Is Islam an evil religion?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Both I and FireGarden have corrected you about this. Not only is there the concept of ta'wil, the Qur'an itself flat-out states that it contains ambiguous verses, called the Mutashabihat ayat.

The fact that the Qur'an requires interpretation is the entire reason that the many tafsir published over the centuries even exist.



http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/cruelty/long.html

So all Christians are also violent and cruel, right?

You keep doing this. Why do you keep doing this?

One or two things are open to interpretation? Come on! That does not mean the Quran, as a whole is like a book of poems that you can interpret any way you want.

I just now carefully explained how you like to fine one tiny flaw and exploit it and that has nothing to do with where the mass of evidence points to.

Also, you keep bringing up christianity again and again. Why?


You keep doing this. Why do you keep doing this?

You don't make any sense.

Are you getting this stuff from an Islamic apologist? You sure sound like one.
 
quote number one is funny, every single Muslim that tried to get me to belief in his fairytalebook seems to not belief in that verse. or interpret it differently. How come? why do they even do Dawah?


Ah, I see.

So you think that someone interprets something wrongly, the text is open to interpretation?
 
You have been reading too many Muslim apologist web sites.

Actually, no. I try to avoid things posted on websites, and instead prefer to rely directly on things that have been published in dead-tree format, like tafsir and scholarly works.

This is called avoiding the main issue with petty minutia that does not have anything to do with the big picture. Explain what do these things have to do with the big picture.

By the way, if you know this, then you know what Muhammad meant when he talked about Jihad. That is more important.

I know what several important scholars of fiqh, from contemporary writers to those who lived before the Battle of Hastings, think Muhammad meant when he talked about jihad. And I tend to think they're a bit more knowledgeable and trustworthy about the topic than you or Robert Spencer are.

To be honest, i skipped over the questions about abrogation. I think you were wrong or if you were right maybe you were write on a couple of examples, but not all of them.

Of course. Your mind is made up, and you don't want to be bothered by those pesky facts.

Let me explain by an example. Liberals like to listen to right-wing pundits day after day, hour after hour because they hate what they say and they want to hear one little mistake that they can exploit. But just because someone makes a mistake, that does not mean they are completely wrong. Einstein sometimes made mistakes in his proofs. That does not mean his theory is wrong. If someone makes a mistake, that means they are human. If someone exploits that mistake to prove a point, that means they taking unfair advantage of it.

True. But when a person makes mistake after mistake after mistake, even repeating the same mistakes despite being corrected, then the chances that they're not just making errors like we all do, but instead are utterly and indisputably wrong kind of skyrocket.

It was YOU who insists that I WANT to believe that Islam is bad.

You must have an idea why or you would not make such a claim.

I am not the one who says that I believe this because I want to. You do.

So why?

I don't know. But I'm kind of hard-pressed to find any other explanation for you doing things like the above instance of you refusing to address or even look into what I said about abrogation, instead settling for your feeling of Truthiness that I simply must be wrong about what I said.

You want to believe I'm wrong.
 
Ah, I see.

So you think that someone interprets something wrongly, the text is open to interpretation?

how on earth can i know if someone interpret it wrongly?
i do not even belief in their fairytales, let alone know how many different interpretations they have?
i don't even care if the Koran claims to not be open to interpretation.
the fact is that Muslims do interpret it differently.
just recently i saw that again, when i was staring at a wonderfull Cleavage, while i enjoyed the discovery i made i noticed a golden sword hanging there.
 
another thing i often see in this city, an older woman with headscarfe and her already grown up doughter is wearing totaly sex clothes and only cover the parts they have to by law :)
 
You keep doing this. Why do you keep doing this?

One or two things are open to interpretation? Come on! That does not mean the Quran, as a whole is like a book of poems that you can interpret any way you want.

It's not "one or two things". And, as I said before, that's even before you start considering things like ta'wil and ijtihad.

I just now carefully explained how you like to fine one tiny flaw and exploit it and that has nothing to do with where the mass of evidence points to.

The problem is that you have no "mass of evidence". Hell, I've posted more terrible things that actual Islamic theologians have written regarding their belief system than you ever have.

Also, you keep bringing up christianity again and again. Why?

To highlight the rather gaping flaws in your arguments about how much of a threat Islam and Muslims are versus a Certain Other Major Abrahamic Religion.

Are you getting this stuff from an Islamic apologist? You sure sound like one.

I've mentioned every single one of my sources, all but a few of which can be purchased from Amazon. Even that bizarre Turkish Sunni fundamentalist but anti-Salafist pamphlet railing against Maududi and Qutb can be bought on Amazon.
 
Last edited:
I will post just a few. There are more. But these are enough.

From:
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/quran/cruelty/long.html

you gave point 23:
Kill disbelievers wherever you find them. If they attack you, then kill them. Such is the reward of disbelievers. (But if they desist in their unbelief, then don't kill them.) 2:191-2

If we click on the link, we get to the verse where the author,Steve Wells, asks a question:
"Slay them wherever you find them." Who is the "them" here? Disbelievers? Those that "persecute" Muslims? Soldiers and civilians? In warfare and in acts of terrorism?

He doesn't seem sure. Yet he was sure on the page you linked to. Odd that.

Even odder, is that his question isn't that hard to answer. Who is "them"? I would guess it is those referred to in the previous verse: "Fight in the way of Allah against those who fight against you, but begin not hostilities. Lo! Allah loveth not aggressors."

But let's pretend that couldn't possibly be the answer.

btw,
recognise that verse? It's the one I asked you to show was abrogated.
 
To be honest, i skipped over the questions about abrogation.

Did that make you feel good?

Did you find it easy to fool yourself that way?
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool." - Richard Feynman
 
it is a way of making one believe that there is nothing to be done and it is just part of the human condition and just move on.

How would that make someone feel good?

For example, in Brazil people are convinced that corrouption is just part of poltiics (or they did when I was there) and so no one would lift a finger to stop it.

You think they feel good about that?
 
Antpogo, I tell you over and over that I am not here to defend another religion and yet you bring up Christianity over and over and over and over. Why is that?

Also, I stress that statistics in small numbers is a logical fallacy and yet you use that and other logical fallacy again and again and again and again.
I do not understand you.

So I figure it must be because you want to believe that Islam is ok because it makes you feel that the world is ok. In fact, I find a great article on this web site that is well written and explains this very well.

Yet, somehow, I guess to save face or something, you try to throw this back at me and demand that I somehow WANT to believe that Islam is not good. When I say that that does not make sense and no one would WANT to believe that Islam is nt good, you insist that it is ME who needs to explain that. That does not make any sense. If someone says a child molestor or a rapist is not good, according to your logic, they somehow WANT to believe that a child molestor or a rapist is not good.
If someone was to say to you that your behavior and logic is messed up, would you think that person might have a point?
But wait, there is more. After avoiding my questions when I was asking what the world do you mean by saying that Christianity is also bad, you finally say, with absolute certitude, that it is because Christianity is a greater threat to me than Islam. This was news to me. So I asked you how. Again you avoid my question but finally you said it was because I should worry about getting a right wing religious politician into office. And I am the paranoid one?

You are motivated by politics. The Republicans effect you personally so talk about Islam, as a distraction to what is more important to you, bothers you and so you want to make Islam look not so bad whilst making Christianity look bad. So at every possible turn you bring up Christianity to the dismay and bewilderment of the people whom you should be trying to convince you are rational, logical, and level headed.

Explain to me if this is right or wrong. Is my view of you accurate?

But wait, there is more, I had to endure an onslaught of personal and disrespectful rants from you about how I was some idiot christian right winger. You never appologised for that. Instead I have to read the same tatics from you repeated again and again. Why do you keep insisting that the badness of chrisianity has anythig to do with what we are talking about?
 
Last edited:
You have been reading too many Muslim apologist web sites.

This is called avoiding the main issue with petty minutia that does not have anything to do with the big picture. Explain what do these things have to do with the big picture.
And where can we find this "big picture", Bill? Obviously not by reading the Quran as a whole, or by referring to the everyday actions of Muslims worldwide. No, apparently the "big picture" is available on particular web sites, which I suppose might include MEMRI or Atlas Shrugs 2000 or David Horowitz's Frontpage.

This is just a slimy way of saying "You won't see things my way."
 
How would that make someone feel good?



You think they feel good about that?

Of course, for many reasons (wait, does this have a point? I mean why are we talking about this here?) "letting go" of what pains you is great therapy. Thinking that there is nothing that can be done about the corruption in brazil, to brazilians, means the issue is done with and one can move onto other things.

Also, it fits into their narrative of life, the Brazilans feel good about the idea that life is bad because in the partiular Catholic view they have, the next world will be better. There will be a kind of pay back.
 
Why do you keep wanting to talk about me instead of the actual topics related to the overall subject at hand? You know, things like how the Qur'an is and has been interpreted so differently by various Muslim sects and subsects over the centuries, or who promotes naskh and what verses they say are abrogated (and what verses abrogate them)?

You know, things that you yourself started talking about, and then ran away from at top speed as soon as I showed you what actual faqih say about them.
 
And where can we find this "big picture", Bill? Obviously not by reading the Quran as a whole, or by referring to the everyday actions of Muslims worldwide. No, apparently the "big picture" is available on particular web sites, which I suppose might include MEMRI or Atlas Shrugs 2000 or David Horowitz's Frontpage.

This is just a slimy way of saying "You won't see things my way."

Nope. I expected someone would say that. Which is why I was quoting from the Quran directly.
 
Why do you keep wanting to talk about me instead of the actual topics related to the overall subject at hand? You know, things like how the Qur'an is and has been interpreted so differently by various Muslim sects and subsects over the centuries, or who promotes naskh and what verses they say are abrogated (and what verses abrogate them)?

You know, things that you yourself started talking about, and then ran away from at top speed as soon as I showed you what actual faqih say about them.

Because we just went over this.

You are doing it again. You are repeating something I already addressed. So you are focing me to repeat myself in response to this AGAIN.


One or two things are open to interpretation? Come on! That does not mean the Quran, as a whole is like a book of poems that you can interpret any way you want.

I just now carefully explained how you like to fine one tiny flaw and exploit it and that has nothing to do with where the mass of evidence points to.

Also, you keep bringing up christianity again and again. Why?



You keep doing this. Why do you keep doing this?


You don't make any sense.


Are you getting this stuff from an Islamic apologist? You sure sound like one.
 
Last edited:
Nope. I expected someone would say that. Which is why I was quoting from the Quran directly.
I knew you did that, which is why I included the words "as a whole." And I expected you to read them. Other posters have already called you on the mistakes you've made by talking beyond your narrow knowledge of the Quran. I have nothing to add there.
 
I don't get it. Why do people bash all religions that are against simple basic human rights, women rights, and children rights, and yet somehow Islam, which is guilty of this to the extreme, is exempt and immune of criticism?

Please, I beg you, don't bring up "because christianity is also bad". Unless you secretly want to say "I think my GED levels the playing field".
 
I don't get it. Why do people bash all religions that are against simple basic human rights, women rights, and children rights, and yet somehow Islam, which is guilty of this to the extreme, is exempt and immune of criticism?

Please, I beg you, don't bring up "because christianity is also bad". Unless you secretly want to say "I think my GED levels the playing field".

Islam is not immune of criticism. very early in this thread i have agreed that Islam is a sexist religion and sharia laws are against human rights.
and whenever i see someone saying "under sharia law this would not have happened" or " sharia laws are superior" i challenge him on spot.

but you are not happy with that, you want to draw Islam in a much worse light. you claimed stuff about Islam that simply is not factuall and not an interpretation shared by the vast majority of Muslims.
 
For those interested, here's how a few actual Muslim theologians interpret 2:190-193, highlighted by FireGarden.

Maududi (the Salafist Islamist Pakistani extremist, remember):

That is, "Fight with those people who hinder you from the way of Allah; who have become your enemies because you are trying to reform the way of life in accordance with the Guidance of Allah; who are preventing you from the work of reform by force and persecution." Before this, when the Muslims were yet weak and scattered, they were commanded to propagate Islam and bear all tyrannies with fortitude. But when they had established a tiny state at Madinah they were. far the first time, allowed to go to war against those who were opposing this reformative movement with force. The battle of Badr took place after this and a series of battles started with it.

The Muslims were warned that the aim of their war should not be self-interest nor material gain nor retaliation. They should not, therefore, go to war against those who were neither opposing them nor hindering them from their work. Besides this, the Holy Prophet gave detailed instructions for keeping the war humane. He asked the Muslims to refrain from barbaric methods in warfare and from doing any kind of harm or injury to children, women, old people and the wounded. He also prohibited the dishonouring of the dead bodies of the slain, the wanton destruction of harvests, trees, animals, etc., and all other forms of cruelty, barbarism and vandalism. The Muslims were allowed to use farce only where it was absolutely indispensable and to the extent it was absolutely necessary.

"Persecution and suppression of opinion by violence, force or threat," is the exact translation of the Arabic word "fitnah," as used in this verse. The verse implies that it is a heinous offence to persecute a person or party by Harassing and oppressive treatment for holding ideas and theories opposed to those in vogue at the time, and it is abominable to inflict on people injury and punishment for adhering to and propagating those ideas and theories with a view to reforming the ways of society. Though bloodshed is an evil thing, to oppress and harass others for adhering to their own faith and principles and to force them to give these up and adopt those of the oppressors is tar worse. Therefore it is lawful and justifiable to use force against such people as a resort to brute force instead of argument.

That is. "You should create in yourselves those qualities which are the attributes of Allah in whom you believe. tie forgives even the worst offenders and criminals and shows mercy to theta. You also should try to mould yourselves after this model. Your war should not he to quench your thirst for revenge but for the cause of Allah. As long as they oppose the way of Allah and continue their light against you, you also should fight against them, but no sooner do they stop fighting and give up their hostile attitude titan you also should stop fighting.

Here the word "fitnah" has been used in a different sense from that in verse 191. The context clearly shows that here it denotes that condition of society which is not safe and free for adoption of the way of Allah. That is why the Muslims have been exhorted to continue the tight to change this state of affairs and to restore peace and freedom for the way of Allah. It should also be noted that the Arabic word din' which has been translated here into "Way"' originally means "submission" and is technically used for the way of life which is built on the sovereignty of someone whose commands and regulations are to he followed. Therefore that condition of society in which there is the rule and sovereignty of man over man and in which it is not possible for anyone to follow the Way of Allah is fitnah. The aim of war in Islam is to abolish fitnah and establish Allah's Way so as to enable people to live as servants of Allah in accordance with the Divine Law.

It does not mean that Islam incites the believers to go to war to force unbelievers at the point of sword to give up disbelief and polytheism and adopt the Way of Allah instead. War is to be waged only to make them give up fitnah. As a matter of fact, Islam allows freedom of belief to all non-Muslims. One may adopt any way of life that one chooses and may or may not worship anyone or anything. It exhorts the believers to preach and to persuade the unbelievers and the wrong doers by argument to give up their false faith and evil ways, but it does not allow the unbelievers the right to enforce on God's earth any ungodly law and make the servants of Allah the servants of some one else. In order to remove such an unjust condition, Islam allows both preaching and fighting according to the requirements of the occasion. The believers, therefore, cannot rest content unless this fitnah, political domination and legal sovereignty of unbelievers, is eradicated and freedom for the Way of Allah is secured.

From the words, "Then if they desist from it, there should be no more hostility except against those who had been guilty of cruelty and brutality," it has been deduced that when the Islamic rule replaces ungodly rule, there should be a general amnesty save for those who had been extremely cruel and tyrannous in opposing the Truth when in power. Although in this case also it behoves the believers to show forgiveness at the time of victory, yet they would be perfectly justified in punishing those who broke all limits in their blind opposition and persecution. The Holy Prophet, who was an embodiment of mercy and clemency, himself availed of this permission and sentenced to death `Uqbah bin Abi Mu'ait and Nadr bin Harith, two prisoners of war taken in the battle of Badr: Moreover, although a general amnesty was proclaimed after the conquest of Makkah, seventeen persons who were the worst offenders against Islam were made an exception and four of these were sentenced to death.

Muhammad Asad, drafter of Pakistan's first Constitution and the first Director of Pakistan's Department of Islamic Reconstruction:

This and the following verses lay down unequivocally that only self-defence (in the widest sense of the word) makes war permissible for Muslims. Most of the commentators agree in that the expression lā ta‘tadū signifies, in this context, “do not commit aggression”; while by al-mu‘tadīn “those who commit aggression” are meant. The defensive character of a fight “in God’s cause” – that is, in the cause of the ethical principles ordained by God – is, moreover, self-evident in the reference to “those who wage war against you,” and has been still further clarified in 22:39 – “permission [to fight] is given to those against whom war is being wrongfully waged” – which, according to all available Traditions, constitutes the earliest (and therefore fundamental) Qur’anic reference to the question of jihād, or holy war (see Tabarī and Ibn Kathīr in their commentaries on 22:39). That this early, fundamental principle of self-defence as the only possible justification of war has been maintained throughout the Qur’ān is evident from 60:8, as well as from the concluding sentence of 4:91, both of which belong to a later period than the above verse.

* v.191 : In view of the preceding ordinance, the injunction “slay them wherever you may come upon them” is valid only within the context of hostilities already in progress (Rāzī), on the understanding that “those who wage war against you” are the aggressors or oppressors (a war of liberation being a war “in God’s cause”). The translation, in this context, of fitnah as “oppression” is justified by the application of this term to any affliction which may cause man to go astray and to lose his faith in spiritual values (cf. Lisān al-‘Arab).
* This reference to warfare in the vicinity of Mecca is due to the fact that at the time of the revelation of this verse the Holy City was still in the possession of the pagan Quraysh, who were hostile to the Muslims. However – as is always the case with historical references in the Qur’ān – the above injunction has a general import, and is valid for all times and circumstances.

* v.193 : Lit., “and religion belongs to God [alone]” – i.e., until God can be worshipped without fear of persecution, and none is compelled to bow down in awe before another human being. (See also 22:40.) The term dīn is in this context more suitably translated as “worship” inasmuch as it comprises here both the doctrinal and the moral aspects of religion: that is to say, man’s faith as well as the obligations arising from that faith.

Abdullah Yusuf Ali, whose translation of the Qur'an into English is still the most well-known and widely-used:

* v.190 : War is only permissible in self-defence, and under well-defined limits. When undertaken, it must be pushed with vigour, but not relentlessly, but only to restore peace and freedom for the worship of God. In any case strict limits must not be transgressed: women, children, old and infirm men should not be molested, nor trees and crops cut down, nor peace withheld when the enemy comes to terms.

* v.191 : This passage is illustrated by the events that happened at Hudaibiya in the sixth year of the Hijra, though it is not clear that it was revealed on that occasion. The Muslims were by this time a strong and influential community. many of them were exiles from Mecca, where the Pagans had established an intolerant autocracy, persecuting Muslims, preventing them from visiting their homes, and even keeping them out by force from performing the Pilgrimage during the universally recognised period of truce. This was intolerance, oppression, and autocracy to the last degree, and the mere readiness of the Muslims to enforce their rights as Arab citizens resulted without bloodshed in an agreement which the Muslims faithfully observed. The Pagans, however, had no scruples in breaking faith, and it is unnecessary here to go into subsequent events.
* Suppress faith: in the narrower as well as the larger sense. If they want forcibly to prevent you from exercising your sacred rites, they have declared war on your religion, and it would be cowardice to ignore the challenge or to fail in rooting out the tyranny.

* v.193 : Justice and faith. The Arabic word is Din, which is comprehensive. It implies the ideas of indebtedness, duty, obedience, judgment, justice, faith, religion, customary rites, etc. The clause means: "until there is Din for God."
* If the opposite party cease to persecute you, your hostility ends with them as a party, but it does not mean, that you become friends to oppression. Your fight is against wrong; there should be no rancour against men.

Ayatollah Sayyid Muhammad Hussein Tabataba'i, Iranian Shia scholar whose students were among the leaders of the 1979 Revolution:

The context of the verses shows that they were revealed together. The whole talk has only one aim: permission, for the first time, of fighting with the polytheists of Mecca. These verses refer to driving them out from whence they drove the believers out, to disbelief and to reprisal; they prohibit fighting with them at the Sacred Mosque unless they fight the believers in it. All these matters were connected with the polytheists of Mecca. Also, the sentence: fight in the way of Allah with those who fight with you, deserves more attention. It is not a condition, i.e., it does not mean, "fight with them if they fight with you." Nor is it a restrictive clause (as some people think) meaning, "fight with the men, and not with their women and children who are not in a position to fight with you", because nobody "fights" with those who are unable to fight back. Had it been the aim of the sentence, it would have been proper to say "do not kill them." Therefore, the words those who fight with you only refer to a fact - fight those who are presently engaged in fighting against you. And it points to the polytheists of Mecca.

The verses have the same significance as the following verses: Permission(to fight) is given to those upon whom war is made, for they have been oppressed, and most surely Allah is able to help them; those who have been expelled from their homes without a just cause except that they say, Our Lord is Allah (22:39-40). These verses also contain the initial (but unconditional) permission to fight with the fighting polytheists.

These five verses together promulgate a single law covering all its limits and details. And fight in the way of Allah is the basic law; and do not exceed the limit puts disciplinary restriction on it; And kill them wherever you find them defines the limits of pressure; and do not fight with them at the Sacred Mosque until they fight with you therein puts a restriction according to the place; and fight with them until there is no more mischief (disbelief) shows its duration; The sacred month for the sacred month, and reprisal (is lawful) in all sacred things explains that this legislation is based on the principle of retaliation in fighting and killing, it is paying them in their own coin; And spend in the way of Allah makes the believers responsible for the financial preparations for war: they must spend for their own preparation and for that of others. Therefore, it seems that all the five verses were sent down together about one subject. It is wrong to say (as some have done) that some of these verses abrogate the others; or that they were revealed separately on different occasions. In fact, the aim of all these verses is one: permission to fight against the polytheists of Mecca who were fighting the believers.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom