old Testament, the New Testament and the Quran and comparing them is really instructive. However Quran is just one of the two primary sources (the messages received by Muhammad), you'd have to read Sunnah for the deeds of Muhammad during which he received the messages (the second primary source). It's only there that you'd find the beheadings and stonings by Muhammad. Just like "the New testament" isn't just one of the gospels, but the four gospels and all the other books, including the Apocalypse of John and all the epistles. Sunnah are also searchable online.
    - jnbiche 11y ago
      > Quran is just one of the two primary sources (the messages received by Muhammad), you'd have to read Sunnah for the deeds of Muhammad during which he received the messages (the second primary source) Are you addressing this to me, in response to my comment, or to HN in general?
      - acqq 11y ago
        You said "I was encouraging someone wondering about the Quran to read it himself so he could make up his own mind," well, just reading just the Quran is not enough, as a such a reader would miss all the behadings and stonings of unbelievers by Muhammad and his soldiers that are the part of the primary sources of the religion.
        deleted 11y ago
        [deleted]
        ern 11y ago
        The only laypeople who use the Koran and Hadiths as sources for direct personal understanding of Islam are literalist Salafist/Wahhabist types including ISIS and Al-Qaeda. Islamic exegesis, which has led to the day to day fiqh that governs religious life for the vast majority of Moslems is a very complex field that has evolved over more than a 1000 years and takes years of study to master and is not as straightforward as you are portraying it. The "CTRL-F...gotcha!" approach that you seem to be advocating would be regarded as absurd not only by Moslems, but by anyone who has to deal with the interpretation of complex texts. A layperson with no knowledge of Arabic and lacking the toolkit for understanding is not going to get very far in understanding Islam using Hadiths and the Koran, and you'd be doubly disadvantaged using an English translation. An analogy would be the average American citizen, unschooled in law, being asked to derive the Miranda Warning from the Bill of Rights, or providing a reasoned opinion about the scope of the Interstate Commerce clause. Sure, it's great from a Civics perspective to read the Constitution, but if interpreting it was straightforward we'd be able to shutter the Supreme Court.
- SinomaSo 11y ago
  Seriously, you are picking and choosing. Did you check the Sure before this one?. I will help you out: [2-190]:Fight in the way of Allah those who fight you but do not transgress. Indeed. Allah does not like transgressors. [2-191]:And kill them wherever you overtake them and expel them from wherever they have expelled you, and fitnah is worse than killing. And do not fight them at al-Masjid al- Haram until they fight you there. But if they fight you, then kill them. Such is the recompense of the disbelievers. [2-192] And if they cease, then indeed, Allah is Forgiving and Merciful. [2-193] Fight them until there is no [more] fitnah and [until] worship is [acknowledged to be] for Allah . But if they cease, then there is to be no aggression except against the oppressors.
  - acqq 11y ago
    So what's better when all the four verses are quoted? Muslims are to fight and kill until "worship is for Allah" (your [2-193]). (The words "acknowledged to be" aren't actually in the original Arabic verses). Peace once everybody is a Muslim? That's why it's the "religion of peace?" How do you understand the verses? At least when "al-Masjid al-Haram" remains untranslated it can be considered to be only valid around the Great Mosque of Mecca. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masjid_al-Haram https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masjid_al-Haram But it's just where "do not fight them" is.
- ern 11y ago
  Fortunately, there are better ways of trying to figure out Islamic exegis is on this issue than randomly searching for words in the Koran: http://www.lettertobaghdadi.com http://www.lettertobaghdadi.com (via http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/isis-is-an-offence-to-islam-says-international-coalition-of-major-islamic-scholars-9756255.html http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/isis-is-... )
  - acqq 11y ago
    The list of all signatories is telling. The only one from Saudi Arabia is: Al-Sayyid Abdallah Fadaaq "Differences arising with the current Wahabi regime forced him to leave teaching at the Grand Mosque in Makkah like his ancestors, to teach privately from his home in Jeddah"
    - ern 11y ago
      The Saudis released their own letter: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/sep/17/saudi-clerics-fatwa-declares-terrorism-heinous-crime-sharia-law http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/sep/17/saudi-clerics-f...
      - acqq 11y ago
        And they definitely avoid to sign many of the claims from the other letter. And the other letter is bad enough: "21- Armed insurrection is forbidden in Islam for any reason other than clear disbelief by the ruler and not allowing people to pray." Imagine that I'm a president of, for example, Turkey, and I just say that I'm an atheist. And that the Muslims should pray in their homes and not in the university (the women weren't actually allowed to cover their head in universities in Turkey since the 1920s, as introduced by Kemal Pasha, I don't know if the current government reverted that recently). From the letter it can be concluded that the Muslims are supposed to organize armed insurrection in Turkey. "9- It is forbidden in Islam to declare people non-Muslim unless he (or she) openly declares disbelief." So imagine I say I'm an atheist openly. And that god doesn't exist and that Muhammad just invented what he claimed that came from god. What does the letter imply? That then I'm to face the Islamic treatment of unbelievers? Quran: 5:33 "Indeed, the penalty for those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger and strive upon earth [to cause] corruption is none but that they be killed or crucified or that their hands and feet be cut off from opposite sides or that they be exiled from the land. That is for them a disgrace in this world; and for them in the Hereafter is a great punishment," In reality, Allah really doesn't exist. Otherwise he would leave us a message or two about the speed of light or the atoms. Instead he supposedly said (hey, Muhammad said so it must be true) that Muhammad's uncle will burn in hell. Now that's really important for humanity. No joke. (the sound of some ears closing singing I can't hear you) I have news for you possible martyrs: if you go around and get killed, you'll just die. No 72 virgins, no heaven. Try to be nice to the people around you instead, this is the only life you and others have. And you believers, that simple fact is the basic source of the existence of morality, not your religion. Now imagine I've said all this publicly. There's chance I'd end up like Theo van Gogh. That's why a lot of people are scared to say it. But it's so simple and it's true. I understand that people find their religion part of their identity. We all have to learn how to respect and recognize everybody's identity but to leave the 3000, 2000 and 1300 years old superstitions behind.

by jnbiche 11y ago

acqq 11y ago

Qu'ran is available online and searchable, search for the word "slay" for example: http://quran.com/search?q=slay http://quran.com/search?q=slay "And slay them wherever ye find them, and drive them out of the places whence they drove you out, for persecution is worse than slaughter. And fight not with them at the Inviolable Place of Worship until they first attack you there, but if they attack you (there) then slay them. Such is the reward of disbelievers." Also search "disbelievers." And on sunnah.com search "stoned."

jnbiche 11y ago
I'm very aware of those passages and others that reflect the religion's violent origins, having actually read the book, or most of it (have you?). If you were disagreeing with me, did you miss the part of my comment where I said I shared the parent's opinion of Muhammed (and yours as well, I presume)? I simply was encouraging someone wondering about the Quran to read it himself so he could make up his own mind, regardless of our opinions. Obviously, in the interest of fairness, similar passages about stoning/slaying can be found in the Tanakh/Old Testament. Luckily, few Christians or Jews take those passages literally today.
- acqq 11y ago
  Yes, reading the Old Testament, the New Testament and the Quran and comparing them is really instructive. However Quran is just one of the two primary sources (the messages received by Muhammad), you'd have to read Sunnah for the deeds of Muhammad during which he received the messages (the second primary source). It's only there that you'd find the beheadings and stonings by Muhammad. Just like "the New testament" isn't just one of the gospels, but the four gospels and all the other books, including the Apocalypse of John and all the epistles. Sunnah are also searchable online.
  - jnbiche 11y ago
    > Quran is just one of the two primary sources (the messages received by Muhammad), you'd have to read Sunnah for the deeds of Muhammad during which he received the messages (the second primary source) Are you addressing this to me, in response to my comment, or to HN in general?
    - acqq 11y ago
      You said "I was encouraging someone wondering about the Quran to read it himself so he could make up his own mind," well, just reading just the Quran is not enough, as a such a reader would miss all the behadings and stonings of unbelievers by Muhammad and his soldiers that are the part of the primary sources of the religion.
      - deleted 11y ago
        [deleted]
      - ern 11y ago
        The only laypeople who use the Koran and Hadiths as sources for direct personal understanding of Islam are literalist Salafist/Wahhabist types including ISIS and Al-Qaeda. Islamic exegesis, which has led to the day to day fiqh that governs religious life for the vast majority of Moslems is a very complex field that has evolved over more than a 1000 years and takes years of study to master and is not as straightforward as you are portraying it. The "CTRL-F...gotcha!" approach that you seem to be advocating would be regarded as absurd not only by Moslems, but by anyone who has to deal with the interpretation of complex texts. A layperson with no knowledge of Arabic and lacking the toolkit for understanding is not going to get very far in understanding Islam using Hadiths and the Koran, and you'd be doubly disadvantaged using an English translation. An analogy would be the average American citizen, unschooled in law, being asked to derive the Miranda Warning from the Bill of Rights, or providing a reasoned opinion about the scope of the Interstate Commerce clause. Sure, it's great from a Civics perspective to read the Constitution, but if interpreting it was straightforward we'd be able to shutter the Supreme Court.
SinomaSo 11y ago
Seriously, you are picking and choosing. Did you check the Sure before this one?. I will help you out: [2-190]:Fight in the way of Allah those who fight you but do not transgress. Indeed. Allah does not like transgressors. [2-191]:And kill them wherever you overtake them and expel them from wherever they have expelled you, and fitnah is worse than killing. And do not fight them at al-Masjid al- Haram until they fight you there. But if they fight you, then kill them. Such is the recompense of the disbelievers. [2-192] And if they cease, then indeed, Allah is Forgiving and Merciful. [2-193] Fight them until there is no [more] fitnah and [until] worship is [acknowledged to be] for Allah . But if they cease, then there is to be no aggression except against the oppressors.
- acqq 11y ago
  So what's better when all the four verses are quoted? Muslims are to fight and kill until "worship is for Allah" (your [2-193]). (The words "acknowledged to be" aren't actually in the original Arabic verses). Peace once everybody is a Muslim? That's why it's the "religion of peace?" How do you understand the verses? At least when "al-Masjid al-Haram" remains untranslated it can be considered to be only valid around the Great Mosque of Mecca. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masjid_al-Haram https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masjid_al-Haram But it's just where "do not fight them" is.
ern 11y ago
Fortunately, there are better ways of trying to figure out Islamic exegis is on this issue than randomly searching for words in the Koran: http://www.lettertobaghdadi.com http://www.lettertobaghdadi.com (via http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/isis-is-an-offence-to-islam-says-international-coalition-of-major-islamic-scholars-9756255.html http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/isis-is-... )
- acqq 11y ago
  The list of all signatories is telling. The only one from Saudi Arabia is: Al-Sayyid Abdallah Fadaaq "Differences arising with the current Wahabi regime forced him to leave teaching at the Grand Mosque in Makkah like his ancestors, to teach privately from his home in Jeddah"
  - ern 11y ago
    The Saudis released their own letter: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/sep/17/saudi-clerics-fatwa-declares-terrorism-heinous-crime-sharia-law http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/sep/17/saudi-clerics-f...
    - acqq 11y ago
      And they definitely avoid to sign many of the claims from the other letter. And the other letter is bad enough: "21- Armed insurrection is forbidden in Islam for any reason other than clear disbelief by the ruler and not allowing people to pray." Imagine that I'm a president of, for example, Turkey, and I just say that I'm an atheist. And that the Muslims should pray in their homes and not in the university (the women weren't actually allowed to cover their head in universities in Turkey since the 1920s, as introduced by Kemal Pasha, I don't know if the current government reverted that recently). From the letter it can be concluded that the Muslims are supposed to organize armed insurrection in Turkey. "9- It is forbidden in Islam to declare people non-Muslim unless he (or she) openly declares disbelief." So imagine I say I'm an atheist openly. And that god doesn't exist and that Muhammad just invented what he claimed that came from god. What does the letter imply? That then I'm to face the Islamic treatment of unbelievers? Quran: 5:33 "Indeed, the penalty for those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger and strive upon earth [to cause] corruption is none but that they be killed or crucified or that their hands and feet be cut off from opposite sides or that they be exiled from the land. That is for them a disgrace in this world; and for them in the Hereafter is a great punishment," In reality, Allah really doesn't exist. Otherwise he would leave us a message or two about the speed of light or the atoms. Instead he supposedly said (hey, Muhammad said so it must be true) that Muhammad's uncle will burn in hell. Now that's really important for humanity. No joke. (the sound of some ears closing singing I can't hear you) I have news for you possible martyrs: if you go around and get killed, you'll just die. No 72 virgins, no heaven. Try to be nice to the people around you instead, this is the only life you and others have. And you believers, that simple fact is the basic source of the existence of morality, not your religion. Now imagine I've said all this publicly. There's chance I'd end up like Theo van Gogh. That's why a lot of people are scared to say it. But it's so simple and it's true. I understand that people find their religion part of their identity. We all have to learn how to respect and recognize everybody's identity but to leave the 3000, 2000 and 1300 years old superstitions behind.