U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality > Islam
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 10-17-2014, 08:48 PM
 
Location: Logan Township, Minnesota
15,511 posts, read 13,274,304 times
Reputation: 7407

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Huckleberry3911948 View Post
i have heard that argument but the careful development of chapter 5 thru 8 clearly indicates malevolant intent toward jews and christians. chapter 1 thru 4 exault christ and moses, a straw dog approach to the tear down that occurs in chapters 5 thru 8.
many of the enormous inconsistencies with the assertion that islam is the religion of love and peace are just as easily dismissed as you have done here.
The Qur'an is not in chronological order. Each Surah is an independent Revelation and the order was not laid out until the last year of Muhammad(saws)'s life.

Surah 5


Quote:
Period of Revelation

The theme of this Surah indicates, and traditions support it, that it was revealed after the treaty of Hudaibiyah at the end of 6 A. H. or in the beginning of 7 A. H. That is why it deals with those problems that arose from this treaty.

The Holy Prophet with 1400 Muslims went to Makkah in Zil-Qaadah 6 A. H. to perform `Umrah, but the Quraish spurred by their enmity, prevented him from its performance, though it was utterly against all the ancient religious traditions of Arabia. After a good deal of hard and harsh negotiations, a treaty was concluded at Hudaibiyah according to which it was agreed that he could perform `Umrah the following year. That was a very appropriate occasion for teaching the Muslims the right way of performing a pilgrimage to Makkah with the true Islamic dignity, and enjoining that they should not prevent the disbelievers from performing pilgrimage to Makkah as a retaliation for their misbehavior. This was not difficult at all as many disbelievers had to pass through Muslim territory on their way to Makkah. This is why the introductory verses deal with the things connected with pilgrimage to Makkah and the same theme has been resumed in vv. 101-104. The other topics of this Surah also appear to belong to the same period.

The continuity of the subject shows that most probably the whole of the surah was revealed as a single discourse at one and the same time. It is also possible that some of its verses were revealed at a later period and inserted in this Surah at different places where they fitted in. But there appears to be not the least gap anywhere in the surah to show that it might have comprised two or more discourses.
Surah 6

Quote:
period of Revelation

According to a tradition of Ibn Abbas, the whole of the Surah was revealed at one sitting at Makkah. Asma, a daughter of Yazid and a first cousin of Hadrat Mu'az-bin Jabl, says,. "During the revelation of this Surah, the Holy Prophet was riding on a she-camel and I was holding her nose-string. The she-camel began to feel the weight so heavily that it seemed as if her bones would break under it."We also learn from other traditions that the Holy Prophet dictated the whole of the Surah the same night that it was revealed.

Its subject-matter clearly shows that it must have been revealed during the last year of the Holy Prophet's life at Makkah. The tradition of Asma, daughter of Yazid, also confirms this. As she belonged to the Ansar and embraced Islam after the migration of the Holy Prophet to Yathrab, her visit to the Holy Prophet at Makkah must have taken place during the last year of his life there. For before this, his relations with those people were not so intimate that a woman from there might have come to visit him at Makkah.

Surah 7


Quote:
Period of Revelation

A study of its contents clearly shows that the period of its revelation is about the same as that of AL-AN'AM, i. e., the last year of the Holy Prophet's life at Makkah, but it cannot be asserted with certainty which of these two was sent down earlier. Anyhow the manner of its admonition clearly indicates that it belongs to the same period. As both have the same historical background the reader should keep in view the preface to AL-AN'AM.
Surah 8

Quote:
The Period of Revelation

It was revealed in 2 A. H. after the Battle of Badr, the first battle between Islam and kufr. As it contains a detailed and comprehensive review of the Battle, it appears that most probably it was revealed at one and the same time. But it is also possible that some of the verses concerning the problems arising as a result of this Battle might have been revealed later and incorporated at the proper places to make it a continuous whole. At any rate, in the whole Surah there is nothing that might show that it is a collection of a couple of discourses, that have been patched up together.
These all came from Maududi

SOURCE
__________________
When posting as a MOD my posts will be in red

No advertising, no copyrighted material, no personal attacks


MODERATOR OF: Buddhism: Judaism: Paganism:

When in doubt read the TOS MOD LIST FAQ's
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 10-17-2014, 09:13 PM
 
116 posts, read 67,377 times
Reputation: 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheProcess View Post
My own thoughts on this:

Most of the "moderates" around just aren't capable of properly reforming the religion. You need to admit that there is something deeply wrong with Islam, before it can be genuinely reformed.

Supposed "moderates" saying that Islam is peaceful and tolerant doesn't really get us anywhere.
Why does it not get us anywhere?....One argument goes that the OT is terrible---but the Jews do not understand it the way it is written---they understand it Peacefully...and that is a good thing!!! Any religion, philosophy, spirituality, ideology...etc that is understood as promoting peace is always a good thing!

What does "reforming" mean?---The definition says "to make changes in order to improve"---So, the fact that most all Muslims understand Islam as promoting peace when it is supposed to be "evil" does in fact mean it has been "reformed"---or is "reform" only valid when it is done to the specifications of a particular perspective only---such as discarding the religion altogether and embracing atheism?.

I need to admit there is something wrong with Islam?---OK---there is something very wrong and twisted about Jima49 version of Islam. I do not believe in it. I would reject such a version of Islam....there happy now?---does this mean that how I understand Islam----as compassionate and peaceful---is now "genuinely reformed"?

One could argue that America is evil. Since its inception, it has stolen resources and denied freedoms and security to others in order for an elite few to have wealth, freedom and security. From the land of the American-Indians to the labor of African-Americans and Chinese-Americans to Systemic injustices against POC (people of color) and internationally---it has engaged in wars, proxy wars and covert operations in order to deny wealth, freedom, and security to other nations in order to secure entitlements for its own people. All of this is done under the toxic doctrines of Manifest Destiny and American Exceptionalism.

---should we therefore argue that the vast majority of peaceful/peace promoting Americans are irrelevant---that the only "good" solution is for America to cease to exist altogether? That those "moderate" Americans who insist that American values are based on equality, freedom and justice ---"don't really get us anywhere?"
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-17-2014, 09:22 PM
 
Location: southern california
55,647 posts, read 74,585,953 times
Reputation: 48140
The out of context defense is used in post 91
A thorough but lengthy post is made in the defend that the killing of Jews and Christians only pertained to a specific historic event
And yet chapter 9 section 2 has been used countless times as a call to arms for extremists
After all its the Quran
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-17-2014, 09:46 PM
 
116 posts, read 67,377 times
Reputation: 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim_a49 View Post
This is where a huge problem lies.

We have a written doctrine, anyone can read it, and when a muslim says it means something other than what they wrote, all it does is decrease the credibility of the person saying it.

The preamble to the U.S. constitution states ----
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
(The influence comes from the Magna Carta a document that protects the rights and property of the Barons (in feudal Europe) against a tryanical king.)

The concept "We the people" as with the idea "all men are created equal" in the declaration of independence---meant white male landowners. These terms have since been understood more broadly and inclusively....

Therefore, should it be argued that when Americans understand these terms as inclusive, they are less credible, less valid, and irrelevant? That the only "right" way to understand these terms are as they were intended by the original writers and "True" Americans therefore aught to strip the rights and freedoms of all other Americans except those of the white male landowners?........such an argument sounds very silly to me.......!!!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-18-2014, 12:23 PM
 
1,727 posts, read 1,082,597 times
Reputation: 531
Quote:
Originally Posted by iamsiam View Post
The preamble to the U.S. constitution states ----
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
(The influence comes from the Magna Carta a document that protects the rights and property of the Barons (in feudal Europe) against a tryanical king.)

The concept "We the people" as with the idea "all men are created equal" in the declaration of independence---meant white male landowners. These terms have since been understood more broadly and inclusively....

Therefore, should it be argued that when Americans understand these terms as inclusive, they are less credible, less valid, and irrelevant? That the only "right" way to understand these terms are as they were intended by the original writers and "True" Americans therefore aught to strip the rights and freedoms of all other Americans except those of the white male landowners?........such an argument sounds very silly to me.......!!!

Bad argument for Islam, and just a deflection.

The constitution was written for the WASP, the founders of the country, and the other groups really had very little say otherwise.

When Jefferson wrote "all men are created equal", he meant all "White men are created equal".
He was a slaveholder at the time.
He was also an atheist, or deist, but wanted a Christian type of society, just like the Norway killer, for the morals and life standards that come with it.

However this argument has nothing to do with Islam.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-18-2014, 12:28 PM
 
Location: southern california
55,647 posts, read 74,585,953 times
Reputation: 48140
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim_a49 View Post
Bad argument for Islam, and just a deflection.

The constitution was written for the WASP, the founders of the country, and the other groups really had very little say otherwise.

When Jefferson wrote "all men are created equal", he meant all "White men are created equal".
He was a slaveholder at the time.
He was also an atheist, or deist, but wanted a Christian type of society, just like the Norway killer, for the morals and life standards that come with it.

However this argument has nothing to do with Islam.
as to the constitution i must judge just like i do the quran, what has been written not what others tell me it meant. the great folly of the mideast is so very few have read the quran and others like those that post on CDF, "interpret" what the quran meant.
i dont look to the personal life of the author of a book i look to the words of the book for the truth.
if i did otherwise the words of martin luther king would go unheeded.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-18-2014, 12:30 PM
 
1,727 posts, read 1,082,597 times
Reputation: 531
Quote:
Originally Posted by Woodrow LI View Post
The Qur'an is not in chronological order. Each Surah is an independent Revelation and the order was not laid out until the last year of Muhammad(saws)'s life.

E
That is not correct, and you have nothing to back that up.

The Qur'an was arranged by compilers, not authors, for all we know they could have been illiterate.

It is arranged from longest sura to the shortest. something easily accomplished by a child.

It also had several versions, at least 5 were destroyed, some survived.

And it would be a couple hundred years to complete.

There was none during Muhammeds life, and the first writings, 60 years later, do not even show any knowledge of such. No muhammed, no Qur'an, no muslims, no Islam," just the godless pagans".
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-18-2014, 12:37 PM
 
1,727 posts, read 1,082,597 times
Reputation: 531
Quote:
Originally Posted by Huckleberry3911948 View Post
as to the constitution i must judge just like i do the quran, what has been written not what others tell me it meant. the great folly of the mideast is so very few have read the quran and others like those that post on CDF, "interpret" what the quran meant.
i dont look to the personal life of the author of a book i look to the words of the book for the truth.
if i did otherwise the words of martin luther king would go unheeded.
A pretty good conclusion to make is if it needs to be interpreted, that is a pretty good indication it did not come from any God.

The Qur'an itself is gibberish, written on a 6th grade level, goes in and out of the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd person, you never know who you are talking to, constant repetition, gives vague mention of people and events, that require the sunnah to explain.

If a cleric is speaking to an audience who has not read the sunnah, he can take any verse, and turn it into a prayer, a battle, or a tuna fish sandwich, and nobody can contest what he says.

If you give the Qur'an to people who do not use the sunnah. it makes no sense and can mean whatever they want it to mean.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-18-2014, 12:42 PM
 
Location: southern california
55,647 posts, read 74,585,953 times
Reputation: 48140
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim_a49 View Post
A pretty good conclusion to make is if it needs to be interpreted, that is a pretty good indication it did not come from any God.

The Qur'an itself is gibberish, written on a 6th grade level, goes in and out of the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd person, you never know who you are talking to, constant repetition, gives vague mention of people and events, that require the sunnah to explain.

If a cleric is speaking to an audience who has not read the sunnah, he can take any verse, and turn it into a prayer, a battle, or a tuna fish sandwich, and nobody can contest what he says.

If you give the Qur'an to people who do not use the sunnah. it makes no sense and can mean whatever they want it to mean.
as in islam so in the catholic church, the priests were "protecting" the people by not having them read the scriptures for themselves.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-18-2014, 12:48 PM
 
1,727 posts, read 1,082,597 times
Reputation: 531
Quote:
Originally Posted by Huckleberry3911948 View Post
as in islam so in the catholic church, the priests were "protecting" the people by not having them read the scriptures for themselves.
The Catholic church was, and probably still is, one of the most corrupt organizations on earth.
When they were in their glory, nobody had bibles, few could read anyway, and most was in Latin.
The first book written was in the 1400 when the Gutenberg family invented a press with moveable type.
However now days, people can all read, and go to the scriptures themselves.

Many Christians do not consider catholic to be Christian.


This argument is not valid today when all, have access to all the books.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality > Islam
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top