The Universal Declaration Of Human...
Society & Culture1 min ago
Can Islam Be Reformed?
76 Answers
Somali-born ex-Muslim writer and politician, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, who worked with murdered film director Theo van Gogh, said in an interview with Britain's Channel 4 News that Islam must be reformed to save it from extremists. //Schools and mosques must stop "taking young children, boys and girls, and filling their heads, using the Quran and the example of the Prophet Mohammed, filling their heads with hatred for this life, filling their heads with the idea of jihad, with the idea of Sharia."//
That will mean rejection of sections of the Koran and of the Prophet Mohammed’s perceived infallibility – but both are unthinkable to Muslims. What hope?
That will mean rejection of sections of the Koran and of the Prophet Mohammed’s perceived infallibility – but both are unthinkable to Muslims. What hope?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by naomi24. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
I have to agree with the posts by dieseldick and janbee.
Religious zealots will always interpret their Korans/Bibles to suit their own agenda, so if they want to inflict suffering, they will always claim ‘it’s what the Holy book tells them to do’.
Plus the fact that Muslims are brainwashed into their religion from birth, and unable to see that religion is a choice, whereas other mainstream religions do seem to appreciate that.
BigBad //Religious zealots will always interpret their Korans/Bibles to suit their own agenda, so if they want to inflict suffering, they will always claim ‘it’s what the Holy book tells them to do’. //
Well it is actually what the Koran explicitly tells them to do. Religious apologists frequently claim that violent people corrupt the great message of the religion but it is the moderates who have twisted the meanings.
Islam is raw fascism that dictates every aspect of life.
Well it is actually what the Koran explicitly tells them to do. Religious apologists frequently claim that violent people corrupt the great message of the religion but it is the moderates who have twisted the meanings.
Islam is raw fascism that dictates every aspect of life.
-- answer removed --
@dieseldick
I am completely foxed by your post of 05:40 Friday.
I googled and picked "skepticsannotatedbible.com" which has translated it thusly (I will assume all the stuff in brackets is their interpretive input)
"8:17 Ye (Muslims) slew them not, but Allah slew them. And thou (Muhammad) threwest not when thou didst throw, but Allah threw, that He might test the believers by a fair test from Him. Lo! Allah is Hearer, Knower."
Firstly, is this the one you wanted us to be looking at?
Second, what point are you trying to make?
I may already have guessed but don't want to put words into your mouth.
A pity as what I would want to say now I might have forgotten by the time I see your reply.
I am completely foxed by your post of 05:40 Friday.
I googled and picked "skepticsannotatedbible.com" which has translated it thusly (I will assume all the stuff in brackets is their interpretive input)
"8:17 Ye (Muslims) slew them not, but Allah slew them. And thou (Muhammad) threwest not when thou didst throw, but Allah threw, that He might test the believers by a fair test from Him. Lo! Allah is Hearer, Knower."
Firstly, is this the one you wanted us to be looking at?
Second, what point are you trying to make?
I may already have guessed but don't want to put words into your mouth.
A pity as what I would want to say now I might have forgotten by the time I see your reply.
sorry, the last post was the wrong verse from their so called holy book. this is interesteing.
http://
http://
Great link, DD. Thanks for posting that.
----
The ulema were uncertain which verses to codify into sharia's worldview. For instance, should they use the one that states there is no coercion in religion (2:256), or the ones that command believers to fight all non-Muslims until they either convert or at least submit to Islam (9:5, 9:29)? To solve this quandary, they developed the doctrine of abrogation – naskh, supported by Quran 2:105. This essentially states that verses "revealed" later in Muhammad's career take precedence over those revealed earlier whenever there is a discrepancy.
Why the contradiction in the first place? The standard answer has been that, because Muhammad and his community were far outnumbered by the infidels in the early years of Islam, a message of peace and co-existence was in order. However, after Muhammad migrated to Medina and grew in military strength and numbers, the militant or intolerant verses were revealed, urging Muslims to go on the offensive.
---
Maximum ten years of truce before further expansion is an interesting nugget too. Don't let anyone put all this "into historical context" of the Mecca versus Medina wars since, if that is all it was meant to mean then why did they ever expand out of Arabia? Why all the way across Africa, Spain and as far as Toulouse? Why the Ottoman Empire, the Indian subcontinent and SE Asia?
Sure, peaceful conversion means you can acquire territory without losing your own troops. It's a win:win situation but history tells us there were a lot of battles, even before the Crusades.
----
The ulema were uncertain which verses to codify into sharia's worldview. For instance, should they use the one that states there is no coercion in religion (2:256), or the ones that command believers to fight all non-Muslims until they either convert or at least submit to Islam (9:5, 9:29)? To solve this quandary, they developed the doctrine of abrogation – naskh, supported by Quran 2:105. This essentially states that verses "revealed" later in Muhammad's career take precedence over those revealed earlier whenever there is a discrepancy.
Why the contradiction in the first place? The standard answer has been that, because Muhammad and his community were far outnumbered by the infidels in the early years of Islam, a message of peace and co-existence was in order. However, after Muhammad migrated to Medina and grew in military strength and numbers, the militant or intolerant verses were revealed, urging Muslims to go on the offensive.
---
Maximum ten years of truce before further expansion is an interesting nugget too. Don't let anyone put all this "into historical context" of the Mecca versus Medina wars since, if that is all it was meant to mean then why did they ever expand out of Arabia? Why all the way across Africa, Spain and as far as Toulouse? Why the Ottoman Empire, the Indian subcontinent and SE Asia?
Sure, peaceful conversion means you can acquire territory without losing your own troops. It's a win:win situation but history tells us there were a lot of battles, even before the Crusades.
Saw a Twitter convo tonight. When taqiyya got mentioned someone challenged "which chapter and verse contains that word" and the other person floundered. (Note: I was only spectating).
I'm only posting to drop off a useful weblink.
http://
Comment #38 goes on longer than the article but contains short pieces of arabic script which can be cut/pasted into google.
If you view the transliterations beware that arbc is lik txt spk and extra letter or parts of words pop out of nowhere. Even the bits you can see are tricksters. One symbol (simple vertical line on its own) I have seen transliterated as an a, an i, and as a word-ending modifier. Arabic keyboard should be a sport; letters change shape depending on what is either side of them.
I'm only posting to drop off a useful weblink.
http://
Comment #38 goes on longer than the article but contains short pieces of arabic script which can be cut/pasted into google.
If you view the transliterations beware that arbc is lik txt spk and extra letter or parts of words pop out of nowhere. Even the bits you can see are tricksters. One symbol (simple vertical line on its own) I have seen transliterated as an a, an i, and as a word-ending modifier. Arabic keyboard should be a sport; letters change shape depending on what is either side of them.
@naomi
The "word puzzle" thread I posted in Society & Culture was, in fact, about a crucial word in Sura 9:5. I had to avoid saying so in case it put off potential answerers, so I can understand your lack of interest in it. In the past, did you say you've read the Koran, ie all of it, or only that you've studied it?
Either way, I'd value your input on that thread, which I am about add some extra information/explanation to.
The "word puzzle" thread I posted in Society & Culture was, in fact, about a crucial word in Sura 9:5. I had to avoid saying so in case it put off potential answerers, so I can understand your lack of interest in it. In the past, did you say you've read the Koran, ie all of it, or only that you've studied it?
Either way, I'd value your input on that thread, which I am about add some extra information/explanation to.
No need to speak Arabic, I just wanted someone to agree with me that back translating the English turns 'kill' into قتل (qutil) and that this word does *not* appear in the photograph of the original arabic.
However, if you write what is in that position in the sentence and run it through google translate, it cannot process it.
No prizes for guessing whovis in charge of the functioning of Google translate for Arabic.
Total control.
However, if you write what is in that position in the sentence and run it through google translate, it cannot process it.
No prizes for guessing whovis in charge of the functioning of Google translate for Arabic.
Total control.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.