Zakir Naik: In Islam, 2+2=4, others =3, 5 or 6 (beheading, Europe, verses, hell)

[Khalif]

Originally Posted by Continuum

War in whatever sense is fundamentally immoral and evil and should be avoided at all costs. War in whatever sense should never be mentioned so frequently and emphasized in a positive sense in a holy texts.

War has to be mentioned if it is human aim to stop it. War was never mentioned in the Qur'an UNTIL Muslims were subjected to war by their enemies. It was then mentioned to stop the Quraish waging wars on Muslims. Before this, there was an agreement between Muslims and non-Muslims to work together in the interest of peace in Madina.

As far as your accusing me of lacking an understanding in the overall context, you need to take into account what I wrote in the other post;

You forgot easily.

I have stated many times I have done a very detail analysis of all the 6,236 verses in the Quran in the Excel Software where I can mark all verses with similar themes, topics and subjects [not words which I can do from an index or Search].
I have more than 300++ themes, topics, subjects in term of main, sub-topics, sub-sub-topics. It is still work-in-progress, there are more topics to be marked and analyze.

From the Excel Software I can pull out all the verses by sorting out the specific topic.
This is how I claim more than 55% of the 6,236 contain evil laden elements of some degree of contempt to non-Muslims.

The contempt is justified if such non-Muslims wage war on Muslims first. You ignore the fact, "if they incline to peace with you, you incline to peace with them" (4:94, 8:61, 2:224).

Instead, the rhetoric from SOME non-Muslims even then was described in 2:11 -

[2.11] And when it is said to them, Do not make mischief in the land, they say: We are but peace-makers.

Lately, did they go in Iraq to make peace or war?

I hope you will remember my points above so you do not undermine my credibility again and again merely because of your bad memory.

I do note your every point. You undermine your credibility yourself by ignoring the overall context.

One point you should note is the Quran have more verses that focus on the elements of non-Muslims than on elements re Allah, Muslim, Muhammad, Paradise, etc.

It is so because it was the non-Muslims who were waging wars on Muslims at the time. Actually, even this is not true. Not all non-Muslims were presented in the Qur'an in negative light but only those who wanted to attack Muslims.

If based on emphasis of elements, the Quran should be named 'The Contempt of Non-Muslims'. If you want to prove me wrong do a detailed analysis of the Quran yourself to justify your claim.

My claim is that the Qur'an does not forbid Muslims to respect and be kind to the non-Muslims who have not waged war on Muslims. Prove me wrong if you know enough about the Qur'an.

From the above overall analysis the impact of 60:8-9 is a mere drop of water to the OCEAN of contemptuous elements against the non-Muslims in the Quran that are loaded with all sort of terrible threats of death in the World and in Hell.

60:8-9 is overriding maxim.

The fact is I understanding the overall context of the Quran within the Islam-box from BOTH the perspective of the moderate Muslims [~80%] plus the perspective of the evil prone Muslims [~20%]. In addition I am viewing it from outside the Islam-box.
You only understand one perspective, i.e. your own bias perspective

Wrong!

You see only a part of the bigger picture; I see the full picture.

[Continuum]

Originally Posted by Khalif

War has to be mentioned if it is human aim to stop it. War was never mentioned in the Qur'an UNTIL Muslims were subjected to war by their enemies. It was then mentioned to stop the Quraish waging wars on Muslims. Before this, there was an agreement between Muslims and non-Muslims to work together in the interest of peace in Madina.

You are way off as far as religious morals are concerned.

Obviously as far as humanity is concerned, wars must be addressed in all circumstances.
But regardless of whatever the reason, the elements of war should not be incorporated in a holy text that is expected to be an immutable guide for all humanity till eternity.

As I had mentioned the wiser religions do not include leading evil laden elements and note the great emphasis of them, such a wars and other evil acts in their holy texts. They are wise because they are aware the inclusion of such evil laden elements will influence the vulnerable SOME to commit evil and violence instead of focusing on their spiritual development.

The contempt is justified if such non-Muslims wage war on Muslims first. You ignore the fact, "if they incline to peace with you, you incline to peace with them" (4:94, 8:61, 2:224).

Instead, the rhetoric from SOME non-Muslims even then was described in 2:11 -

[2.11] And when it is said to them, Do not make mischief in the land, they say: We are but peace-makers.

Lately, did they go in Iraq to make peace or war?

As I said, those who are exposed and engaged in wars must do whatever is necessary and prevent future wars.
The big mistake of the Quran is it included these war elements in the verses and this has resulted in the terrible consequences of evils and violence since 1,400 years ago.

The main purpose of a religion is its soteriological purposes and this involved very primal and sensitive & dangerous emotions. This is why religion should NEVER be mixed with politics and other matters.

I do note your every point. You undermine your credibility yourself by ignoring the overall context.

You missed my point on this.
What I stated is you have forgotten what I stated earlier, re me analyzing the 6,236 verses in details which enable me to link all relevant verses.
But you accused me of focusing on only one verse.
This is a serious [false] accusation that undermine my credibility.

It is so because it was the non-Muslims who were waging wars on Muslims at the time. Actually, even this is not true. Not all non-Muslims were presented in the Qur'an in negative light but only those who wanted to attack Muslims.

The purpose of any religious texts should focus on the spiritual development and well beings of their believers.
There is something immorally wrong when the focus is on non-believers instead.
This is why there is so much terrible evils and violence caused by the Quran [in part] in influencing SOME evil prone Muslims to commit terrible evils on the condemned non-Muslims.

In the overall context the non-Muslims [kafiroo, Jews, Christians, idolaters, etc.] are condemned like pieces of sh:t and dehumanized. So far you have only show two verses, i.e. 60:8-9 that is not the case and that is out of 3,500 verses on the negative side.

My claim is that the Qur'an does not forbid Muslims to respect and be kind to the non-Muslims who have not waged war on Muslims. Prove me wrong if you know enough about the Qur'an.

Note from the common arrangement of chapter right off Chapter 1 and 2, the non-believers are already condemned;

1:7. The Way of those on whom You have bestowed Your Grace, not (the way) of those who earned Your Anger (such as the Jews), nor of those who went astray (such as the Christians).

2:6. As for the disbelievers [kafaru, Infidels], whether thou warn them [infidels] or thou warn them not it is all one for them; they [infidels] believe not.

2:7. Allah hath sealed their [infidels'] hearing and their hearts, and on their eyes there is a covering. Theirs [infidels -kuffar] will be an awful doom.

The rest of the Quran with 3,500 ++ verses are in the direction of condemning the non-believers.

One thing new I learned from my very short exposure to Arabic is the language is imbued with emotions and some letters and words can stir very primal emotions when read especially aloud.

Note:
صِرَاطَ الَّذِينَ أَنْعَمْتَ عَلَيْهِمْ غَيْرِ الْمَغْضُوبِ عَلَيْهِمْ وَلَا الضَّالِّينَ

Some letters like the guttural and "growling" غ [gh] can stir very deep emotions and when used with negative elements like l-maghḍūbi الْمَغْضُوبِ غ ض ب it can stir the evil in the evil prone.

60:8-9 is overriding maxim.

This two verses are not supported by the majority of verses within the main context of the Quran. In context 60:8-9 are obviously conditional not absolute.

The Quran had the opportunity to adopt [or SHOULD HAVE] one higher absolute moral maxim as:
Thou Shalt not Kill. [Period! with absolutely no conditions].

But instead the Quran bent the above absolute maxim from the Torah and Injil to allow conditions and IFs which open the evil Pandora box for the evil prone Muslims to exploit the DUCK-RABBIT scenarios.

This is one serious shortcoming of the Quran and Islam.
This proved that the change was a motivation of not wiser humans, as an all powerful, knowing and moral God would never all conditions for in such a critical moral maxim.

Wrong!
You see only a part of the bigger picture; I see the full picture.

This is cheap babbling without proofs nor evident from your posts.
It is very clear from what I have posted. Note the amount of supporting knowledge from research findings which is outside the Muslim-box that I have posted. Plus note the depth I have tilled and ploughed through the Quran verses.

[Khalif]

Originally Posted by Continuum

You are way off as far as religious morals are concerned.

Religious moral does not mean doing nothing, be sitting duck, if secular lot attack you.

Originally Posted by Continuum

Obviously as far as humanity is concerned, wars must be addressed in all circumstances.

Religions are part of humanity.

Originally Posted by Continuum

But regardless of whatever the reason, the elements of war should not be incorporated in a holy text that is expected to be an immutable guide for all humanity till eternity.

It has to be included and dealt with if religious people are not to become extinct after being subjected to war.

Originally Posted by Continuum

As I had mentioned the wiser religions do not include leading evil laden elements and note the great emphasis of them, such a wars and other evil acts in their holy texts. They are wise because they are aware the inclusion of such evil laden elements will influence the vulnerable SOME to commit evil and violence instead of focusing on their spiritual development.

Religion is part of life, a way of life, for many. It is not only about spirituality but practical life on earth too. Why should practical life belong only to the secular people? Are they the only people part of humanity?

Originally Posted by Continuum

As I said, those who are exposed and engaged in wars must do whatever is necessary and prevent future wars.

And that's what they all do.

Originally Posted by Continuum

The big mistake of the Quran is it included these war elements in the verses and this has resulted in the terrible consequences of evils and violence since 1,400 years ago.

They were not included in the Qur'an until Muslims were subjected to torture and wars. Such verses were included in the Qur'an to stop wars on Muslims rather than for Muslims to initiate wars. The difference must be understood.

Originally Posted by Continuum

The main purpose of a religion is its soteriological purposes and this involved very primal and sensitive & dangerous emotions. This is why religion should NEVER be mixed with politics and other matters.

Politics and "the other matters" are not the ownership of only secular people. What makes the secular people above all the religious people that they only should have the privilege of politics and all "the other matters"?

Originally Posted by Continuum

You missed my point on this.
What I stated is you have forgotten what I stated earlier, re me analyzing the 6,236 verses in details which enable me to link all relevant verses.
But you accused me of focusing on only one verse.
This is a serious [false] accusation that undermine my credibility.

You undermine your credibility yourself by (a) contradicting yourself and (b) ignoring some verses of the Qur'an on the same issue just to present your preconceived idea.

If I order:

(1) Kill the non-Muslims

(2) Kill the non-Muslims

(3) Kill the non-Muslims

(4) kill the non-Muslims only if they wage war on you because of your religion.

Your argument is that first three times is the real order and the fourth time should be disregarded because it is ordered only once instead of 3 times. What you fail to think here is that the 4th time is the overriding maxim. The total sum is, "do not kill the non-Muslims unless they wage war on you because of your religion".

Originally Posted by Continuum

The purpose of any religious texts should focus on the spiritual development and well beings of their believers.

There will be no "well beings" of these believers if they are subjected to wars because of their religion and they in return are expected to do nothing because there is nothing in their holy text to safeguard their "well beings".

Originally Posted by Continuum

There is something immorally wrong when the focus is on non-believers instead.

Such focus was never the primary focus of the Qur'an but invitation for such focus was from the non-believers when they did not like Muslims worshipping One God rather than 360 idols in the Ka'aba.

Originally Posted by Continuum

This is why there is so much terrible evils and violence caused by the Quran [in part] in influencing SOME evil prone Muslims to commit terrible evils on the condemned non-Muslims.

The reason has been explained already. Kuffar had started the wars on Muslims rather than Muslims had initiated the wars on the kuffar. Rules of engagement are clear in the Qur'an; if they incline to peace you also should incline to peace. This is the overriding maxim in the Qur'an.

Originally Posted by Continuum

In the overall context the non-Muslims [kafiroo, Jews, Christians, idolaters, etc.] are condemned like pieces of sh:t and dehumanized.

That was in response to Muslims being condemned like pieces of s**t, dehumanized, tortured, expelled from their homes and followed 325 miles to be subjected to wars.

Originally Posted by Continuum

So far you have only show two verses, i.e. 60:8-9 that is not the case and that is out of 3,500 verses on the negative side.

Only a blind person will ignore the significance of these two verses. Had the situation been the other way round - many verses with "positive side" and these verses with the "negative side" - you would have been the first one to make these two verses your main subject against the Qur'an.

Originally Posted by Continuum

Note from the common arrangement of chapter right off Chapter 1 and 2, the non-believers are already condemned;

All those non-believers had by then condemned the believers already.

Originally Posted by Continuum

The rest of the Quran with 3,500 ++ verses are in the direction of condemning the non-believers.

Because of them condemning the believers, torturing them and expelling them from their homes. Major wars on believers in Madina followed soon afterwards.

Originally Posted by Continuum

One thing new I learned from my very short exposure to Arabic is the language is imbued with emotions and some letters and words can stir very primal emotions when read especially aloud.

Note:
صِرَاطَ الَّذِينَ أَنْعَمْتَ عَلَيْهِمْ غَيْرِ الْمَغْضُوبِ عَلَيْهِمْ وَلَا الضَّالِّينَ

That is a part of prayer (everyday prayer). Nothing wrong in praying for the mercy of Allah!

Originally Posted by Continuum

Some letters like the guttural and "growling" غ [gh] can stir very deep emotions and when used with negative elements like l-maghḍūbi الْمَغْضُوبِ غ ض ب it can stir the evil in the evil prone.

O.M.G. You are deliberately looking for something to back up your preconceived ideas! For me, "growling" غ [gh] is in humbleness and maghḍūbi الْمَغْضُوبِ غ ض ب is His wrath (punishment). Nothing to stir any emotion except humbleness.

Originally Posted by Continuum

This two verses are not supported by the majority of verses within the main context of the Quran. In context 60:8-9 are obviously conditional not absolute.

The other verses are supported by the two verses on the same issue. Therefore, all other verses are conditional and these two verses are overriding maxim. Together, they complete the overall context of the Qur'an.

Originally Posted by Continuum

The Quran had the opportunity to adopt [or SHOULD HAVE] one higher absolute moral maxim as:
Thou Shalt not Kill. [Period! with absolutely no conditions].

That would have been a lie and something inviting non-muslims to kill all Muslims. It is absolute moral maxim that a Muslim does not initiate evil. It will not be absolute moral maxim not to kill even if it means being killed. Fighting injustice is morally allowed even if "fighting" is not good.

Originally Posted by Continuum

But instead the Quran bent the above absolute maxim from the Torah and Injil to allow conditions and IFs which open the evil Pandora box for the evil prone Muslims to exploit the DUCK-RABBIT scenarios.

The maxim in the Torah and the Injeel was never meant to be absolute and it was never practiced as absolute. When such maxim was revealed in the Ten Commandments, it was implemented by the swords and 3000 were killed in one day. Even the Christianity depends on killing of an innocent man. Without the crucifixion and death of Jesus, there would be no Christianity.

Moral maxim in the Qur'an is honest and practical.

Originally Posted by Continuum

This is one serious shortcoming of the Quran and Islam.

It is the strength of the Qur'an and Islam. No flowery language and nothing is hidden. Everything is in the open, believe or don't believe.

Originally Posted by Continuum

This proved that the change was a motivation of not wiser humans, as an all powerful, knowing and moral God would never all conditions for in such a critical moral maxim.

Real God is aware that unconditional "do not kill" is practically an impossible command to adhere to. Jews have proved it and Christians have proved it so. The Qur'an has taken into account the infallibility of the human in keeping to practically impossible doctrine. Therefore, the Qur'an is honest and practical from an all-knowing God.

Originally Posted by Continuum

This is cheap babbling without proofs nor evident from your posts.
It is very clear from what I have posted. Note the amount of supporting knowledge from research findings which is outside the Muslim-box that I have posted. Plus note the depth I have tilled and ploughed through the Quran verses.

You have deliberately ignored the all important verses that did not meet your preconceived ideas. That is not studying the overall Qur'anic context but looking for the straws to help you in your ideas. This is why you take only some verses when discussing an issue and ignore the others on the same issue.

[mahasn sawresho]

[quote=Khalif;44787449]

Religious moral does not mean doing nothing, be sitting duck, if secular lot attack you.

Religions are part of humanity.

Religion must contribute to peace-building
His teachings and be encouraged to love human rights
The teachings of Islam is not peaceful
Humanity is the enemy of God
Trhabon( terrorism) by the enemy of God

Do you think that this lesson from the Koran encourages the construction of a sound man????????
It has to be included and dealt with if religious people are not to become extinct after being subjected to war.

Religion is part of life, a way of life, for many. It is not only about spirituality but practical life on earth too. Why should practical life belong only to the secular people? Are they the only people part of humanity?

Religion can not cancel mind
Because the acceptance of religion laws in Mtalvh means that man became machines march

[mahasn sawresho]

[quote=Khalif;44787449].

That is a part of prayer (everyday prayer). Nothing wrong in praying for the mercy of Allah!

This prayer is incitement to hatred
Wrath of the Jews
And misguided Christians and others
Why attack others
Islam is proclaiming hatred
In this prayer

Read the following well

We have already pointed out the fatwa number: 11233, that what is meant by: wrath: the Jews, and what is meant by: astray: Christians, and reminded us of the words of Ibn Kathir he did not know a difference in their interpretation of it, and others like Ibn Abi Hatim said, as quoted by Al-Haafiz Ibn Hajar in Fath Bari, Hafiz was quoted as Sehili he said, and he saw that the verse in the Jews: Fbaa angrily to the anger of the cow {90} on Christians: had strayed by Odiloa much {table: 77}. Narrated by Imam Ahmad in his Musnad from Adi ibn Hatim may Allah be pleased with him that the Messenger of Allah, peace be upon him, said: The wrath of the Jews, and the Christians astray.

It should be noted that label them in this description of the characterized capacities and create their morals, dip Fatwa Number: 4155, and the Jews are worse off than the Christians, al-Alusi was held in his interpretation: the spirit of meanings. Compare the two and which stated the following:

1 most of the Jews in disbelief and stubbornness and greatest in malice and corruption, so the Almighty: to find the most hostile to those who believe the Jews and Pagans {table: 82} and Christians without he said.

2 they disbelieved Npian Mohammed and Jesus them blessings and peace, and the Christians disbelieved prophet and one which our Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, and scandals and atrocities than the Christians, and particularly the reasons described Jews angry because they had become unprofitable after the flag, and the Christians corrupt ignorance They described misguided.

[mahasn sawresho]

Originally Posted by Khalif

. This divine commandment fixed a divorcee
Wi religion or ideology is survival and continuity of the force is a failed religion
God did not create us so we fight for him
God strong
Man is not used to kill his fellow man
The fighting in Islam is based on boiling the idea of jihad for God
This idea that education leads to the legality of the war for God
This thought a disaster for humanity

.

Real God is aware that unconditional "do not kill" is practically an impossible command to adhere to. Jews have proved it and Christians have proved it so. The Qur'an has taken into account the infallibility of the human in keeping to practically impossible doctrine. Therefore, the Qur'an is honest and practical from an all-knowing God[/quote]. This divine commandment fixed a divorcee
Wi religion or ideology is survival and continuity of the force is a failed religion
God did not create us so we fight for him
God strong
Man is not used to kill his fellow man
The fighting in Islam is based on boiling the idea of jihad for God
This idea that education leads to the legality of the war for God
This thought a disaster for humanity

[Continuum]

Originally Posted by Khalif

Religious moral does not mean doing nothing, be sitting duck, if secular lot attack you.

Religions are part of humanity.

It has to be included and dealt with if religious people are not to become extinct after being subjected to war.

Religion is part of life, a way of life, for many. It is not only about spirituality but practical life on earth too. Why should practical life belong only to the secular people? Are they the only people part of humanity?

Politics and "the other matters" are not the ownership of only secular people. What makes the secular people above all the religious people that they only should have the privilege of politics and all "the other matters"?

In the past all the human functions were combined and were mixed jack-of-all-trades.

Specialization is a sign of humanity's progress.
Look at all human activities, there is specialization every where as a necessary element for progress and of course with the limit there should be no specialization to the extreme but all activities must be aligned with the whole of humanity.

One good example of specialization that contributed significantly to the progress of mankind was the specialization [divorce] of Physics and thereafter Science from Philosophy. In the past, all advance knowledge [including advance religious matters, theology, spirituality] were dealt within philosophy by philosophers.

During the old days, Religion also dominated and controlled every human activity including Science, etc. As an imperative to facilitate the progress of the whole of humanity, there MUST be specialization, i.e. for religion to be specialized as an independent aspect of life while at the same time maintaining co-ordination and alignment with other aspects of life.
If we review the history of progress of humanity, one will note there is a separation of religions from the secular, e.g. the Eastern Religions did that long ago and recently Christianity and Judaism are separated from politics and other secular aspects of life.
Long ago the Chinese rely on Sun Tzu Principles of War which is separate from Taoism.

The only dogmatic religion that do not want to align with the overall progress of humanity at present is Islam [by SOME dominant Muslims]. The consequences of this negative drawback are very evident with the little progress and terrible evils/violence from a critical 'SOME' Muslims.

Religion or Islam as a Way of Life is totally an incompetent approach for the progress of mankind as a whole in the present 21st century and forward.

To enable humanity and mankind to progress as a collective whole, specialization [not absolute independence a no man is an island] is imperative.
Along this line, any war matters should be left to the politicians.

The fact that war elements were embedded in the Quran [the words of Allah], as immutable is a big mistake and hindrance for the progress of humanity as a whole.

And that's what they all do.

But the Quran influenced and inspired wars, terrible evils and violence in a critical SOME Muslims who naturally has active violent tendencies.

They were not included in the Qur'an until Muslims were subjected to torture and wars. Such verses were included in the Qur'an to stop wars on Muslims rather than for Muslims to initiate wars. The difference must be understood.

Who told you so?
We have argued this before and it was Muhammad who started it [tit-for-tat] all from his experienced of some altered states of consciousness. If Muhammad did not have such experiences and offended the Quraishi, Jews and Christians, from his preaching and insults of the religions of others, there would not have been those wars.

Regardless, the wars elements should not have been included in any holy texts at all because they can be very dangerous catalysts when spoken by a God. Wiser religions who understood this vulnerability did not include evil laden elements in their holy texts. The NT abrogated the very early evil elements in the OT. The present Jews [majority] are not dogmatic over the OT.


You undermine your credibility yourself by (a) contradicting yourself and (b) ignoring some verses of the Qur'an on the same issue just to present your preconceived idea.

If I order:

(1) Kill the non-Muslims

(2) Kill the non-Muslims

(3) Kill the non-Muslims

(4) kill the non-Muslims only if they wage war on you because of your religion.

Your argument is that first three times is the real order and the fourth time should be disregarded because it is ordered only once instead of 3 times. What you fail to think here is that the 4th time is the overriding maxim. The total sum is, "do not kill the non-Muslims unless they wage war on you because of your religion".

Btw we are not dealing with 3 or 10 verses. We are dealing with a fact of 3,500++ verses of various degrees of evil elements combining, compressing and culminating in a general ethos of contempt against the non-Muslims. Then the critical evil verses influenced, instigated and inspired SOME evil prone Muslims to commit terrible evils and violence. This is a fact.

I agree the majority of 80% good Muslims like you and others may put heavy emphasis on 60:8-9, and ignoring all the other evil laden elements.
But you cannot ignore the fact there are evil laden elements in the same immutable Quran that are also read by the 20% of evil prone Muslims who are born naturally with evil tendencies.

[Continuum]

Originally Posted by Khalif

There will be no "well beings" of these believers if they are subjected to wars because of their religion and they in return are expected to do nothing because there is nothing in their holy text to safeguard their "well beings".

Note the Crusaders went to war to protect their religion without any exhortations from the NT. They went to war to protect their religion based on basic human instinct of self-defense and aggression.

There is no need for God's advice on how to fight when attacked or under threat by enemies. It is instinctual for normal humans to defend themselves when attacked. This is natural and kindergarten stuff. If humans want to improve their fighting abilities they should come up with a specialize text on war, e.g. Sun Tzu's and not relate war elements to God.

This prove that the war elements in the Quran were from some humans and not God. Thus the Quran was authored by human[s].

Such focus was never the primary focus of the Qur'an but invitation for such focus was from the non-believers when they did not like Muslims worshipping One God rather than 360 idols in the Ka'aba.

Bulls...t, the Quraishi were familiar with the monotheism of Judaism and Christianity. I am sure the Quraishi knew the Jews and Christians do not agree with their 360 idols as well but there is no recorded animosity between them on this matter.

It is a fact 'us versus them [infidels. non-believers]' is a dominant feature of in the Quran.
This resorting to this primal 'us versus them' is very common with the very insecure and people with low self esteem and their compulsion to put others down to uplift a false superiority for themselves. You can see this every since human history and even in the present.

Only a blind person will ignore the significance of these two verses. Had the situation been the other way round - many verses with "positive side" and these verses with the "negative side" - you would have been the first one to make these two verses your main subject against the Qur'an.

I have my view in the earlier post. This is merely 2 verses amongst the haystack of 3500 verses of evil laden elements of various degrees.

All those non-believers had by then condemned the believers already.

Note the Quran is not a history book but a perfected eternal guidance for all Muslims. Such verses in the beginning are already influencing and triggering contempt [hatred] in Muslims against non-Muslims.
Not you, but SOME will be triggered to associate Who-The-Fu<k are these people that my God is angry with and are astray. A very revered leader like a God will have a lot of influence on SOME believers.

Continuum: The rest of the Quran with 3,500 ++ verses are in the direction of condemning the non-believers.
Because of them condemning the believers, torturing them and expelling them from their homes. Major wars on believers in Madina followed soon afterwards.

Your response is way off. As I said I am not talking about one event in History.
The fact is the 3,500++ evil laden verses of different degrees are in the Quran and it is a fact they influenced and inspired SOME evil prone [born naturally] to commit real terrible evils and violence since 1,400 years ago till the present.

That is a part of prayer (everyday prayer). Nothing wrong in praying for the mercy of Allah!

There is some thing terribly and morally wrong in that part of the everyday prayer which contain elements of contempt, abhorrence [hatred] against certain other people that angered Allah. Such daily repetition will definitely trigger the ugliest emotions in SOME sensitive, vulnerable evil prone Muslims who are born naturally with active evil tendencies.

O.M.G. You are deliberately looking for something to back up your preconceived ideas! For me, "growling" غ [gh] is in humbleness and maghḍūbi الْمَغْضُوبِ غ ض ب is His wrath (punishment). Nothing to stir any emotion except humbleness.

It may not effect you. But it definitely has an effect on SOME sensitive, vulnerable evil prone Muslims who are born naturally with active evil tendencies.
You are ignorant of human nature.
It has been researched by many, i.e. 80% of all human acts are dominated by subconscious messages and beliefs.

The other verses are supported by the two verses on the same issue. Therefore, all other verses are conditional and these two verses are overriding maxim. Together, they complete the overall context of the Qur'an.

Show me the "other positive verses."
The fact is the 3,500 evil laden verses i.e. >55% of the 6,236 verses dominates. There are hardly other verse that are unconditionally empathic nor compassionate toward the non-believers.

That would have been a lie and something inviting non-muslims to kill all Muslims. It is absolute moral maxim that a Muslim does not initiate evil. It will not be absolute moral maxim not to kill even if it means being killed. Fighting injustice is morally allowed even if "fighting" is not good.

The maxim in the Torah and the Injeel was never meant to be absolute and it was never practiced as absolute. When such maxim was revealed in the Ten Commandments, it was implemented by the swords and 3000 were killed in one day. Even the Christianity depends on killing of an innocent man. Without the crucifixion and death of Jesus, there would be no Christianity.

Moral maxim in the Qur'an is honest and practical.

It is the strength of the Qur'an and Islam. No flowery language and nothing is hidden. Everything is in the open, believe or don't believe.

I am not sure if you have ever worked in a large well reputable organization.
If you are well aware of the very good management of such companies you will note their effective management is driven by super vision and mission, e.g. Zero-defect in production, and the likes.
In general high achievers always strive for the highest ideals but they know this perfect ideals are merely guides and lighthouses to steer them to improve on whatever is the current positions.
It is well understood ideals are set not to be achieved but merely as guides.
The above is applicable in every aspects of advance knowledge, e.g. Mathematics, Geometry, etc. Show me a absolute perfect triangle [possible in theory] in the practical world.

Similarly in Morality, there is a need for Moral Maxims to act as guides.
It is expected that Moral Maxims will not be achieved in practice.
Despite its impossibility it is imperative Moral Maxims must be set.
Note a Moral Maxim is not a Practical Moral Standard to be implemented in practice.
Btw, the Philosophy of Morality and Ethics is one of my forte. I have spent years researching on it.
You want to challenge me on this subject, you are welcomed to discuss this in the Philosophy Forum section.

Killing is the worst evil within humanity.
This is why it is so critical to set the Moral Maxim 'Thou Shalt not Kill' [Period!! absolute no ifs or buts].

If I am God I will set that Imperative Moral Maxim with no 'ifs' nor 'buts.'
Now if any believer kill for whatever the reasons, then I will judge them on J-Day.
If they have good reasons to do so, e.g. self-defense, crime of passion, accidental, and not premeditated, then I as God will forgive them totally or punished them accordingly.
If the believers kill immorally, i.e. premeditated murder, consciously aware of the moral maxim, and the likes, then I will send them to hell to be burnt eternally as promised in my holy text.

Thus setting of an absolute Moral Maxim is more effective than allowing 'ifs' and 'buts' that leave room of ambiguity for the naturally evil prone believers to think otherwise.

The fact that Allah of Islam did not set an Absolute Moral Maxim in the Quran show that Allah is not very wise in this aspect of setting moral standards.
By setting a conditional ethical standard on killing with "ifs" and "buts" that open the hell hole for SOME evil prone Muslims to commit terrible evils and violence when they take it upon their duty as a good Muslims to kill non-believers.
Worse Allah have not and cannot appear to judge whether they are right or wrong, thus these SOME evil prone Muslims will continue to be influenced by the evil laden verses till eternity.

Real God is aware that unconditional "do not kill" is practically an impossible command to adhere to. Jews have proved it and Christians have proved it so. The Qur'an has taken into account the infallibility of the human in keeping to practically impossible doctrine. Therefore, the Qur'an is honest and practical from an all-knowing God.

My exposition of the concept of effective Philosophy of Morality indicate a Real God [if exists] will always set imperative absolute Moral Maxim of 'Thou Shall Not Kill' -period.
If believers are put in a position to kill then they must think a hundred times* then face and let God decide on forgiveness and mercy if warranted. *Crime of passion are not excusable but perhaps the punishment is more lenient.

You have deliberately ignored the all important verses that did not meet your preconceived ideas. That is not studying the overall Qur'anic context but looking for the straws to help you in your ideas. This is why you take only some verses when discussing an issue and ignore the others on the same issue.

I told you I have read the Quran more than 50 times and have done very serious analysis. So I have a high thorough understanding and awareness of the contents within the Quran.
If I deliberately ignore any knowledge from the Quran I will be cheating myself and going against the personal intellectual standard and integrity I maintain myself. Regardless of how you accuse me from your ignorance, I don't give a damn, I have set my own high standard of integrity.

[Khalif]

Originally Posted by Continuum

The only dogmatic religion that do not want to align with the overall progress of humanity at present is Islam [by SOME dominant Muslims].

"SOME" Muslims are not Islam nor are all Muslims Islam. Islam is what Muslims are guided "to do" and "not to do". Islam is not against anything that is good for human beings (including science). You are measuring Islam with the wrong yardstick.

Originally Posted by Continuum

The consequences of this negative drawback are very evident with the little progress and terrible evils/violence from a critical 'SOME' Muslims.

Wrong conclusion!

Lack of progress is not due to Islam but due to lack of education and knowledge, including the Qur'anic knowledge. I and my family did not make progress in our life but with education.

Originally Posted by Continuum

Religion or Islam as a Way of Life is totally an incompetent approach for the progress of mankind as a whole in the present 21st century and forward.

I disagree. Islam is not against the progress of mankind. It does not tell Muslims not to become scientists, botanists or doctors. In fact, Islam goes further than progress in this world's life. Perhaps like any other ignorant person, you are judging Islam by the actions of some mad men killing innocent people, including Muslims and Muslim children. Over 140 children were killed in Pakistan just because they were children of Pakistan army families. This was not due to the verses of the Qur'an but current politics.

Originally Posted by Continuum

To enable humanity and mankind to progress as a collective whole, specialization [not absolute independence a no man is an island] is imperative.
Along this line, any war matters should be left to the politicians.

You can't leave your well-being at the mercy of liars and selfish billionaires. That would be disastrous as proved by the attack on Iraq, war in Vietnam, WWI and WWII. All initiated by the politicians.

Originally Posted by Continuum

The fact that war elements were embedded in the Quran [the words of Allah], as immutable is a big mistake and hindrance for the progress of humanity as a whole.

Elements in the Qur'an are against initiating war. Elements against war are embedded in the Qur'an. These are justice elements. Had there been no justice elements in the Qur'an, all Muslims would have been dead by now and the world still in the dark ages. Europe did not make progress until Muslims came to Europe. The case against Muslims is not that they have Islam but that they stopped learning and being educated whereas Europe learnt and carried on learning and making progress through education.

Originally Posted by Continuum

But the Quran influenced and inspired wars, terrible evils and violence in a critical SOME Muslims who naturally has active violent tendencies.

All have inherited potential to do evil. The Qur'an teaches Muslims to suppress this potential. Defending against war from the enemy is right of every human being. Singling out Islam for defending against attack is nonsense.

Originally Posted by Continuum

Who told you so?
We have argued this before and it was Muhammad who started it [tit-for-tat] all from his experienced of some altered states of consciousness. If Muhammad did not have such experiences and offended the Quraishi, Jews and Christians, from his preaching and insults of the religions of others, there would not have been those wars.

Then you accept that the killing of the right charlies in Paris was justified because of insults on Muslims and their prophet. Yes? If no then wars on Muslims were not justified.

Originally Posted by Continuum

Regardless, the wars elements should not have been included in any holy texts at all because they can be very dangerous catalysts when spoken by a God.

Right from the beginning till the end of the revelation of the Qur'an, did God tell Muslims to initiate war or did God tell Muslims, after 14 years of persecution, to fight in defense?

Originally Posted by Continuum

Wiser religions who understood this vulnerability did not include evil laden elements in their holy texts. The NT abrogated the very early evil elements in the OT. The present Jews [majority] are not dogmatic over the OT.

Acquisition of the Holy Land (Israel) is very much a dogmatic approach based on the OT. As for the "majority", your approach to this regard is double standard as you ignore the majority Muslim approach in Islam.

"You undermine your credibility yourself by (a) contradicting yourself and (b) ignoring some verses of the Qur'an on the same issue just to present your preconceived idea."

Originally Posted by Continuum

Btw we are not dealing with 3 or 10 verses. We are dealing with a fact of 3,500++ verses of various degrees of evil elements combining, compressing and culminating in a general ethos of contempt against the non-Muslims.

Utterly false accusation. All are in response to war on Muslims from non-Muslims. There is absolutely no contempt against non-Muslims who had not waged war on Muslims. Talk is cheap against Muslims and the Qur'an but you won't find even one verse in which contempt against kuffar is not in response to initial contempt against Muslims.

Originally Posted by Continuum

Then the critical evil verses influenced, instigated and inspired SOME evil prone Muslims to commit terrible evils and violence. This is a fact.

Not a fact but a fiction!

There are no "critical evil verses" in the Qur'an but "critical justice verses" in the Qur'an. No verse commands us to do evil. Many command us to do good deeds.

Originally Posted by Continuum

I agree the majority of 80% good Muslims like you and others may put heavy emphasis on 60:8-9, and ignoring all the other evil laden elements.

No. You get it wrong again. The 80% Muslims do not ignore any verse but take ALL the verses into account and arrive at the correct conclusion. They do not ignore 60:8-9 but incorporate them both into their overall understanding. Ignore these verses and you lose track of the Qur'an and Islam.

Originally Posted by Continuum

But you cannot ignore the fact there are evil laden elements in the same immutable Quran that are also read by the 20% of evil prone Muslims who are born naturally with evil tendencies.

We too read the same verses and do understand them as justice laden elements rather than evil laden elements. Most of the 20% (your figure) evil prone do not even read those verses. The guy in Nice wasn't even religious and it is reported that he had mental problems. He couldn't have been well educated either. I understand there are such people in my community as well. They are mostly failures in education and are social dropouts. To blame their evil actions on Islam or the Qur'an is not a solution but increasing the problem.

[Khalif]

Originally Posted by Continuum

If I am God I will set that Imperative Moral Maxim with no 'ifs' nor 'buts.'
Now if any believer kill for whatever the reasons, then I will judge them on J-Day.

The hell would be the only judgement because there was no 'if'' or 'but' and only "do not kill". "Do not kill" means no killing at all. Period.

If they have good reasons to do so, e.g. self-defense, crime of passion, accidental, and not premeditated, then I as God will forgive them totally or punished them accordingly.

That means "do not kill" was not really "do not kill" but "do not kill except in self-defense".

The same is in the OT and in the Qur'an.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thou_s...ng:_in_warfare

Further, the following from the OT proves that there is no absolute Moral Maxim "Though Shall Not Kill" but it is conditional:

Exodus 21:14 But if anyone schemes and kills someone deliberately, that person is to be taken from my altar and put to death.

Exodus 32:27 Then he said to them, “This is what the Lord, the God of Israel, says: ‘Each man strap a sword to his side. Go back and forth through the camp from one end to the other, each killing his brother and friend and neighbor.’”

The above verse was revealed immediately after the so-called Moral Maxim "Though Shall Not Kill". It had gone out of the window immediately they were found to be worshiping golden calf.

Leviticus 20:16 “‘If a woman approaches an animal to have sexual relations with it, kill both the woman and the animal. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.

Leviticus24:21 Whoever kills an animal must make restitution, but whoever kills a human being is to be put to death.

If the believers kill immorally, i.e. premeditated murder, consciously aware of the moral maxim, and the likes, then I will send them to hell to be burnt eternally as promised in my holy text.

The real God has already told us this in the Qur'an by setting the limits and the difference between right and wrong. Muslims are aware of these limits (rules of engagement) in the Qur'an.

Thus setting of an absolute Moral Maxim is more effective than allowing 'ifs' and 'buts' that leave room of ambiguity for the naturally evil prone believers to think otherwise.

Absolute Moral Maxim in the OT did not prevent them killing non-believers. It had served absolutely no purpose. Allah of Islam was aware of it.

The fact that Allah of Islam did not set an Absolute Moral Maxim in the Quran show that Allah is not very wise in this aspect of setting moral standards.
By setting a conditional ethical standard on killing with "ifs" and "buts" that open the hell hole for SOME evil prone Muslims to commit terrible evils and violence when they take it upon their duty as a good Muslims to kill non-believers.

The 60:8-9 acts as Moral Maxim. Disobeying 60:8-9 leads to hell.

Worse Allah have not and cannot appear to judge whether they are right or wrong, thus these SOME evil prone Muslims will continue to be influenced by the evil laden verses till eternity.

Allah's judgment in the 60:8-9 is already given combined with what He had said to Israelites as described in 5:32.

My exposition of the concept of effective Philosophy of Morality indicate a Real God [if exists] will always set imperative absolute Moral Maxim of 'Thou Shall Not Kill' -period.

There is no absolute Moral Maxim of "Thou shall Not Kill" even in the OT. It is conditional when taken the whole OT into account.

If believers are put in a position to kill then they must think a hundred times* then face and let God decide on forgiveness and mercy if warranted. *Crime of passion are not excusable but perhaps the punishment is more lenient.

Killing is allowed even in the OT under certain cases such as war.

I told you I have read the Quran more than 50 times and have done very serious analysis. So I have a high thorough understanding and awareness of the contents within the Quran.

Then why don't you take 60:8-9, 6:151, 17:33, 2:194 into account?

If I deliberately ignore any knowledge from the Quran I will be cheating myself and going against the personal intellectual standard and integrity I maintain myself. Regardless of how you accuse me from your ignorance, I don't give a damn, I have set my own high standard of integrity.

I am here to challenge this. Each time you either ignore a verse deliberately or in ignorance, you will be reminded whether you give a damn or not.