The Qu'ran

Many things about the Qu'ran - which is the holy scripture of Islam - mystify me. I will comment on a few of those things here. Before I do though, a few words about language. As a forenote, I am tri-lingual and proficient in Hebrew, Arabic, and English.

The holy scripture of the three great monotheistic faiths - Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, have all been translated into secondary languages. Basically, the original scriptural languages are: Torah-Hebrew, Qu'ran-Arabic, New Testament-Greek.

Greek is a Indo-European language and transliterates into other Indo-European languages such as English fairly easily. Thus, English renditions of the NT do not diverge to any great extent from the original scripture language of Greek. I have read the New Testament in English.

Hebrew is a Semitic language. Many people today read the English language version of the Old Testament and believe they are reading Torah scripture. This is not true. For one thing, Torah and the Old Testament are not mirrored in content nor in the manner in which the content is arranged. Another huge problem is language. Hebrew is a language of root words and root stems. Thus, each and every Hebrew word in Torah was purposefully chosen because this imbues each and every word with numerous language connotations and connections. It is impossible to transliterate this facet of Hebrew into English. What happens is that any English word selected to represent a Torah word is more or less a definitive... it has one definitive meaning. However, Torah is purposefully crafted in Hebrew so that each word - via lingual roots and stems - possesses numerous language nuances. The bottom line then, is that Torah scripture can only be properly consumed and interpreted in Hebrew. I strictly read Torah in Hebrew.

The Qu'ran is written in what is known as 'classical Arabic'. Like Hebrew, Arabic is also a Semitic language which does not transliterate precisely into English. I speak the mISR (Egyptian) dialect of Arabic which contextually, is quite close to classical Arabic. Indeed, the most famous and esteemed institution of Qu'ranic study is Al-Azhar University in Cairo. I will say that much like Torah, the Qu'ran does not translate very well into English. Due to this linguistic obstacle, I strictly read the Qu'ran in Arabic.

Continued...

Islam stipulates that the Qu'ran must be written and read in Arabic. Islam also states that nothing can be added to the Qu'ran, nor can anything be omitted or changed.

These stipulations pose a challenge, since most of the worlds Muslims and clergy are not ethnically Arabic or native Arabic speakers. This is exacerbated when the Qu'ran is translated into English for the benefit of allowing English speaking non-Muslims to become familiar with the revelations of the prophet Mohammad. Since Debate Politics is an English language forum, English is then the only viable language vehicle for this thread.

Mystery One
In the religions of Judaism and Christianity, God speaks either directly to His prophets via vocalized-voice or indirectly... via silent-voice/dreams. Angels such as Gabriel also occasionally deliver the word of God via the spoken word or in person.

The Qu'ran is considered by Muslims to be the revelations of Allah to his prophet Mohammad. However, there is a problem here. As any student of the Qu'ran will testify, almost all of Allah's revelations to Mohammad are delivered piecemeal to him via the angel Jizreel (Gabriel). Why is this? Why does Allah not speak directly to His sole prophet?

Another messenger problem is that on one occasion, Satan spoke to Mohammad (the Satanic verses) and Mohammad considered these Satanic words as additional revelations from Allah. Mohammad later recanted these Satanic revelations, and Allah forgave Mohammad for being duped. The problems inherent in this episode are obvious and profound. Consider the implications.

Mystery Two
Islam holds that Jews and Christians are 'People of the Book'. Without doubt, the Qu'ran liberally borrows holy scripture from both the Torah and the New Testament. However, this borrowed scripture is disingenuously manipulated and bastardized. To make matters worse, the Qu'ran is considered by Muslims to be the correct and final revelations of God. In effect, this theological stance renders both the Jewish Torah and Christian New Testament as null and void.

It has been offered that Jews, Christians, and Muslims acknowledge and worship the same God. Via the Qu'ran, I don't see how this offering can be theologically valid. Muslims do not consider either Yahweh or the Trinity to be manifestations of Allah. The Qu'ran states that 'There shall be no compulsion in religion'. This pronouncement sounds magnanimous until one reads the fine print. Per Jews and Christians, Islam offers only three choices... conversion to Islam, subjugation under Islam (jizya tax and discriminatory living/worship conditions), or war. Those are the only valid options available. The Qu'ran commands Muslims to rest not until Allah is the sole worshiped God. This injunction is basically a theological mandate of never-ending expansion and dominance... by force if necessary. How thus can Islam be considered as a benign and peaceful religion?

Mystery Three
Jerusalem (בירושלים) has been a Jewish city and the veritable heart of Judaism since 1000 B.C. E. Yeshu (Jesus of Nazareth) was also a Jew and the religion of Christianity was birthed in the environs of the City of David. Judaism and Christianity thus possess both theological and historical ties to Jerusalem. And Islam?

Makkah and Madinah in Saudi Arabia are considered by Muslims to be the two holiest places in Islam. Muslims also view Jerusalem as a holy city and consider the Dome of the Rock shrine as the third holiest location in Islam. Since Mohammad never once visited Jerusalem, how did this usurpation come to be? The fabled 'Night Journey'. The only thing the Qu'ran has to say about the Miraj (Ascension) is this:

'Glory to (Allah) Who did take His servant for a Journey by night from the Sacred Mosque (Ka'bah) to the farthest Mosque, whose precincts We did bless, in order that We might show him some of Our Signs for He is the One Who heareth and seeith all things.' (17:1)

There is no Qu'ranic identification of the 'farthest Mosque' with any Mosque in Jerusalem, but Islamic Hadith is very clear on the identification of its location as Jerusalem. How can this be?

According to Islamic tradition, Mohammad ascended into Heaven from the Temple Mount and met the other prophets. Aisha - Mohammad's favorite wife - stipulated that Mohammad never physically left Arabia on that night. One can only conclude then, that the Night Journey was either a metaphysical event or a dream. On this 'substance' Islam claims Jerusalem? One is supposed to imagine that Mohammad ascended into Heaven from the precise location of the Jewish Temple Mount? This does not make one bit of sense. Why would this miraculous event not happen at the location of the Sacred Mosque (the Ka'bah) which was within physical walking distance of Mohammad? I can only conclude that this supposed 'Night Journey' is a blatant propaganda vehicle which enables Islam to aggrandize and claim the City of David as an integral location of the Islamic faith. For historical reference, Muslims did not conquer Jerusalem until 638 C. E.

All pertinent comments on the above are welcomed.

Just for the sake of clarity...

I realize and appreciate that there exist contradictions and circumlocutions in each of the Holy Books of the monotheistic triad. In this sense then, Islam is not exceptional. I am not an Islamophobe. I am uncomfortable with more than one Torah parshah, and I also consider certain New Testament passages as being inconsistent with the accepted norms of Jewish culture and law as they existed in Judea in the first century C. E. I have indeed remarked on some of these items in previous posts here at Debate politics.

My purpose in this thread is not to bash Islam, but rather to articulate a few of the theological and historical problems that I have with it. Granted, these are presented from a Jewish point of view and are thus not universal. That said, the views articulated here are not unique to me... nor are the questions that have been put forth. Literally, hundreds of posters here at DP have commented on and probed Islam in a similar vein.

Christian members of DP may have a different take than I on the contents of Post #2. I welcome your thoughts and considerations.

I also welcome any and all contributions by the Muslim members of DP. I am clearly befuddled by the mysteries articulated in Post #2, and would consider any interpretive assistance as a boon and benefit.

I'm no expert in any religion, let alone the major three mentioned here, but I was wondering as I read your very informative posts, not so much about the contradictions in Islam's revealed text but why hermeneutics doesn't play a part in the examination of the text whereas it's very important in examining the sacred texts of Judaism and Christianity. I wonder if the stricture to not analyse the Qu'ran (I also wonder, is that task is perhaps carried out by the Hadith?) is indicative of the authoritarian nature of Islam?

I know, I wonder a lot.

Diuretic said:

I'm no expert in any religion, let alone the major three mentioned here, but I was wondering as I read your very informative posts, not so much about the contradictions in Islam's revealed text but why hermeneutics doesn't play a part in the examination of the text whereas it's very important in examining the sacred texts of Judaism and Christianity. I wonder if the stricture to not analyse the Qu'ran (I also wonder, is that task is perhaps carried out by the Hadith?) is indicative of the authoritarian nature of Islam?

I know, I wonder a lot.

Click to expand...

Materials on Mohammad and the Qu'ran accumulated for a few hundred years. In the 800s C.E. these materials were collected and culled by two noted Islamic scholars who basically used a chain-of-evidence methodology to determine veracity. The reputed sources of incidential materials (memoirs) were Mohammad's family, his co-religionists, and Muslim jihadists.

The Qu'ran is somewhat of a bi-furcated document. The first element (the peaceful Islam) occurs before Mohammad is driven out of Makkah. The second element (the brutal Islam) transpires during Mohammad's exile in Medinah and on until his death. It is during this period that Mohammad and his Muslim jihadists conquer Arabia and threaten Byzantium and Persia.

These two elements of Islam are impossible to reconcile, which is the core of Islam's current trevails.

btw... the plural of hadith in Arabic is ahadith.

Tashah said:

Materials on Mohammad and the Qu'ran accumulated for a few hundred years. In the 800s C.E. these materials were collected and culled by two noted Islamic scholars who basically used a chain-of-evidence methodology to determine veracity. The reputed sources of incidential materials (memoirs) were Mohammad's family, his co-religionists, and Muslim jihadists.

Click to expand...

So it's been cobbled together?

Tashah said:

The Qu'ran is somewhat of a bi-furcated document. The first element (the peaceful Islam) occurs before Mohammad is driven out of Makkah. The second element (the brutal Islam) transpires during Mohammad's exile in Medinah and on until his death. It is during this period that Mohammad and his Muslim jihadists conquer Arabia and threaten Byzantium and Persia.

These two elements of Islam are impossible to reconcile, which is the core of Islam's current trevails.

btw... the plural of hadith in Arabic is ahadith.

Click to expand...

I'm glad I didn't write "the hadiths"

If the Qu'ran is bifurcated then it seems to reflect the situation the Prophet found himself in in those two major parts of his life.

Diuretic said:

So it's been cobbled together?

Click to expand...

im not sure 'cobbled' is the right term here. The amount of work that went into compiling these documents was enormous.

I'm glad I didn't write "the hadiths"

If the Qu'ran is bifurcated then it seems to reflect the situation the Prophet found himself in in those two major parts of his life.

Click to expand...

Actually i wouldn't really disagree with you here. Tashah's comment that there are 2 islams, "the peaceful Islam" and "the brutal Islam" is a huge oversimplification, but essentially that's right.

I know how it sounds to an outsider, but you have to really, really study Islamic history, from many different perspectives, to really understand what was going on. to explain a little, "the peaceful Islam" came at a time when the Muslims were being persecuted harshly, and their numbers were far too small for them to mount any kind of defense. The only possible solution for Muhammad was to leave Mecca. What the Quran says is basically common sense. If people try to kill you and you do not posess the means to fight back, run away. If, however, you can fight back, only do it when there is a legitimate threat, and even then do not be cruel or overly agressive. You should look into the rules of War the Quran presents, i.e. no destruction of property or buildings, don't kill those who surrender, don't kill the innocent, don't kill the old, the sick, or the very young, don't destroy plant life, etc etc.


Most of the verses that followers of "brutal Islam" use to back up their ideology were verses meant for a specific time. For example, the Quran says something along the lines of "and lie in wait for the 'infidels', and kill them and ambush them and take them prisoner", this was revealed at the exact time that a number of Caravans coming to Medina from other cities were spreading propaganda and lies and thus causing dissent among the Muslims, violence was neccessary. If i had time i would look up the references for you, but the verse says alot more than meets the eye.

In the same way you have to examine what was going on at the time a verse was revealed, and only then can you really understand what a verse is saying. I have offered many times before, but if you give me your address i can send you some very good literature that really helps explain the Quran using reliable sources.

Tashah said:

Mystery One
In the religions of Judaism and Christianity, God speaks either directly to His prophets via vocalized-voice or indirectly... via silent-voice/dreams. Angels such as Gabriel also occasionally deliver the word of God via the spoken word or in person.

The Qu'ran is considered by Muslims to be the revelations of Allah to his prophet Mohammad. However, there is a problem here. As any student of the Qu'ran will testify, almost all of Allah's revelations to Mohammad are delivered piecemeal to him via the angel Jizreel (Gabriel). Why is this? Why does Allah not speak directly to His sole prophet?

Another messenger problem is that on one occasion, Satan spoke to Mohammad (the Satanic verses) and Mohammad considered these Satanic words as additional revelations from Allah. Mohammad later recanted these Satanic revelations, and Allah forgave Mohammad for being duped. The problems inherent in this episode are obvious and profound. Consider the implications.

Click to expand...

Muslims believe that the Quran is the word of God himself, not the words of 'divinely inspired men'. God himself wrote it. In this case it was neccessary that a true entity be there during it's revelation, because you can't have a 'conversation' with God, it just doesnt work that way. He can tell you things, but it's not a 2 way link. Gibraeel was there to offer explanations, to repeat verses Muhammad had not fully memorized (because lets remember that he has to memorize word for word every single verse, and if the Quran had been revealed by way of a dream or vision, that clarity is not guranteed), and to comfort him. Can you imagine the burden he bore? Being a single man, whose duty is to convey the word's of God himself. Muhammad was not literate, he couldn't just write everything down. He had to memorize it. If he faltered even the slightest bit in his memorization, that could ruin the perfection of the Quran.

As for the Satanic verses, many different scholors have addressed this. It wouldn't do Islam justice for me to try and explain it. In fact, I don't completely understand it myself, ill have to ask my mentor when he has time.

Tashah said:

Mystery Two
Islam holds that Jews and Christians are 'People of the Book'. Without doubt, the Qu'ran liberally borrows holy scripture from both the Torah and the New Testament. However, this borrowed scripture is disingenuously manipulated and bastardized. To make matters worse, the Qu'ran is considered by Muslims to be the correct and final revelations of God. In effect, this theological stance renders both the Jewish Torah and Christian New Testament as null and void.

Click to expand...

first off, the New Testament is not true. The Quran does not ever say it is true. I refuse to believe that Jesus ascended to the heavens and will one day physically come to save us all. The word the Quran uses is "Injeel", which is, loosely translated, the "Gospel". The Gospel as a whole, not just the 4 that the Christian Church voted were true.

Tashah said:

It has been offered that Jews, Christians, and Muslims acknowledge and worship the same God. Via the Qu'ran, I don't see how this offering can be theologically valid. Muslims do not consider either Yahweh or the Trinity to be manifestations of Allah. The Qu'ran states that 'There shall be no compulsion in religion'. This pronouncement sounds magnanimous until one reads the fine print. Per Jews and Christians, Islam offers only three choices... conversion to Islam, subjugation under Islam (jizya tax and discriminatory living/worship conditions), or war. Those are the only valid options available. The Qu'ran commands Muslims to rest not until Allah is the sole worshiped God. This injunction is basically a theological mandate of never-ending expansion and dominance... by force if necessary. How thus can Islam be considered as a benign and peaceful religion?

Click to expand...

On this topic i will often beg to differ from my more conservative counterparts. I don't personally believe that the "Muslim empire" or the Muslim political system works. At least not the way the Muslims of the Middle Ages tried to make it work. Again, there are a great number of good explanations. PM me and ill send you some literature.

ill save a further explanation for tomorrow, or whenver iget time. good night.

"Cobbled together" wasn't a good phrase to use in the light of that information. I'll withdraw it.

I haven't but much time studying the Qu'ran , almost none really, so my take on the islamic religions are all second hand interpretations. Therefore any view I'd present would be ,at best, ignorant. However, it would seem to me that Muhammad and Joesph Smith were the two greatest con men to ever live.

Yes, I have less respect for Islam than I do for christianity. This may have something to do with my lack of familiarity, but I think it has more to do with my perception of how they treat their women and their conquer the minds of all men beliefs.

But I digress... What I was wondering was, how does shier (I'm sure I spelled that wrong) law come into play in all this? Is it mainly from the first half, second half, or maybe a separate entity?

Tripe

"Tripe"

clone19 said:

Muslims believe that the Quran is the word of God himself, not the words of 'divinely inspired men'. God himself wrote it. In this case it was neccessary that a true entity be there during it's revelation, because you can't have a 'conversation' with God, it just doesnt work that way. He can tell you things, but it's not a 2 way link. Gibraeel was there to offer explanations, to repeat verses Muhammad had not fully memorized (because lets remember that he has to memorize word for word every single verse, and if the Quran had been revealed by way of a dream or vision, that clarity is not guranteed), and to comfort him. Can you imagine the burden he bore? Being a single man, whose duty is to convey the word's of God himself. Muhammad was not literate, he couldn't just write everything down. He had to memorize it. If he faltered even the slightest bit in his memorization, that could ruin the perfection of the Quran.

Click to expand...

What a bore - THE WOMEN (al-nisa') (4)
The deity sure spent a great deal of detail on ridiculous trivialities of arab culture and civil statutes. Even a half witted fool would not presume to say it was divine inscription.

You are forbidden to marry married women except your slave-girls. This is the decree of God. Besides these, it is lawful for you to marry other women if you pay their dower, maintain chastity and do not commit indecency. If you marry them for the appointed time you must pay their dowries. There is no harm if you reach an understanding among yourselves about the dowry, God is All-knowing and All-wise. (4:24)

If any of you do not have the means to marry a chaste believing woman, marry your believing slave-girls. God knows best about your faith. You have the same faith. Marry them with the permission of their masters and if they are chaste and have avoided fornication and amorous activities, give them their just dowries. If after marriage they commit adultery, they should receive half of the punishment of a free woman who has committed the same crime. This is for those who fear falling into evil. It is better for you to have self-control. God is All-forgiving and All-merciful. (4:25)

Click to expand...

More obnoxious mythology about villainy, and outsiders, and nausea extensively written - THE TABLE (al-ma'idah) (5)

God sent down a raven which started to dig up the earth to show the killer how to bury the corpse of his brother. On seeing the raven, (Cain) said, "Woe to me! Am I less able than a raven to bury the corpse of my brother?" He became greatly remorseful. (5:31)
For this reason, We made it a law for the children of Israel that the killing of a person for reasons other than legal retaliation or for stopping corruption in the land is as great a sin as murdering all of mankind. However, to save a life would be as great a virtue as to save all of mankind. Our Messengers had come to them with clear authoritative evidence but many of them (Israelites) thereafter started doing wrong in the land. (5:32)
The only proper recompense for those who fight against God and His Messenger and try to spread evil in the land is to be killed, crucified, or either to have one of their hands and feet cut from the opposite side or to be sent into exile. These are to disgrace them in this life and they will suffer a great torment in the life hereafter. (5:33)
As for those who repent before you (the legal authorities) have control over them (by proving their guilts).

Click to expand...

Shouldn't there be a link to the quasi delusional trekkies at the bottom?

Trekkie (or Trekker) is a term used to describe a fan of all or part of the Star Trek fictional universe.[1]
"Trekkie", originally intended only to describe enthusiasts of Star Trek, has sometimes been used to refer to any obsessed fan.[2]

It has not ever been a wonder what the world would come to if trekkie enthusiasm were to convince itself that it was actually real.

Sharia law is derived from Q'uran, Hadith, Sunnah and interpretation called fiqh. There are different schools of law within sharia, and interpretations vary. Usually, sharia rulings are issued by councils of scholars. Shia and Sunni muslims follow different schools of sharia.

black wolf said:

Sharia law is derived from Q'uran, Hadith, Sunnah and interpretation called fiqh. There are different schools of law within sharia, and interpretations vary. Usually, sharia rulings are issued by councils of scholars. Shia and Sunni muslims follow different schools of sharia.

Click to expand...

so it's an interpretation of the qu'ran and not written within ,,,, like say the ten commandments?

This is a really interesting thread, and one that I don't feel like I have anything valid to contribute to, but one that fascinates me nonetheless. It has given me new topics to explore and research, and I'm doing so with the limited time I have to pursue it. This is fascinating, and I thank Tashah for her detailed posts as well as the others who question and expound upon them.

Outstanding thread, Tashah.

clone19 said:

Muslims believe that the Quran is the word of God himself, not the words of 'divinely inspired men'. God himself wrote it. In this case it was neccessary that a true entity be there during it's revelation, because you can't have a 'conversation' with God, it just doesnt work that way. He can tell you things, but it's not a 2 way link. Gibraeel was there to offer explanations, to repeat verses Muhammad had not fully memorized (because lets remember that he has to memorize word for word every single verse, and if the Quran had been revealed by way of a dream or vision, that clarity is not guranteed), and to comfort him. Can you imagine the burden he bore? Being a single man, whose duty is to convey the word's of God himself. Muhammad was not literate, he couldn't just write everything down. He had to memorize it. If he faltered even the slightest bit in his memorization, that could ruin the perfection of the Quran.

Click to expand...

I beg to differ. According to Torah, the prophet Moses had many conversations directly with Yahweh. These close-encounters caused his skin to burn and his hair to turn gray. Yahweh also spoke directly to other Jewish prophets. For the sake of clarity, Yahweh even burned his commandments onto tablets of clay.

According to the Qu'ran, Gabriel and Mohammad recited the entire Qu'ran word for word every year except in Mohammad's last year. In this last year, Gabriel and Mohammad recited it word for word twice.

Allah could not speak directly to His servant? One can only wonder if this deficiency speaks more of Mohammad... or of Allah.

clone19 said:

As for the Satanic verses, many different scholors have addressed this. It wouldn't do Islam justice for me to try and explain it. In fact, I don't completely understand it myself, ill have to ask my mentor when he has time.

Click to expand...

It seems that Mohammad was duped. This incident could have perhaps been avoided if Allah had indeed spoken with Mohammad directly.

Another problem I have is 'expediancy'. Mohammad wanted to marry his beautiful daughter-in-law, but this was forbidden by the laws and customs of Arabia at that time. His adopted son even offered to divorce his wife so Mohammad could marry her. Mohammad said no... it wouldn't look too good. Lo and behold! What happens? Allah works around the law and customs because this was Mohammad's adopted son... adopted sons don't count days Allah. Mohammad then proceeds to marry his daughter-in-law. How convenient is that?

clone19 said:

first off, the New Testament is not true. The Quran does not ever say it is true. I refuse to believe that Jesus ascended to the heavens and will one day physically come to save us all. The word the Quran uses is "Injeel", which is, loosely translated, the "Gospel". The Gospel as a whole, not just the 4 that the Christian Church voted were true.

Click to expand...

There is no getting around it. The Qu'ran recognizes Jews and Christians as 'People of the Book'. On the one hand, Muslims should respect these religious sects. On the other hand, are the three Qu'ranic options for dealing with Jews and Christians: convert them, subjugate them, or war. These two injunctions simply cannot be reconciled to the satisfaction of everyone.

clone19 said:

On this topic i will often beg to differ from my more conservative counterparts. I don't personally believe that the "Muslim empire" or the Muslim political system works. At least not the way the Muslims of the Middle Ages tried to make it work. Again, there are a great number of good explanations.

Click to expand...

It is difficult to argue that Jerusalem is an Islamic city. In Islam there exist two spheres: The House of Islam and The House of War. One is Islamic territory, and the other is non-Islamic territory. The catch, is that Islam considers any non-Islamic captured territory as being Islamic territory in perpetuity. I maintain that this stance is arbitrary and dishonest.

This is a terrific thread for people like me that are completely ignorant of Islam.

Tashah said:

I beg to differ. According to Torah, the prophet Moses had many conversations directly with Yahweh. These close-encounters caused his skin to burn and his hair to turn gray. Yahweh also spoke directly to other Jewish prophets. For the sake of clarity, Yahweh even burned his commandments onto tablets of clay.

Click to expand...

difference noted.

Tashah said:

According to the Qu'ran, Gabriel and Mohammad recited the entire Qu'ran word for word every year except in Mohammad's last year. In this last year, Gabriel and Mohammad recited it word for word twice.

Allah could not speak directly to His servant? One can only wonder if this deficiency speaks more of Mohammad... or of Allah.

Click to expand...

Like I said before, he was revealing an ENTIRE BOOK, not just a few revelations. It was neccessary to have a middle man for the sake of clarity. Please don't make me repeat myself.

Tashah said:

It seems that Mohammad was duped. This incident could have perhaps been avoided if Allah had indeed spoken with Mohammad directly.

Click to expand...

That's doubtful. My view of what happened was that Muhammad, being a human, put his own spin on the words. Allah knows all, and demanded he remove them. Thus 'the Satan' revealed these verses to him. To define Satan, i don't mean the concious entity Christians call the Devil, i am refering to the darker side of everyone. The Prophet was once asked, "Everyone has a devil inside of them, do you as well?" he replied: "Yes, only mine has become Muslim." This event means nothing more than Muhammad was human, and could make mistakes.

Tashah said:

Another problem I have is 'expediancy'. Mohammad wanted to marry his beautiful daughter-in-law, but this was forbidden by the laws and customs of Arabia at that time. His adopted son even offered to divorce his wife so Mohammad could marry her. Mohammad said no... it wouldn't look too good. Lo and behold! What happens? Allah works around the law and customs because this was Mohammad's adopted son... adopted sons don't count days Allah. Mohammad then proceeds to marry his daughter-in-law. How convenient is that?

Click to expand...

Convenience is something we often see in religion, but that doesn't make it any less true. The Spider that wove it's web around the cave that Muhammad and Abu Bakr were hiding in when they were fleeing the Meccans, Abraham not sacrificing his son because at the exact moment he rose his sword, a revelation from God told him to slaughter a goat instead, etc etc. There are countless examples of what you might call "convenience", but that doesn't take away from the truth.

Tashah said:

There is no getting around it. The Qu'ran recognizes Jews and Christians as 'People of the Book'. On the one hand, Muslims should respect these religious sects. On the other hand, are the three Qu'ranic options for dealing with Jews and Christians: convert them, subjugate them, or war. These two injunctions simply cannot be reconciled to the satisfaction of everyone.

Click to expand...

Your knowledge of the System is incomplete. What you call 'subjugation' was actually VERY lenient. The Concept of "Jizyah" is the same as an income Tax here in the States. You are losing some money, but you are recieving a number of public works, highways, government, fire fighters, cops, etc etc. Jizyah was a payment made in return for the Protection the Muslim's gave to anyone living under their rule. Let us not forget that even Muslims had to pay to live in a Muslim State, and their tax, Zakat, was much greater. So nonmuslims living under Muslim rule actually had it very well. They didn't have to worry about defending themselves, they were free to practice their religion, they had access to all the resources the Muslims provided, running water, help to the poor and medical care for the sick, they had access to roads Muslims built and defended, and they payed a MUCH smaller tax than what the Muslims had to pay. In addition to Zakat, Muslims had to participate in the military actively, something nonmuslims didn't have to do.

As per your remark that Islam was bent on global domination, that's not the case. I've explained time and again about the true meanings of those verses. I'm surprised that you, Tashah, of all people would fail to understand those verses.

Tashah said:

It is difficult to argue that Jerusalem is an Islamic city. In Islam there exist two spheres: The House of Islam and The House of War. One is Islamic territory, and the other is non-Islamic territory. The catch, is that Islam considers any non-Islamic captured territory as being Islamic territory in perpetuity. I maintain that this stance is arbitrary and dishonest.

Click to expand...

How is that any different than what the Zionists did in Israel? And i have already stated that i do not believe religion and politics should be mixed, especially a religion so delicate as Islam.

Diuretic said:

I'm no expert in any religion, let alone the major three mentioned here, but I was wondering as I read your very informative posts, not so much about the contradictions in Islam's revealed text but why hermeneutics doesn't play a part in the examination of the text whereas it's very important in examining the sacred texts of Judaism and Christianity. I wonder if the stricture to not analyse the Qu'ran (I also wonder, is that task is perhaps carried out by the Hadith?) is indicative of the authoritarian nature of Islam?

I know, I wonder a lot.

Click to expand...

If by Hermeneutics you mean studying the time of a revelation and the events happening at the time to fully understand the meaning of a verse, it plays a HUGE role in understanding Islam. I am not aware of any 'stricture' to not analyse the Quran. There is no authoritarian nature. You are free to read the Quran any way you want, provided you read the correct Quran and not some skewed version of it. You can analyse it all you want, if anyone has ever tried to stop you they clearly don't know anything.

And about shariah law: Shariah law in the mid east is horribly corrupt. It oppresses Women, and punishes with burtality, while Islam was meant to raise the status of women and is a very forgiving religion. In fact Aisha was commanding Armies centuries before Women were given rights in the West. And the only unforgivable sin in the Quran is actively worshiping something other than God. All in all, the Quran basically says your actions, though important, will not play as major a role as your intentions on the day of judgement. Heaven is promised not only to those who believe in the Quran, but any person whose heart is good and pure.

There is a story i was told as a child i would like to share. A Man had killed 99 people during the course of his life. As he neared death, he realized his faults and wished to seek the forgiveness of God. He went to a very religious man and said, "I have killed 99 people. Is there anything i can do to save myself from Hell?" The religious man replied, "No, you have strayed to far". Upon hearing this the Man killed the religious man, putting his kill count at 100. He then sought out another religious man, and asked him the same. The religious man told him to go to a certain place and beg forgiveness. On his way there, the murderer died.

Upon his death the angels conversed: one angel said he had killed too many people, while another said he was trying to seek forgiveness. They decided to judge if he went to heaven or hell by measuring how far he was from the holy place. Allah used his power to make it so the man was more than half way to the holy place, and the man who had killed 100 people entered heaven.

I believe this story is from a hadith, ill see if i can find it. The Story shows the amount of forgiveness Allah is willing to bestow, although you have to at least try to be a good person.

Caste Of Apologetics

"Caste Of Apologetics"

Claw36 said, "islam was meant to raise the status of women and is a very forgiving religion."
Can you hear it?
A creed of the double-edged sword -sworn to help or to hurt.
Dimented forked tongue serpent!!
Religion has always sworn itself to peace as long as one is complicit to its demands.
Religion is committed to death!!

THE WOMEN (al-nisa') (4)
Men are the protectors of women because of the greater preference that God has given to some of them and because they financially support them. Among virtuous women are those who are steadfast in prayer and dependable in keeping the secrets that God has protected. Admonish women who disobey (God's laws), do not sleep with them and beat them. If they obey (the laws of God), do not try to find fault in them. God is High and Supreme. (4:34)

Click to expand...

Sexist depravity.

clone19 said:

I believe this story is from a hadith, ill see if i can find it. The Story shows the amount of forgiveness Allah is willing to bestow, although you have to at least try to be a good person.

Click to expand...

It is fireside chatter along with other cultural lore.

This thread appears to be one of good nature. This topic can easily spin out of control, but the contributions thus far have been outstanding. Let's try to keep it above the bashings.

Moderator's Warning:

Monk-Eye has been banned from the thread.

Dogger807 said:

so it's an interpretation of the qu'ran and not written within ,,,, like say the ten commandments?

Click to expand...

Exactly. Muslims adhere to the Ten Commandments, and add Muhammad's revelations and several other scriptures to derive Sharia law. Sharia is a product of Muslim theology.

Re: Caste Of Apologetics

Monk-Eye said:

"Caste Of Apologetics"

Claw36 said, "islam was meant to raise the status of women and is a very forgiving religion."
Can you hear it?
A creed of the double-edged sword -sworn to help or to hurt.
Dimented forked tongue serpent!!
Religion has always sworn itself to peace as long as one is complicit to its demands.
Religion is committed to death!!

Sexist depravity.

It is fireside chatter along with other cultural lore.

Click to expand...

Every western nation in the world has admitted that women and men are not equal physically. That's what the quran is talking about. Men are supposed to defend women, and thus the women has a duty to obey her husband. The beating can only happen if your wife does something entirely wrong, and refuses to apologize for it. Even then, the first step is to talk to her, then if she still does not listen, seperate your beds, and finally if she still doesnt listen to you you are allowed to 'beat' her, but you can't touch the head, and you cant cause her any major harm. lets remember that the women has the right to leave the house any time she wants, she can leave right after the seperation of the beds and avoid getting hit at all, but if she chooses to stay and chooses to continue to cause trouble, the Quran allows force.

Re: Caste Of Apologetics

clone19 said:

Every western nation in the world has admitted that women and men are not equal physically. That's what the quran is talking about. Men are supposed to defend women, and thus the women has a duty to obey her husband. The beating can only happen if your wife does something entirely wrong, and refuses to apologize for it. Even then, the first step is to talk to her, then if she still does not listen, seperate your beds, and finally if she still doesnt listen to you you are allowed to 'beat' her, but you can't touch the head, and you cant cause her any major harm. lets remember that the women has the right to leave the house any time she wants, she can leave right after the seperation of the beds and avoid getting hit at all, but if she chooses to stay and chooses to continue to cause trouble, the Quran allows force.

Click to expand...

What you are saying is that women need protection from men who behave like animals, and men are supposed to accomplish this by behaving like animals. Thanks, but no thanks.

Tashah said:

[Mystery Two
Islam holds that Jews and Christians are 'People of the Book'. Without doubt, the Qu'ran liberally borrows holy scripture from both the Torah and the New Testament. However, this borrowed scripture is disingenuously manipulated and bastardized. To make matters worse, the Qu'ran is considered by Muslims to be the correct and final revelations of God. In effect, this theological stance renders both the Jewish Torah and Christian New Testament as null and void.

Click to expand...

This is certainly nothing unique to Islam. My fundamentalist Christian friends believe that only the Christian Bible is the correct and final revelations of God, that both the Jewish Torah and Islamic Qu'ran are null and void, and in fact their believers are all going to hell.

It has been offered that Jews, Christians, and Muslims acknowledge and worship the same God. Via the Qu'ran, I don't see how this offering can be theologically valid. Muslims do not consider either Yahweh or the Trinity to be manifestations of Allah. The Qu'ran states that 'There shall be no compulsion in religion'. This pronouncement sounds magnanimous until one reads the fine print. Per Jews and Christians, Islam offers only three choices... conversion to Islam, subjugation under Islam (jizya tax and discriminatory living/worship conditions), or war. Those are the only valid options available. The Qu'ran commands Muslims to rest not until Allah is the sole worshiped God. This injunction is basically a theological mandate of never-ending expansion and dominance... by force if necessary. How thus can Islam be considered as a benign and peaceful religion?

Click to expand...

This is a claim I've seen several folks make in different form, that the Qu'ran commands that Muslims either convert Christians/Jews or make war on them (or slay them). Yet in my (admittedly brief) review of the Qu'ran, I have not seen sections saying you must convert or slay Christians.

There are also these kinds of sections, which are ignored by those contending the Qu'ran commands Muslims to convert/slay Christians and Jews:


[2.62] Surely those who believe, and those who are Jews, and the Christians, and the Sabians, whoever believes in Allah and the Last day and does good, they shall have their reward from their Lord, and there is no fear for them, nor shall they grieve.

[5.69] Surely those who believe and those who are Jews and the Sabians and the Christians whoever believes in Allah and the last day and does good-- they shall have no fear nor shall they grieve.

[5.82] Certainly you will find the most violent of people in enmity for those who believe (to be) the Jews and those who are polytheists, and you will certainly find the nearest in friendship to those who believe (to be) those who say: We are Christians; this is because there are priests and monks among them and because they do not behave proudly.

These sections do not suggest any innate hostility towards Christians particularly.

Second, aside from the language, a large Christian sect (approximately a million, though many have fled since the US invastion) lived in Iraq for centuries, and a (smaller) community of Jews has lived in Iran for centuries. If, as you contend, the Qu'ran commands Muslims to either convert or make war/slay Christians and Jews, then we have to deduce either 1) Muslims living in Iraq and Iran do not follow the same interpretation that you contend, or 2) Muslims living in Iraq and Iran are not very religious or adhere to the dictates of the Qu'ran. My guess it is more likely the former than the latter.

In what sections of the Qu'ran does it command to either convert or make war/slay Christians and Jews? If this is a command, why has it not been followed for centuries in Iraq or Iran?