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.
The problem is Hilal and Khan have added their own Salafi (Wahhabi) beliefs inti the Qur'an and not those are being passed off as translations of the Qur'an.
It is true Saudi is translating the Hilali-Khan English translations into other languages. Would it not be more accurate to Translate the Arabic into other languages?
Both Hilali and Khan are Salafi and it is Salafi views they are promoting. They do seem to have an agendda to promote hatred of Christians and Jews as being Islamic.
It is not a critical question of whether it is Salafi or one of its sect - the Wahhabi.
The critical consideration is whether Muslims who act in the name of Islam comply with the words of Allah as stipulated in the Quran, the sole source of the words of God.
Allah don't give a damn whether a Muslim is a Sunni, Shia, Sufi, Ahamadiyah, Hanafi, Salafi, Wahabi, or etc. Each Muslim is on his own with his own record [Illiyin or Sijjirin] on Judgment Day. If Allah says X and a Muslim do Y, then the Muslim is wrong and will be penalized on Judgment Day. This is very objective and straightforward.
Do you disagree with this principle?
If you read the Hilali-Khan interpretation of 1:7 [as used in the daily Salat], they added "Jews" and "Christians" in parenthesis and they support it with the Ahadiths and explanatory notes.
From the notes [you have to read it], the quoted Hadiths mentioned 'anger = Jews, and 'astray = Christians.'
Generally I do not agree with the AHadiths as carrying any authority. A Muslim cannot use the Hadiths to support the Quran. The Hadiths must comply with what is in the Quran.
However in this case, the Hadiths mentioned is supported by various verses in the Quran and the whole context of the Quran, i.e. Muhammad [Allah] was very angry with the Jews and Christians for not recognizing him as the messenger.
Can you prove me wrong on this?
Quote:
They are ignoring that the Qur'an refers to Jews, Sabeeans and Christians as "People of the Book" No where in the Qur'an are Jews, Sabeeans and Christians referred to as Kafir.
Muslim men are permitted to marry Christian Sabeean and Jewish women and they are not under any obligation to accept Islam. Even today it is not uncommon for Muslim ment to have Christian or Jewish wives. When you are permitted to marry a people it does not sound like you are promoting hatred of the people.
The Sabeeans have lived in Iraq on the banks of the Euphrates ever since the the Jews and Christians kicked them out of the region. But sadly they are probably extinct now at the hands of ISIS who follow the Hilali-Khan Translation.
Wherever Allah [Muhammad] praised and recognized the Jews, Sabeans and Christians favorably and positively in the Quran it was when Muhammad was in his early stages of preaching in Mecca.
After the Meccan idolaters, Jews, Sabeans and Christians rejected him in turns, Allah [Muhammad] turned more and more aggressive in the Medinian phase of his life.
In the later Medinian phases, Allah [Muhammad] condemned the Jews as 'apes' swine and non-Muslims are condemned with the worst possible labels of hate, contempt, disdain, etc.
The Christian monks [in monasteries] were also praised earlier but monasticism was also condemned.
The Jews and non-Muslims were slaughtered defenselessly by the more aggressive Muhammad and his gang.
The above are all represented in the Quran itself.
I cannot see how you could counter the above assertions as they are from the Quran.
This sort of 'nice in the beginning then turned aggressive later' pattern is common amongst cult leaders throughout history. When they faced resistance to their ideas and preaching they resort to violence to get their way.
I have done a lot of research on the psychology of cult leaders.
Quote:
But sadly they are probably extinct now at the hands of ISIS who follow the Hilali-Khan Translation.
What evidence do you have to support the Muslims of ISIS read the Hilali-Khan translations.
I am sure Abu Bakar Badhadi and his gang did not read the Hilali-Khan translations.
The fact are;
1. Abu Bakar Badhadi, his top men, his gang and those who joined ISIS are from the natural percentile [estimated 20%] of evil prone Muslims.
2. These evil prone Muslims are catalyzed and feast on the evil laden elements that are inherent in the Quran and ethos of Islam.
Note it is not only ISIS but the above same formula and principles apply to all terror groups and others who 'hate' and oppress non-Muslims in various degrees all over the world.
Quote:
The Sabeeans have lived in Iraq on the banks of the Euphrates ever since the the Jews and Christians kicked them out of the region.
This very common aggressive attitude due to insecurity and low self-esteem is inherent in Islam from day one Muhammad initiated his move. It manifests when the 20% of evil prone get the upper hand or through subterfuge.
Last edited by Continuum; 02-01-2016 at 11:05 PM..
It is not a critical question of whether it is Salafi or one of its sect - the Wahhabi.
The critical consideration is whether Muslims who act in the name of Islam comply with the words of Allah as stipulated in the Quran, the sole source of the words of God.
Allah don't give a damn whether a Muslim is a Sunni, Shia, Sufi, Ahamadiyah, Hanafi, Salafi, Wahabi, or etc. Each Muslim is on his own with his own record [Illiyin or Sijjirin] on Judgment Day. If Allah says X and a Muslim do Y, then the Muslim is wrong and will be penalized on Judgment Day. This is very objective and straightforward.
Do you disagree with this principle?
If you read the Hilali-Khan interpretation of 1:7 [as used in the daily Salat], they added "Jews" and "Christians" in parenthesis and they support it with the Ahadiths and explanatory notes.
From the notes [you have to read it], the quoted Hadiths mentioned 'anger = Jews, and 'astray = Christians.'
Generally I do not agree with the AHadiths as carrying any authority. A Muslim cannot use the Hadiths to support the Quran. The Hadiths must comply with what is in the Quran.
However in this case, the Hadiths mentioned is supported by various verses in the Quran and the whole context of the Quran, i.e. Muhammad [Allah] was very angry with the Jews and Christians for not recognizing him as the messenger.
Can you prove me wrong on this?
Wherever Allah [Muhammad] praised and recognized the Jews, Sabeans and Christians favorably and positively in the Quran it was when Muhammad was in his early stages of preaching in Mecca.
After the Meccan idolaters, Jews, Sabeans and Christians rejected him in turns, Allah [Muhammad] turned more and more aggressive in the Medinian phase of his life.
In the later Medinian phases, Allah [Muhammad] condemned the Jews as 'apes' swine and non-Muslims are condemned with the worst possible labels of hate, contempt, disdain, etc.
The Christian monks [in monasteries] were also praised earlier but monasticism was also condemned.
The Jews and non-Muslims were slaughtered defenselessly by the more aggressive Muhammad and his gang.
The above are all represented in the Quran itself.
I cannot see how you could counter the above assertions as they are from the Quran.
This sort of 'nice in the beginning then turned aggressive later' pattern is common amongst cult leaders throughout history. When they faced resistance to their ideas and preaching they resort to violence to get their way.
I have done a lot of research on the psychology of cult leaders.
What evidence do you have to support the Muslims of ISIS read the Hilali-Khan translations.
I am sure Abu Bakar Badhadi and his gang did not read the Hilali-Khan translations.
The fact are;
1. Abu Bakar Badhadi, his top men, his gang and those who joined ISIS are from the natural percentile [estimated 20%] of evil prone Muslims.
2. These evil prone Muslims are catalyzed and feast on the evil laden elements that are inherent in the Quran and ethos of Islam.
Note it is not only ISIS but the above same formula and principles apply to all terror groups and others who 'hate' and oppress non-Muslims in various degrees all over the world.
This very common aggressive attitude due to insecurity and low self-esteem is inherent in Islam from day one Muhammad initiated his move. It manifests when the 20% of evil prone get the upper hand or through subterfuge.
My objections to the Hilali-Khan Translation are first and foremost it contains quite a few translation errors. The second biggest objection is these translation errors are in agreement withWhhabi'ism.
While there is little known about al-Baghdadi it is known that he is Wahhabi, was active in Wahhabi groups and carried Wahhabi'ism to such a radical level that even al-Qaeda severed ties with him.
As he is Wahhabi it is almost certain he has had exposure to the Halil-Khan Qur'an as it is the only one the Wahhabi consider to be accurate and are even translating it into Arabic. At this point I think it is justified to say that the wahhabi'Salafi no longer use the Qur'an as even when they use the Arabic they are translating the Halili-Khan to Arabic and no longer using the Arabic of the Qur'an. Yes, MSA (Modern Standard Arabic) the Arabic used in the illegal occupation of Hijaz by the al-Saud Monarchy is very different from Quranic Arabic.
For clarification Salafi and Wahhabi are the Same except Salafi claim to be Sunni and Wahhabi seem to be distancing themselves from Sunni.
In this next part, I am just nitpicking. I may be misunderstanding you.
When you said:
This very common aggressive attitude due to insecurity and low self-esteem is inherent in Islam from day one Muhammad initiated his move. It manifests when the 20% of evil prone get the upper hand or through subterfuge.
in reply to my comment
Quote:
The Sabeeans have lived in Iraq on the banks of the Euphrates ever since the the Jews and Christians kicked them out of the region.
The Sabeeans (Baptizers) were/are followers of John the Batist that lived on the banks of the Jordan river not far from Jerusalem. They were a Jewish sect that followed the practice of Baptism. The believe John the Baptist was the Messiah and it was he who died to save mankind and it is he who will return on Judgement day. Interesting group. They were nearly slaughtered to extinction by 3nd Century Christians as heretics and the survivors run out of the Jerusalem region by both Jews and Christians they eventually settled in Baghdad and formed a small community along the banks of the Euphrates were they lived under the protection of Islam until the rise of ISIS. After the USA Bombardment of Baghdad and the genocide by ISIS it is doubtful any remain. They were the last remaining speakers of true Aramaic. Which is not to be confused with the Peshetta Aramaic of Syria, which is still spoken by a few Syrian communities and used in the Gospel of Thomas that is found in the Nazarene Bible. The Nazarene are another Christian sect that found refuge for in an Islamic Nation (Syria)
Histprically Jews have found Refuge in Islamic Nations when they had to escape persecution from Christians.
ISIS is violating Islam as Islam does direct us to be respectful of Christians, Jews and Sabeeans.
This article will show that, for centuries, perhaps a millennium, during which Islam dominated the area, conflict between Jews, Christians and Muslims was the exception, not the norm. The norm was peace, harmony, coexistence and cooperation among those of the three religions. Islam, the name of the third and last monotheistic religion, means “submission” or “surrender” to the will of God, Allah in Arabic. It comes from the same root as silm or salam, meaning “peace.” Hence the popular Arabic greeting, al-Salamu Alaikum, “peace be upon you.”
My objections to the Hilali-Khan Translation are first and foremost it contains quite a few translation errors. The second biggest objection is these translation errors are in agreement with Wahabi'ism.
Even when Scholars are reading from the Arabic Quran itself, there are many disputes between them in their interpretations of the meaning of the Arabic words.
This is natural and expected as different will interpret words, phrases, sentences and paragraphs differently due to their varied personal and cultural conditions.
However what is true according to the Quran must be in accordance with what Allah intended in the Quran.
Since there is no central authority appointed by Allah, it is impossible for any existing humans to decide who is right and who is wrong.
Therefore you are not in a position at all to say the Wahabis are wrong totally.
To find out whether they are right or wrong [at least according to human views] we need to assess their interpretations on a verse by verse basis.
I usually refer to 40++ interpretations of the English translation of the Quran.
One will note the various English translations varied [some significantly] between translators.
Some may be obviously wrong with translation of certain words but there are many marginal interpretations which are difficult to decide who is right or wrong.
As for Hilali-Khan interpretation of the Quran in English we have to deliberate on a verse by verse basis on where they are wrong.
Our current contention is 1:7 as used in the Salat many times every day.
I have been arguing on Hilali-Khan's interpretation of 1:7 with their added parenthesis regarding "angered Allah = Jews" and "astray =Christians" that they are right in the context of the whole of the Quran.
So far you have not given any counter to prove I am wrong.
Quote:
While there is little known about al-Baghdadi it is known that he is Wahhabi, was active in Wahhabi groups and carried Wahhabi'ism to such a radical level that even al-Qaeda severed ties with him.
Regardless of what group he belong to we need to assess his references and how he interpret the Quran to assess whether he comply with the dictates of the Quran or not.
If al-Baghdadi complied with Allah's words in the Quran, who are you [me and others] to judge he is wrong. It is up to Allah to judge him on Judgment Day in accordance to the terms and conditions Allah set in the Quran.
Note al-Baghdadi may be over-zealous in some of his deeds, the question is whether on an overall basis, did he meet Allah's expectations as stipulated in the Quran.
While his victims will condemned him but on Judgment Day Allah will agree with what he did because he complied with what Allah sanctioned in the Quran.
For example al-Baghdadi cast terror on non-Muslims who are threat to Islam and Allah sanction the casting of terror on non-Muslims if they are a threat to Islam. In this case, al-Baghdadi merely complied with what Allah sanctioned and exhorted in the Quran.
3:151. We [Allah] shall cast terror into the hearts of those [infidels] who disbelieve because they [infidels] ascribe unto Allah partners [idols and deities], for which no warrant hath been revealed. Their [infidels] habitation is the Fire, and hapless the abode of the wrong doers [infidels].
The above {in [] mine} is merely one example, there are many other verses where Allah promote the casting of terror onto disbelievers.
Quote:
As he is Wahhabi it is almost certain he has had exposure to the Halil-Khan Qur'an as it is the only one the Wahhabi consider to be accurate and are even translating it into Arabic. At this point I think it is justified to say that the wahhabi'Salafi no longer use the Qur'an as even when they use the Arabic they are translating the Halili-Khan to Arabic and no longer using the Arabic of the Qur'an. Yes, MSA (Modern Standard Arabic) the Arabic used in the illegal occupation of Hijaz by the al-Saud Monarchy is very different from Quranic Arabic.
Certain?? This is too much of a speculation.
Al-Baghdadi has a PhD in Islamic Study and obviously he read the Quran in Arabic and could use his freewill to interpret Allah's message what was intended in the Quran.
As I had claimed [proven] the Quran is partly evil and al-Baghdadi [a psychopath] feasted on the inherent evil laden elements in the Quran.
Quote:
For clarification Salafi and Wahhabi are the Same except Salafi claim to be Sunni and Wahhabi seem to be distancing themselves from Sunni.
I noted the following;
The Salafi movement is often described as being synonymous with Wahhabism, but Salafists consider the term "Wahhabi" derogatory. -wiki
Historically Jews have found Refuge in Islamic Nations when they had to escape persecution from Christians.
ISIS is violating Islam as Islam does direct us to be respectful of Christians, Jews and Sabeeans.
This article will show that, for centuries, perhaps a millennium, during which Islam dominated the area, conflict between Jews, Christians and Muslims was the exception, not the norm. The norm was peace, harmony, coexistence and cooperation among those of the three religions. Islam, the name of the third and last monotheistic religion, means “submission†or “surrender†to the will of God, Allah in Arabic. It comes from the same root as silm or salam, meaning “peace.†Hence the popular Arabic greeting, al-Salamu Alaikum, “peace be upon you.â€
If you read the Quran objectively and in context, you will definitely note the gist of the Quran is full of 'hate,' contempt, condemnations against especially Jews, then Christians, the Quresh idolaters and non-Muslims in general.
Example; {[]=mine}
5:60. Shall I tell thee of a worse (case) than theirs [infidels] for retribution with Allah? Worse (is the case of him) [infidel] whom Allah hath cursed, him [Kafir] on whom His wrath [on Jews] hath fallen! Worse is he [infidel] of whose sort Allah hath turned some to apes and swine, and who serveth idols. Such [infidels] are in worse plight and further astray from the plain road.
7:166. So when they [Jews infidels] took pride in that which they [infidels] had been forbidden, We said unto them [infidel Jews]: Be ye apes despised and loathed! [Dehumanized]
In addition to the above there are over 3,400 verses [>55%] of the 6,236 verses of the Quran that contain elements of contempt, disdain and 'hatred' [of various degrees] against Jews, Christians, and non-Muslims.
While the majority of Muslims [say 80%] will ignore the evil laden elements introduced by Allah, you cannot deny there are 20% of evil prone Muslims who will be influenced by the evil and warring elements promoted by Allah in the Quran.
The consequence and proof of this is glaring evident by the almost daily terrible evils and violence committed by SOME evil prone Muslims who are inspired by the evil laden elements inherent in the Quran [Allah's words].
On this basis Islam is to be blamed for containing evil laden elements in its holy texts that inspired the natural 20 percentile of evil prone Muslims to commit terrible evils and violence.
In contrast, note Buddhism [for example] which is very aware of the vulnerability of human nature and thus do not include any evil and violent elements in their sutras that will be opened to abuse by any evil prone Buddhists.
Even when Scholars are reading from the Arabic Quran itself, there are many disputes between them in their interpretations of the meaning of the Arabic words.
This is natural and expected as different will interpret words, phrases, sentences and paragraphs differently due to their varied personal and cultural conditions.
However what is true according to the Quran must be in accordance with what Allah intended in the Quran.
Since there is no central authority appointed by Allah, it is impossible for any existing humans to decide who is right and who is wrong.
Therefore you are not in a position at all to say the Wahabis are wrong totally.
To find out whether they are right or wrong [at least according to human views] we need to assess their interpretations on a verse by verse basis.
I usually refer to 40++ interpretations of the English translation of the Quran.
One will note the various English translations varied [some significantly] between translators.
Some may be obviously wrong with translation of certain words but there are many marginal interpretations which are difficult to decide who is right or wrong.
As for Hilali-Khan interpretation of the Quran in English we have to deliberate on a verse by verse basis on where they are wrong.
Our current contention is 1:7 as used in the Salat many times every day.
I have been arguing on Hilali-Khan's interpretation of 1:7 with their added parenthesis regarding "angered Allah = Jews" and "astray =Christians" that they are right in the context of the whole of the Quran.
So far you have not given any counter to prove I am wrong.
Regardless of what group he belong to we need to assess his references and how he interpret the Quran to assess whether he comply with the dictates of the Quran or not.
If al-Baghdadi complied with Allah's words in the Quran, who are you [me and others] to judge he is wrong. It is up to Allah to judge him on Judgment Day in accordance to the terms and conditions Allah set in the Quran.
Note al-Baghdadi may be over-zealous in some of his deeds, the question is whether on an overall basis, did he meet Allah's expectations as stipulated in the Quran.
While his victims will condemned him but on Judgment Day Allah will agree with what he did because he complied with what Allah sanctioned in the Quran.
For example al-Baghdadi cast terror on non-Muslims who are threat to Islam and Allah sanction the casting of terror on non-Muslims if they are a threat to Islam. In this case, al-Baghdadi merely complied with what Allah sanctioned and exhorted in the Quran.
3:151. We [Allah] shall cast terror into the hearts of those [infidels] who disbelieve because they [infidels] ascribe unto Allah partners [idols and deities], for which no warrant hath been revealed. Their [infidels] habitation is the Fire, and hapless the abode of the wrong doers [infidels].
The above {in [] mine} is merely one example, there are many other verses where Allah promote the casting of terror onto disbelievers.
Certain?? This is too much of a speculation.
Al-Baghdadi has a PhD in Islamic Study and obviously he read the Quran in Arabic and could use his freewill to interpret Allah's message what was intended in the Quran.
As I had claimed [proven] the Quran is partly evil and al-Baghdadi [a psychopath] feasted on the inherent evil laden elements in the Quran.
I noted the following;
The Salafi movement is often described as being synonymous with Wahhabism, but Salafists consider the term "Wahhabi" derogatory. -wiki
If you read the Quran objectively and in context, you will definitely note the gist of the Quran is full of 'hate,' contempt, condemnations against especially Jews, then Christians, the Quresh idolaters and non-Muslims in general.
Example; {[]=mine}
5:60. Shall I tell thee of a worse (case) than theirs [infidels] for retribution with Allah? Worse (is the case of him) [infidel] whom Allah hath cursed, him [Kafir] on whom His wrath [on Jews] hath fallen! Worse is he [infidel] of whose sort Allah hath turned some to apes and swine, and who serveth idols. Such [infidels] are in worse plight and further astray from the plain road.
7:166. So when they [Jews infidels] took pride in that which they [infidels] had been forbidden, We said unto them [infidel Jews]: Be ye apes despised and loathed! [Dehumanized]
In addition to the above there are over 3,400 verses [>55%] of the 6,236 verses of the Quran that contain elements of contempt, disdain and 'hatred' [of various degrees] against Jews, Christians, and non-Muslims.
While the majority of Muslims [say 80%] will ignore the evil laden elements introduced by Allah, you cannot deny there are 20% of evil prone Muslims who will be influenced by the evil and warring elements promoted by Allah in the Quran.
The consequence and proof of this is glaring evident by the almost daily terrible evils and violence committed by SOME evil prone Muslims who are inspired by the evil laden elements inherent in the Quran [Allah's words].
On this basis Islam is to be blamed for containing evil laden elements in its holy texts that inspired the natural 20 percentile of evil prone Muslims to commit terrible evils and violence.
In contrast, note Buddhism [for example] which is very aware of the vulnerability of human nature and thus do not include any evil and violent elements in their sutras that will be opened to abuse by any evil prone Buddhists.
I believe that once you learn not to place your understanding of the Qur'an upon interpretation you will discover Islam does not promote nor condone hatred or mistreatment of non-Muslims and as they are "People of the Book" encourages friendship with Jews, Sabeeans and Christians.
I do not expect you to learn Qur'anic Arabic but possibly you could look at the opinions of Arabic speaking Muslims who believe that those who find evil in the Qur'an are misinterpreting the Qur'an
I do hope that one day you will learn that what you are finding to be "Evil laden Verses" are the result of translators that do not understand the Qur'an. There are no "Evil Laden Verses" except in the imagination of those who seek to find evil and used that in their translations.
Perhaps it is our fault that the vast majority of English translations of the Qur'an were by non-Muslims who had a desire and agenda to demonize Muslims. It has only been in the past 100 years that there have been attempts by Muslims to translate the Qur'an into English. But then again Translations do make it more difficult to justify why a person should strive to learn Quranic Arabic before studying the Qur'an. or at least learn any dialect of Arabic before Reading the Qur'an.
Then again translation are primarily for non-Muslims. I do urge non-Muslims to try to understand that no Muslim accepts any translation as being a Qur'an, translations at best are rough approximations. If one has to rely on translations I hope they will read as many different ones as they can find and also try to find some interpretations (Interpretations, commentary, Tafsir not translations) of the Qur'an done by Muslims. To understand what a Muslim believes the Qur'an says you have to learn how that Muslims understands the Qur'an.
I believe that once you learn not to place your understanding of the Qur'an upon interpretation you will discover Islam does not promote nor condone hatred or mistreatment of non-Muslims and as they are "People of the Book" encourages friendship with Jews, Sabeeans and Christians.
The above is merely a deflection.
I understand you are compelled by your "inoculation theory" defenses here.
1. I have challenged you to show me what can I missed out from the 40++ English translations of the Quran that I am referring to with Pickthall as my main reference.
2. If you insist the Jews are loved by Allah and Muhammad, how would you counter this verse for example.
7:166. So when they [Jews infidels] took pride in that which they [infidels] had been forbidden, We said unto them [infidel Jews]: Be ye apes despised and loathed! [Dehumanized]
Note there are 3000+ of verses that direct contempt and disdain on non -Muslims.
Quote:
I do not expect you to learn Qur'anic Arabic but possibly you could look at the opinions of Arabic speaking Muslims who believe that those who find evil in the Qur'an are misinterpreting the Qur'an.
To maintain my intellectual credibility and integrity I ensure I have covered commentaries and opinions by Arabic speaking Muslims.
The fact is Muslims [and believers] are by default positively bias towards their religion. Because Muslims have a critical emotional interest in Islam, they have to be bias and apply confirmation bias, faith [blind, if not almost], inoculation theory, etc. If there is any thing that is truly negative against their religion, they will twist and turn it to ensure such negatives are viewed as positive.
Note the Farhan Quresh video I linked earlier where he explained his personal experiences in deflecting away whatever negative against Islam till he could not do it anymore and then he left Islam.
If you forgot, here is the link again;
I do hope that one day you will learn that what you are finding to be "Evil laden Verses" are the result of translators that do not understand the Qur'an. There are no "Evil Laden Verses" except in the imagination of those who seek to find evil and used that in their translations.
I have analyzed ALL the 6,236 verses of the Quran thoroughly in Excel Spreadsheet which facilitate analysis.
It is not difficult to get the full context of the Quran via such analysis.
Here are the major elements in terms of number of verses [roughly];
1. Allah -specific = 1500++ verses
2. Eschatological = 2014++
3. Judgment Day = 1968++
4. Biblical stories = 2250++
5. Infidel -negative =3400++
6. Muslim-specific = 1732++
Note one verse many contain one or more of the above elements.
The above are the major elements [with the heaviest weightage] in the Quran and I have an analysis of another 300++ sub-elements.
When we put all the elements in a jigsaw model the whole context of the Quran will be very glaring.
From these one can gather the main context of the Quran which is Eschatological which rely on Biblical Stories and condemnation of the infidels [blowing the candles of others to shine one's own].
>3400++ or 55% of the verses contain evil laden verses, i.e. negative against the infidels.
I defined secular 'evil' as any act or intend that is negative to the well being of the individual, others and therefrom humanity.
Verse 7:166 as above contain an evil laden element, i.e. a condemnation [Be ye apes despised and loathed!] that is of hatred and contempt that is dehumanizing.
First:
The point is "Be ye apes despised and loathed!" by itself is an evil element. Therefore verse 7:166 contain an evil laden element. Do you deny such a statement of contempt is not an evil element?
Second:
Then we assess whether this evil laden element is 'evil' in the context of the verse, the paragraph, the chapter and in whole of the Quran.
If you read the Quran thoroughly and objectively, you will note Muhammad was very angry with the Jews for the following reasons;
1. Omitting him as the prophesized messenger in their texts.
2. Then he accused the Jews of changing the original Torah [supposedly the Quran].
3. The Jews and others mocked him
4. He could not win any debate with the Jews who were more smarter and experienced than him.
Muhammad's anger is imputed in the Quran and it is so obvious when one read the Quran objectively and not emotionally.
Can you prove me wrong on the above?
Quote:
Perhaps it is our fault that the vast majority of English translations of the Qur'an were by non-Muslims who had a desire and agenda to demonize Muslims. It has only been in the past 100 years that there have been attempts by Muslims to translate the Qur'an into English. But then again Translations do make it more difficult to justify why a person should strive to learn Quranic Arabic before studying the Qur'an. or at least learn any dialect of Arabic before Reading the Qur'an.
You are very wrong here.
I know of no English translators [referencing 40++ English translations] who deliberately translate the Quran to demonize Muslims.
It is the Quran itself that is partly [not wholly] evil.
Therefore when the Quran was translated into English the evil elements that were ignored by most Muslims were revealed when non-Muslim read the truths of the Quran objectively.
Btw, the existing Arabic Quran, perhaps as long as 1,000 years ago were also translations, as you have often mentioned the Arabic of the original recited Quran was in Kufic Arabic. Thus there would have been a translation from Kufic Arabic to the present Arabic.
Quote:
Then again translation are primarily for non-Muslims. I do urge non-Muslims to try to understand that no Muslim accepts any translation as being a Qur'an, translations at best are rough approximations. If one has to rely on translations I hope they will read as many different ones as they can find and also try to find some interpretations (Interpretations, commentary, Tafsir not translations) of the Qur'an done by Muslims. To understand what a Muslim believes the Qur'an says you have to learn how that Muslims understands the Qur'an.
"Then again translation are primarily for non-Muslims"
Now you are back to reality and practicality.
I refer to 40++ English translations whenever there are doubts and read extensively.
Non-Muslims should read the Muslims' commentaries, but to be objective, a non-Muslims cannot rely critically on the Muslims' views of the Quran and Islam which by default would be very emotionally bias.
By default a Muslim can never be totally objective in their reading of the Quran and practicing Islam which is a 'faith' which do not lend itself to reason, rationality and proofs.
What a non-Muslim should do is to read the Quran objectively with the highest level of intellectual competence, credibility and integrity.
Especially a non-Muslim should be competent in Philosophy, Science [especially neurosciences], languages, various fields of human nature, psychology, and all relevant other advance fields of knowledge and technology.
The above recommendations are my approach in reading the Quran and understanding Islam.
I'll appreciate if you could address all the individual points raised above.
Last edited by Continuum; 02-03-2016 at 10:35 PM..
The above is merely a deflection.
I understand you are compelled by your "inoculation theory" defenses here.
1. I have challenged you to show me what can I missed out from the 40++ English translations of the Quran that I am referring to with Pickthall as my main reference.
2. If you insist the Jews are loved by Allah and Muhammad, how would you counter this verse for example.
7:166. So when they [Jews infidels] took pride in that which they [infidels] had been forbidden, We said unto them [infidel Jews]: Be ye apes despised and loathed! [Dehumanized]
Note there are 3000+ of verses that direct contempt and disdain on non -Muslims.
To maintain my intellectual credibility and integrity I ensure I have covered commentaries and opinions by Arabic speaking Muslims.
The fact is Muslims [and believers] are by default positively bias towards their religion. Because Muslims have a critical emotional interest in Islam, they have to be bias and apply confirmation bias, faith [blind, if not almost], inoculation theory, etc. If there is any thing that is truly negative against their religion, they will twist and turn it to ensure such negatives are viewed as positive.
Note the Farhan Quresh video I linked earlier where he explained his personal experiences in deflecting away whatever negative against Islam till he could not do it anymore and then he left Islam.
If you forgot, here is the link again;
I have analyzed ALL the 6,236 verses of the Quran thoroughly in Excel Spreadsheet which facilitate analysis.
It is not difficult to get the full context of the Quran via such analysis.
Here are the major elements in terms of number of verses [roughly];
1. Allah -specific = 1500++ verses
2. Eschatological = 2014++
3. Judgment Day = 1968++
4. Biblical stories = 2250++
5. Infidel -negative =3400++
6. Muslim-specific = 1732++
Note one verse many contain one or more of the above elements.
The above are the major elements [with the heaviest weightage] in the Quran and I have an analysis of another 300++ sub-elements.
When we put all the elements in a jigsaw model the whole context of the Quran will be very glaring.
From these one can gather the main context of the Quran which is Eschatological which rely on Biblical Stories and condemnation of the infidels [blowing the candles of others to shine one's own].
>3400++ or 55% of the verses contain evil laden verses, i.e. negative against the infidels.
I defined secular 'evil' as any act or intend that is negative to the well being of the individual, others and therefrom humanity.
Verse 7:166 as above contain an evil laden element, i.e. a condemnation [Be ye apes despised and loathed!] that is of hatred and contempt that is dehumanizing.
First:
The point is "Be ye apes despised and loathed!" by itself is an evil element. Therefore verse 7:166 contain an evil laden element. Do you deny such a statement of contempt is not an evil element?
Second:
Then we assess whether this evil laden element is 'evil' in the context of the verse, the paragraph, the chapter and in whole of the Quran.
If you read the Quran thoroughly and objectively, you will note Muhammad was very angry with the Jews for the following reasons;
1. Omitting him as the prophesized messenger in their texts.
2. Then he accused the Jews of changing the original Torah [supposedly the Quran].
3. The Jews and others mocked him
4. He could not win any debate with the Jews who were more smarter and experienced than him.
Muhammad's anger is imputed in the Quran and it is so obvious when one read the Quran objectively and not emotionally.
Can you prove me wrong on the above?
You are very wrong here.
I know of no English translators [referencing 40++ English translations] who deliberately translate the Quran to demonize Muslims.
It is the Quran itself that is partly [not wholly] evil.
Therefore when the Quran was translated into English the evil elements that were ignored by most Muslims were revealed when non-Muslim read the truths of the Quran objectively.
Btw, the existing Arabic Quran, perhaps as long as 1,000 years ago were also translations, as you have often mentioned the Arabic of the original recited Quran was in Kufic Arabic. Thus there would have been a translation from Kufic Arabic to the present Arabic.
"Then again translation are primarily for non-Muslims"
Now you are back to reality and practicality.
I refer to 40++ English translations whenever there are doubts and read extensively.
Non-Muslims should read the Muslims' commentaries, but to be objective, a non-Muslims cannot rely critically on the Muslims' views of the Quran and Islam which by default would be very emotionally bias.
By default a Muslim can never be totally objective in their reading of the Quran and practicing Islam which is a 'faith' which do not lend itself to reason, rationality and proofs.
What a non-Muslim should do is to read the Quran objectively with the highest level of intellectual competence, credibility and integrity.
Especially a non-Muslim should be competent in Philosophy, Science [especially neurosciences], languages, various fields of human nature, psychology, and all relevant other advance fields of knowledge and technology.
The above recommendations are my approach in reading the Quran and understanding Islam.
I'll appreciate if you could address all the individual points raised above.
I will attempt to do so to the best of my ability
The above is merely a deflection.
I understand you are compelled by your "inoculation theory" defenses here..
"Innoculation Theory" does not refer to defense mechanisms. It explains how "Self Evident beliefs" become established as verified beliefs. We all have "self evident beliefs" we are not aware of, because they have never been challenged. The more often a belief is challenged the more verification of it we seek, this is the "Innoculation process" the more we are "Innoculated" the more verification we seek and the stronger our belief becomes
1. I have challenged you to show me what can I missed out from the 40++ English translations of the Quran that I am referring to with Pickthall as my main reference.
40++ English translations is probably the total number of English Translations ever published, the majority of which where sanctioned by the Catholic Church in an attempt to stop the spread of Islam. There have probably only been less than 10 unbiased Translation in the entire history of English Translations of the Qur'an.
2. If you insist the Jews are loved by Allah and Muhammad, how would you counter this verse for example.
7:166. So when they [Jews infidels] took pride in that which they [infidels] had been forbidden, We said unto them [infidel Jews]: Be ye apes despised and loathed! [Dehumanized]
This is in reference to:
Bible, Book of Exodus 31: 14-16
14. Observe the Sabbath, because it is Holy to you. Anyone who desecrates it must be put to death. Whoever does any work on that day must be cut off from his people.
15. For six days, work is to be done, but the seventh day is a Sabbath of rest, Holy to the Lord. Whoever does any work on the Sabbath Day must be put to death.
16. The Israelites are to observe the Sabbath, celebrating it for the generations to come, as a lasting covenant.
This had to do with a specific group of Jews, those that refused to observe the Sabbath. It has nothing to do with all Jews.
Read more of the actual discourse, not just a single line
But those of them who did wrong changed the word which had been told them for another saying, and We sent down upon them wrath from heaven for their wrongdoing. - 7:162
Ask them (O Muhammad) of the township that was by the sea, how they did break the sabbath, how their big fish came unto them visibly upon their sabbath day and on a day when they did not keep sabbath came they not unto them. Thus did We try them for that they were evil-livers. - 7:163 (Picktall)
And when a community among them said: Why preach ye to a folk whom Allah is about to destroy and punish with an awful doom, they said: In order to be free from guilt before your Lord, and that haply they may ward off (evil). - 7:164 (Picktall)
And when they forgot that whereof they had been reminded, We rescued those who forbade wrong, and visited those who did wrong with dreadful punishment because they were evil livers. - 7:165 (Picktall)
So when they took pride in that which they had been forbidden, We said unto them: Be ye apes despised and loathed! - 7:166 (Picktall)
And (remember) when thy Lord proclaimed that He would raise against them till the Day of Resurrection those who would lay on them a cruel torment. Lo! verily thy Lord is swift in prosecution and lo! verily He is Forgiving, Merciful. - 7:167 (Picktall)
Keep in mind that Muslims also consider the Torah, Psalms and the Gospel of Jesus to be true scripture and many of the early companions of Muhammad were Christians and Jews that were very familiar with the past scriptures.
Note there are 3000+ of verses that direct contempt and disdain on non -Muslims.
that seems to be a personal opinion.
To maintain my intellectual credibility and integrity I ensure I have covered commentaries and opinions by Arabic speaking Muslims.
That is admirable. Might not always be reliable though as us Muslims are quite individualistic in our beliefs and only a small percentage have any actual Islamic education. The percentage is actually dropping as the most esteeemed Schools of Islamic Knowledge have been destroyed in recent years. The most recognized Islamic shools were located in Egypt, Yemen, Syria and Indonesia. Only the ones in Inonesia seem to remain unscathed. The Schools in Hijaz were pretty much destroyed by the conquest of the Al-Saud Monarchy and today teach The al-Saud family version of Islam
The fact is Muslims [and believers] are by default positively bias towards their religion. Because Muslims have a critical emotional interest in Islam, they have to be bias and apply confirmation bias, faith [blind, if not almost], inoculation theory, etc. If there is any thing that is truly negative against their religion, they will twist and turn it to ensure such negatives are viewed as positive.
Some of us came to the opinion that Islam was the truth, before accepting Islam. I really doubt I have any emotional attatchment to Islam. I do have a very strong belief that a Supreme creator exists and my investigations always indicate that we are to perform Islam. My emotional attatchments are more in line with the Indigneous religion of the Lakotah, which I do follow to the extent it does not conflict with the Qur'an.
Note the Farhan Quresh video I linked earlier where he explained his personal experiences in deflecting away whatever negative against Islam till he could not do it anymore and then he left Islam.
If you forgot, here is the link again;
I find that apostates from a religion have an emotional need to seek out justifications for leaving their previous belief. I find justifications to be no more rliable than videos attesting to reasons an individual converts to a faith. It comes down to the persons need to justify their actions, a defense mechanism in action
I have analyzed ALL the 6,236 verses of the Quran thoroughly in Excel Spreadsheet which facilitate analysis.
It is not difficult to get the full context of the Quran via such analysis.
Here are the major elements in terms of number of verses [roughly];
1. Allah -specific = 1500++ verses
2. Eschatological = 2014++
3. Judgment Day = 1968++
4. Biblical stories = 2250++
5. Infidel -negative =3400++
6. Muslim-specific = 1732++
Note one verse many contain one or more of the above elements.
It still comes down to personal opinion.
The above are the major elements [with the heaviest weightage] in the Quran and I have an analysis of another 300++ sub-elements.
When we put all the elements in a jigsaw model the whole context of the Quran will be very glaring.
From these one can gather the main context of the Quran which is Eschatological which rely on Biblical Stories and condemnation of the infidels [blowing the candles of others to shine one's own].
Show one instance in the Qur'an where Jews, Christians or Sabeeans are called infidels or kafiruns.
>3400++ or 55% of the verses contain evil laden verses, i.e. negative against the infidels.
I defined secular 'evil' as any act or intend that is negative to the well being of the individual, others and therefrom humanity.
Verse 7:166 as above contain an evil laden element, i.e. a condemnation [Be ye apes despised and loathed!] that is of hatred and contempt that is dehumanizing.
I addressed that above
First:
The point is "Be ye apes despised and loathed!" by itself is an evil element. Therefore verse 7:166 contain an evil laden element.
Do you deny such a statement of contempt is not an evil element?
I do deny that and explained it in a reply above
Second:
Then we assess whether this evil laden element is 'evil' in the context of the verse, the paragraph, the chapter and in whole of the Quran.
If you read the Quran thoroughly and objectively, you will note Muhammad was very angry with the Jews for the following reasons;
1. Omitting him as the prophesized messenger in their texts.
2. Then he accused the Jews of changing the original Torah [supposedly the Quran].
3. The Jews and others mocked him
4. He could not win any debate with the Jews who were more smarter and experienced than him.
That is all personal opinion. Even some Jews will tell you that there are Jews that there are scribe errors in the Torah and that today there are parts that are no longer understood.
The Hebrew Bible—or Old Testament—that we have today differs from the Hebrew manuscripts of the Bible penned in the first millennium B.C.E. When transmitting any sort of a document from generation to generation, small alterations—some intentional, others not—are made. Even the most careful scribe makes errors, which are perpetuated and often compounded by future scribes. Thus, it should not surprise us that the Hebrew Bible, which has a transmission history of several millennia, contains textual difficulties, corruptions and even mistakes. Critical editions of the Bible examine these differences by looking at varying Hebrew witnesses and try to accurately reconstruct the original Hebrew manuscripts of the Bible. Errors in the Masoretes
The Sefer Torah contains 304,805 Hebrew letters which have been copied countless times each century in Jewish communities throughout the world. By the Sofer’s meticulous work and tenacity to perfection they have kept the Torah, if copied according to the laws of STaM, virtually error free. With a world wide comparison of scrolls they are .00004 in world wide agreement with only six letters in question.
Almost all Biblical Hebrew manuscripts of any age show clear indication that hundreds if not thousands of letters or parts of letters have been repaired. The Soferim not only write the scrolls they repair them. The duties of a Hebrew Scribe or Sofer | Hebrew Scrolls
While it is true the known errors are minuscule, the fact remains there are errors and over the span of 7,500 years there are strong possibilities of more that have gone undetected for centuries.
While it is true Muhammad(saws) probably was angy with the Jews of Mecca. Mainstream Jews were also angry with them which is why they were in Mecca. The heretical sects of Christianity and Judaism seemed to had been forced out of their homelands and sought refuge with the Arabs. But no where did Muhammad(saws) or the Qur'an or Islam ordain the mistreatment of them
Muhammad's anger is imputed in the Quran and it is so obvious when one read the Quran objectively and not emotionally.
Can you prove me wrong on the above?
One can not prove a negative. The burdan of proof is upon the one making a claim to prove they are correct.
You are very wrong here.
I know of no English translators [referencing 40++ English translations] who deliberately translate the Quran to demonize Muslims.
They are quite wide spread, not only by non-Muslims but also by deviant Islamic sects.
The Muslim need for translating the Quran into English arose mainly out of the desire to combat the missionary effort. Following a long polemical tradition, part of whose goal was also the production of a - usually erroneous and confounding - European version of the Muslim scripture, Christian missionaries started their offensive against a politically humiliated Islam in the eighteenth century by advancing their own translations of the Quran.
Obviously, Muslims could not allow the missionary effort - invariably confounding the authenticity of the text with a hostile commentary of its own - to go unopposed and unchecked. Hence, the Muslim decision to present a faithful translation of the Quranic text as well as an authentic summary of its teaching to the European world. Later, the Muslim translations were meant to serve even those Muslims whose only access to the Quranic revelation was through the medium of the European languages. Naturally, English was deemed the most important language for the Muslim purpose, not least because of the existence of the British Empire which after the Ottomans had the largest number of Muslim subjects.
The same rationale, however, applies to sectarian movements within Islam or even to renegade groups outside the fold of Islam, such as the Qadiyanis. Their considerable translational activities are motivated by the urge to proclaim their ideological uniqueness.
Although there is a spate of volumes on the multi-faceted dimensions of the Quran, no substantial work has so far been done to critically examine the mass of existing English translations of the Quran. A survey of English translations of the Quran | SoundVision.com
The first translations to English were not undertaken by Muslims but by Christians who sought to debunk Islam and aid in the conversion of Muslims to Christianity. Alexander Ross, chaplain to Charles I (r. 1625-49) and the first to embark on the translation process, subtitled his 1649 work as "newly Englished for the satisfaction for all that desire to look into the Turkish vanities."[14] Interestingly, Ross did not speak Arabic and relied on secondarily translating from the French, a language in which he was not well-schooled. He, therefore, based his interpretation on a problematic rendition by Andrew Du Ryer. According to George Sale (1697-1736), "[Du Ryer's] performance … is far from being a just translation; there being mistakes in every page, besides frequent transpositions, omissions and additions, faults."[15]
Most eighteenth and nineteenth century translations were undertaken by authors without strong background in Islam. As they were goaded by the urge to answer Christian polemic, their forgettable works do not reflect any intellectual depth; as such, copies are extremely rare. Among the best known, albeit pejorative, English-language analyses of Islam during this time were those by Christian authors such as George Sale, John Rodwell (1808-1900), Edward Palmer (1840-1882), and Sir William Muir (1819-1905).[16] Of these, Sale was probably the most important because he wrote a detailed critique about earlier translations.[17] His work became the standard reference for all English readers until almost the end of the nineteenth century.[18] However, his work was limited by his lack of access to public libraries forcing him to rely only upon material in his personal collection.[19] While Sale gave the impression that he based his translation on the Arabic text, others have suggested that he relied on an earlier Latin translation.[20] Sale did not insert verse numbers into his work, nor did he insert footnotes or other explanations. The result, therefore, is a work that is extremely difficult to comprehend. Assessing English Translations of the Qur'an :: Middle East Quarterly
The first English translation was that of Alexander Ross published in 1649. There is no better evaluation of the type of work it is than the translator’s statement of his goal in the introduction, “I thought good to bring it to their colours, that so viewing thine enemies in their full body, thou must the better prepare to encounter … his Alcoran.†(p. A3) Besides, the title of this translation, The Alcoran of Mahomet … newly Englished for the satisfaction of all that desire to look into the Turkish vanities, is self-explanatory, and it underlines one of the basic misconceptions prevalent in the West, namely that Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, was the author of the Qur’an. In this context, it is worth mentioning that Maurice Bucaille (1986), an eminent French surgeon and scientist who defends the Qur’an in his book The Bible, Qur’an and Science, states that some western translations meant to deliberately mistranslate the word “أمى †ummei (unlettered), referring to Prophet Muhammad in some Qur’anic verses, so as to hide the fact that it could have never been possible for an unlettered person to be the author of the Qur’an that encompasses historical events, that he did not witness, as well as meticulous scientific facts that were discovered long after his death and could not have been thought of at the time of revelation (pp. 94-96). This fact about the Prophet used to shock westerners whenever Bucaille revealed it to them. In 1734, Sale’s translation came out based on Marracci’s earlier notorious work. Then, in 1861, J. M. Rodwell’s work provided a further example of a writer “gunning for Islam†(Turner, 1997, p. xii). Tracing Islamophobia in the Oldest Holy Qur’an Translations | Islamic Writings
It is the Quran itself that is partly [not wholly] evil.
Therefore when the Quran was translated into English the evil elements that were ignored by most Muslims were revealed when non-Muslim read the truths of the Quran objectively.
You still have not proven to me there are evil comments in the Qur'an
Btw, the existing Arabic Quran, perhaps as long as 1,000 years ago were also translations, as you have often mentioned the Arabic of the original recited Quran was in Kufic Arabic. Thus there would have been a translation from Kufic Arabic to the present Arabic.
Kufic is not a dialect, it is a letter form. There were at least 6 letter forms in use at the time the Qur'an was revealed. In order to standardize the written form Uthman ordered that all Qurans would be written with the Kufic Text. Keep in mind Arabic was just begining to develop as a written language and there was no established Arabic Alphabet. What was used were, Hebrew, Aramaic, Phonecian and other alphabets and variations of them Kufic was the First unique Arabic Alphabet. It was derived from the Nabataean script
Here is a link to the history of the Arabic alphabet Ancient Scripts: Arabic
"Then again translation are primarily for non-Muslims"
Now you are back to reality and practicality.
I refer to 40++ English translations whenever there are doubts and read extensively.
Can you name 10 of the Translations you use?
Non-Muslims should read the Muslims' commentaries, but to be objective, a non-Muslims cannot rely critically on the Muslims' views of the Quran and Islam which by default would be very emotionally bias.
By default a Muslim can never be totally objective in their reading of the Quran and practicing Islam which is a 'faith' which do not lend itself to reason, rationality and proofs.
Yes an adherent of any belief or non-belief will have some elements of bias. What about those that were not Muslim but became Muslim after reading the Qur'an
Many probably most Muslims have never read the Qur'an although most have read a translation of it.
What a non-Muslim should do is to read the Quran objectively with the highest level of intellectual competence, credibility and integrity.
Especially a non-Muslim should be competent in Philosophy, Science [especially neurosciences], languages, various fields of human nature, psychology, and all relevant other advance fields of knowledge and technology.
The above recommendations are my approach in reading the Quran and understanding Islam.
Perhaps you should also have knowledge of Islam. While you can learn the Muslim view of the Qur'an by studying Islam, you can not learn about Islam from the Qur'an
Thanks.
It is quite a big load to reply, due to time constraint I will respond to all your counters bit by bit.
No problem. I have no place to go until Tuesday then I will be at the VA in Fargo all day and possibly also Wednesday. Nice thing about being retired, don't have to go anyplace except Dr appointments.
The above is merely a deflection. I understand you are compelled by your "inoculation theory" defenses here..
"Innoculation Theory" does not refer to defense mechanisms. It explains how "Self Evident beliefs" become established as verified beliefs. We all have "self evident beliefs" we are not aware of, because they have never been challenged. The more often a belief is challenged the more verification of it we seek, this is the "Innoculation process" the more we are "Innoculated" the more verification we seek and the stronger our belief becomes
Note the Principles of Innoculation theory.
Inoculation Theory was developed by social psychologist William J. McGuire in 1961 to explain more about how attitudes and beliefs change, and more importantly, how to keep original attitudes and beliefs consistent in the face of persuasion attempts. -wiki
The above explanation imply "inoculation theory" is a defense mechanism. It the same with medical inoculation to defend against attacks by pathogens. So you are wrong, "inoculation" theory is a method of defense mechanism.
This typical with all your responses and counters to all my views in my critique of Islam. I have presented rational arguments via the use of intellect, reason, logic, rationality and wisdom, but your counters are defective and insufficient in objectivity.
Quote:
1. I have challenged you to show me what can I missed out from the 40++ English translations of the Quran that I am referring to with Pickthall as my main reference.
Quote:
40++ English translations is probably the total number of English Translations ever published, the majority of which where sanctioned by the Catholic Church in an attempt to stop the spread of Islam. There have probably only been less than 10 unbiased Translation in the entire history of English Translations of the Qur'an.
I am aware there are more than 40++ English translations. The ones I refer to are not the one which are sanctioned by the Catholic Church to 'stop the spread of Islam'.
I am aware of those early one [you mentioned somewhere, by Ross, Sale, etc.
The 40++ translations are sincere attempts by those scholars who read the Arabic Quran to expose the Quran to Muslims and non-Muslims who can read Muslims with the hope of converting them.
Quote:
2. If you insist the Jews are loved by Allah and Muhammad, how would you counter this verse for example.
Quote:
7:166. So when they [Jews infidels] took pride in that which they [infidels] had been forbidden, We said unto them [infidel Jews]: Be ye apes despised and loathed! [Dehumanized]
This is in reference to:
Bible, Book of Exodus 31: 14-16
14. Observe the Sabbath, because it is Holy to you. Anyone who desecrates it must be put to death. Whoever does any work on that day must be cut off from his people.
15. For six days, work is to be done, but the seventh day is a Sabbath of rest, Holy to the Lord. Whoever does any work on the Sabbath Day must be put to death.
16. The Israelites are to observe the Sabbath, celebrating it for the generations to come, as a lasting covenant.
This had to do with a specific group of Jews, those that refused to observe the Sabbath. It has nothing to do with all Jews.
Read more of the actual discourse, not just a single line
But those of them who did wrong changed the word which had been told them for another saying, and We sent down upon them wrath from heaven for their wrongdoing. - 7:162
Ask them (O Muhammad) of the township that was by the sea, how they did break the sabbath, how their big fish came unto them visibly upon their sabbath day and on a day when they did not keep sabbath came they not unto them. Thus did We try them for that they were evil-livers. - 7:163 (Picktall)
And when a community among them said: Why preach ye to a folk whom Allah is about to destroy and punish with an awful doom, they said: In order to be free from guilt before your Lord, and that haply they may ward off (evil). - 7:164 (Picktall)
And when they forgot that whereof they had been reminded, We rescued those who forbade wrong, and visited those who did wrong with dreadful punishment because they were evil livers. - 7:165 (Picktall)
So when they took pride in that which they had been forbidden, We said unto them: Be ye apes despised and loathed! - 7:166 (Picktall)
And (remember) when thy Lord proclaimed that He would raise against them till the Day of Resurrection those who would lay on them a cruel torment. Lo! verily thy Lord is swift in prosecution and lo! verily He is Forgiving, Merciful. - 7:167 (Picktall)
Keep in mind that Muslims also consider the Torah, Psalms and the Gospel of Jesus to be true scripture and many of the early companions of Muhammad were Christians and Jews that were very familiar with the past scriptures.
This is merely one example and there are many other verses which are anti-Jews.
The fact is this particular verse which is evil laden itself [condemning and dehumanize certain Jews] but in the whole context of the Quran and all the related verses the Jews are generalized to be 'hated' and this is summarized in 1:7.
Obviously by the Principle of the Bell Curve, naturally there will be Jews who are good.
But the Quran do not apply this context but represent the Jews as generally evil and to be hated.
I have given reasons why Muhammad was angry and hated the Jews and this is imputed in the Quran and Islam.
I am not saying ALL Muslims are influenced by this 'hatred' of Muhammad against the Jews.
What is critical here is the existence of such hatred within the ethos of Islam [in part] as supposed endorsed by Allah influence the natural 20% of evil prone Muslims and inspired them to commit terrible evils and violence against the Jews.
The proofs of such hatred in reality is glaringly evident by the hatred of the Jews by the majority of Muslims around the world.
Quote:
Note there are 3000+ of verses that direct contempt and disdain on non -Muslims.
Quote:
that seems to be a personal opinion.
To maintain my intellectual credibility and integrity I ensure I have covered commentaries and opinions by Arabic speaking Muslims.
That is admirable. Might not always be reliable though as us Muslims are quite individualistic in our beliefs and only a small percentage have any actual Islamic education. The percentage is actually dropping as the most esteeemed Schools of Islamic Knowledge have been destroyed in recent years. The most recognized Islamic shools were located in Egypt, Yemen, Syria and Indonesia. Only the ones in Inonesia seem to remain unscathed. The Schools in Hijaz were pretty much destroyed by the conquest of the Al-Saud Monarchy and today teach The al-Saud family version of Islam.
Why not reliable. This is another of your "inoculation theory" defenses.
The important point is I do not want to be ignorant or rely on one or two sources. I have a "research nature" in my blood and thus ensure I read as widely as possible to get a fair representative view of the subject I am researching.
If you have done an academic thesis paper [I have] you would have understood what is the nature of an imperative dissertation literature review in doing a credible thesis. It is to ensure one has covered all significant literatures published [pro and anti-views] and related to the topic on hand.
The other important point is to approach any issue objectively, rationally & wisely using a very critical philosophical approach, i.e. the highest possible approach to understand any knowledge and issue. I believe I have done that with Islam.
Quote:
The fact is Muslims [and believers] are by default positively bias towards their religion. Because Muslims have a critical emotional interest in Islam, they have to be bias and apply confirmation bias, faith [blind, if not almost], inoculation theory, etc. If there is any thing that is truly negative against their religion, they will twist and turn it to ensure such negatives are viewed as positive.
Quote:
Some of us came to the opinion that Islam was the truth, before accepting Islam. I really doubt I have any emotional attatchment to Islam. I do have a very strong belief that a Supreme creator exists and my investigations always indicate that we are to perform Islam. My emotional attatchments are more in line with the Indigneous religion of the Lakotah, which I do follow to the extent it does not conflict with the Qur'an.
By psychological default, all religionists have an emotional attachment to their religion from the deepest levels of primary emotions [basically primal fears] which is subliminal.
All over the Quran, Allah promote the emotion of fear, i.e. all Muslims must fear Allah, fear death, etc.. Surely you know 'fear' is an emotion, therefore you cannot deny you do not have any emotional attachments to Allah, thus Islam.
Instinctual fear emotion has utility to humans to facilitate the avoidance of premature death. But the Abrahamic religion and adopted by Muhammad invoke the emotion of fear to control his followers.
In contrast the wiser religions like Buddhism teaches their followers on how to manage and conquer mental fears, e.g. of death, worries, anxieties and the likes.
To get a greater understanding, refer to the Psychology of Religion and theism. Note William James, Freud, Adler and many others.
Last edited by Continuum; 02-05-2016 at 12:58 AM..
Note the Farhan Quresh video I linked earlier where he explained his personal experiences in deflecting away whatever negative against Islam till he could not do it anymore and then he left Islam. If you forgot, here is the link again;
I find that apostates from a religion have an emotional need to seek out justifications for leaving their previous belief. I find justifications to be no more rliable than videos attesting to reasons an individual converts to a faith. It comes down to the persons need to justify their actions, a defense mechanism in action.
I understand and agree with your point in general to an extend as many who leave and convert to another religion often condemn their previous religions and many are emotional.
I mentioned Farhan Qureshi because he is exceptionally and significantly different from the general cases.
In this case Farhan could explain his internal psychology on the issue in contrast to those who are ignorant on what is going on within their mental state.
He explained [on hindsight] he was deflecting counters against Islam when he was a Muslim based on confirmation bias, emotional attachment to Islam, the culture, the Ummah, etc. Though he did not mention he was using "inoculation theory" as well. This is a common human nature where by default no one would admit they are wrong especially when it is a matter of life [eternal] or death [eternal].
Quote:
I have analyzed ALL the 6,236 verses of the Quran thoroughly in Excel Spreadsheet which facilitate analysis.
Quote:
It is not difficult to get the full context of the Quran via such analysis. Here are the major elements in terms of number of verses [roughly]; 1. Allah -specific = 1500++ verses 2. Eschatological = 2014++ 3. Judgment Day = 1968++ 4. Biblical stories = 2250++ 5. Infidel -negative =3400++ 6. Muslim-specific = 1732++
Note one verse many contain one or more of the above elements.
It still comes down to personal opinion.
I can understand why it is an opinion from your stance as I have not provided the objective information yet.
Except for 5 the rest are reasonable accurate.
Where can I go wrong to identify an element that is associated with Judgment Day in the Quran. Even with a margin of error of 5% the numbers above are still significant to make inferences on the Quran.
As for item 5 which is likely to be contentious for especially Muslims, there is a need for further deliberations to get to the point.
I will explain this later.
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.
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.
