Jews still can't figure out why gays are leaving for the right

The RODOH Lounge is a place for general discussion, preferably non-Holocaust. The Lounge is only lightly moderated but please keep this a friendly place to chat with and get to know your fellow board participants.
Werd
Posts: 9002
Joined: Fri Oct 10, 2014 6:38 am
Contact:

Re: Jews still can't figure out why gays are leaving for the right

Post by Werd » Sat Sep 07, 2019 4:03 am

Been-there's amazing selective reading skills, once noted here (one and two), make themselves apparent once again. Let's try this again:
Those are only my words. Perhaps a poor choice of one. The reason you focus on them ONLY, is sneaky. Because I busted your lie from months ago that the hadith doesn't hold the same weight as the Koran in Islamic law. That was the point of bringing back this old quote.
I.E. That wikipedia quote I have quoted like three times now.
Next.
I HAVE already discussed this with Muslims. So then you castigate me for that?
Only for making talking to them relevant after YOU have stipulated that reading the Koran for one's self sits above someone's opinion or other types of secondary literature. Why drag in what is superfluous by your own standards? This is not me attempting to rig up a "heads I will tails you lose" situation so quit whining. This is me holding you to your own standards. Learn the difference between what is actually going on and what you erroneously think is going on.
You've switched an argument from whether Muhammed and the Koran allows Muslims to be friends with Jews and Christians to Islamic law (shariah)?!?! :?
So that's another strawman argument from you.
Nope. It's called discussing one issue at a time. Nothing wrong with it. Drop your faux indignant attitude. Secondly, you abandoned this issue about who can be a friend or ally long ago when you refused to deal with my questions here:
Werd wrote:
Fri Sep 06, 2019 1:11 am
Then look, you just repeated the deceit that the Koran said Muslims couldn't be friends with Jews and Christians. And that directly after I posted an article by a muslim explaining why that is a false and dishonestly inconsistent interpretation of their scripture.
1) Aulia is erroneously and inconsistently translated as friends by some translators. However, in Arabic, Aulia is more closely defined as a protector or an ally.
And I should believe him because...? Second of all, this is just like Talmud apologetics. What's wrong with taking them as allies or protectors? Why is that bad? He has simply moved the problem back one more step. Like an irrational theist who when he can't explain something says, "God did it?" Okay, what caused God?
Too late for you to come back to it unless you want to actually answer my questions this time. If not, move on and quit beating that dead horse. Personal attacks like this:
you don't have a logical, reasoned, considered view, but instead have an irrational, emotional prejudice and hatred that is impervious to reason or argument.
Are not direct responses to my questions above.
the majority of muslims of whatever branch or sect regard the Koran as MORE authorative than any hadith.
What are you babbling about again?
Among most hadithists, the importance of hadith is secondary to Qur'an
Then explain this:
While the number of verses pertaining to law in the Quran is relatively few, ahadith give direction on everything from details of religious obligations (such as Ghusl or Wudu, ablutions[4] for salat prayer), to the correct forms of salutations[5] and the importance of benevolence to slaves.[6] Thus the "great bulk" of the rules of Sharia (Islamic law) are derived from ahadith, rather than the Qur'an.[7]

[7] An-Nawawi, Riyadh As-Salihin, 1975: p.229

Muhyi ad-Din Abu Zakariyya Yahya bin Sharaf an-Nawawi (1975). Riyadh as-Salihin [Gardens of the Righteous]. Mauhammad Zafulla Khan, translator. New York: Olive Branch Press. Retrieved 18 May 2018.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hadith

User avatar
Lupus Rothstein
Posts: 48
Joined: Fri May 31, 2019 4:13 pm
Contact:

Re: misrepresenting religious scriptures to justify prejudice

Post by Lupus Rothstein » Sat Sep 07, 2019 6:41 am

been-there wrote:
Fri Sep 06, 2019 11:39 am
Well, after re-reading it I still don't interpret it that way.
I think that is a distortingly retro-active assessment. One that assumes only one revelation from God is correct and all others are false. I presume it comes from the view that Judaism has the one correct and true revelation.

Far be it for me to deny anyone's right to make an ( incorrect ) presumption about my beliefs, but don't let the flag on my avatar influence your view, the path in life that I have chosen is purely godless !

been-there wrote:
Fri Sep 06, 2019 11:39 am
Whatever, as I read it, it wasn't a chastisement from God for rejecting a new religion, as you appear to believe. It was instead given as a chastisement for again rejecting God and his prophets/messengers. The message in the Koran claimed to be the words that Muhammad believed were revealed to him from God. That is from the same God who supposedly sent the Hebrew Prophets and Jesus. And the message this God was giving to them via Muhammad, God was saying he had given to all the Hebrew Prophets and to Jesus and then to Muhammad. Those Jews were expected to accept it was one and the same message. So Jews of Muhammed's time were not being asked to 'convert' to something new. Just to accept a new revelation of the same message from a new Prophet or messenger.

The crucial thing to understand is that the words are supposedly direct from God, revealed via his latest 'messenger'.
Muhammad himself believed that — and so he told those who listened to understand that the words he was revealing were not from himself but was God talking directly to those people alive then. So this chapter contains words given specifically to Jews of that time who were questioning Muhammed, doubting his 'messenger' claim, ridiculing him and even attempting to kill him and enslave his followers.
I think it has to be read in THAT context.
But even if we accept your interpretation of those 2 verses ( which ironically appear similar to mine, albeit some semantical issues over the interpretation of the term 'conversion') I don't think you should have presented them as evidence that the Quran "promotes respect, tolerance and peaceful co-existence" . I cannot find anything in those verses that resemble such . Ok , I acknowledge that the passages on their own do not appear 'anti-semitic' or 'hostile to Jews because they are Jews" , as these 'warnings' (or 'threats') would also be made to non-Jews too. But to fully understand the Quran's general attitude to non-believers, you also have to take into account what Allah says in later revelations. I touched on it previously when I mentioned the process of 'Abrogation'. Examples may follow in future postings but just to give you a taste of what Allah's views were post 2;62 , then read this :
Ye are the best of peoples, evolved for mankind, enjoining what is right, forbidding what is wrong, and believing in Allah. If only the People of the Book had faith, it were best for them: among them are some who have faith, but most of them are perverted transgressors. (3:110)
Those who disbelieve from among the People of the Book and among the Polytheists, will be in Hell-Fire, to dwell therein (for aye). They are the worst of creatures. (98:6)
So how do these two ( out of many more) verses reconcile with your view that the Quran "promotes respect, tolerance and peaceful co-existence" ? Especially if we take into account they were spoken by Allah after the verses from chapter 2 !

been-there wrote:
Fri Sep 06, 2019 11:39 am
40. O Children of Israel! Remember My blessings which I bestowed upon you, and fulfill your pledge to Me, and I will fulfill My pledge to you, and fear Me.
41. And believe in what I revealed, confirming what is with you; and do not be the first to deny it; and do not exchange My revelations for a small price; and be conscious of Me.
42. And do not mix truth with falsehood, and do not conceal the truth while you know.
43. And attend to your prayers, and practice regular charity, and kneel with those who kneel.
44. Do you command people to virtuous conduct, and forget yourselves, even though you read the [Jewish] Scripture? Do you not understand?
45. Seek help through patience and prayer. But it is difficult, except for the devout and
46. those who know that they will meet their Lord, and that to Him they will return.
47. O Children of Israel! Remember My favour which I bestowed upon you, and that I favoured you over all nations.
48. And beware of a Day when no soul will avail another in the least, nor will any intercession be accepted on its behalf, nor will any ransom be taken from it, nor will they be helped.

That sounds to me like exactly the same warning that all the Hebrew Prophets gave to the Hebrew peoples of their times.
Would you regard Ezekiel, Micah, Joel, Amos, Hosea, Isaiah, etc., and all the other Hebrew prophets as 'anti-semites' for "chastising" Jews and telling them to believe and act upon THEIR message?
The words attributed to Jesus in the New Testament similarly "chastises" the Jewish people of his time, and invited them to follow his message. Do you regard him also as an anti-semite with an intrinsically anti-semitic message and teaching?
I am unaware of the words of those biblical characters you mention so for the sake of time please forgive me if I respond in a relatively 'general' manner :

Whatever the words of those prophets were, if they did resemble the above words of Allah then no, I don't think any rationally minded person would deem them 'anti-semitic'. For one, there is a different dynamic being played here, these prophets and the people they were addressing were of the same religion and "ethnicity", so I don't think the comparison is relevant. But just to get back to basics, my argument does not rely solely on those 3 verses that you presented. My argument/belief that the Quran is intolerant, anti- Christian, anti-Jewish or anti-Semitic is based on other verses, especially the later verses which (via the process of Abrogation) override any previous statements made by Allah. Maybe in your next response you can confirm whether you disagree with this , and if not then why .

been-there wrote:
Fri Sep 06, 2019 11:39 am

No, not "convert" to a new and different religion. Islam means submission. The words are supposedly direct from God via a new living prophet in their own time, exhorting them to reaffirm their covenant with him and to submit to his guidance and message given to them through his new messenger.

That is NOT what the actual words in the Koran say.

81. Indeed, whoever commits misdeeds, and becomes besieged by his iniquities — these are the inmates of the Fire, wherein they will dwell forever.
82. As for those who believe and do righteous deeds — these are the inhabitants of Paradise, wherein they will dwell forever.
83. We made a covenant with the Children of Israel: “Worship none but God; and be good to parents, and relatives, and orphans, and the needy; and speak nicely to people; and pray regularly, and give alms.” Then you turned away, except for a few of you, recanting.

That isn't saying converting to a new religion and giving up their old one is crucial. It is saying genuinely following your religion, believing in God, obeying him, how you are living and what you are actually DOing is crucial.

2.62. Surely those who believe, and those who are Jews, and the Christians, and the Sabians, whoever believes in God and the Last day [Day of Judgement] and does good, they shall have their reward from their Lord, and there is no fear for them, nor shall they grieve.
It appears there are disagreements in our interpretation of the term 'convert' . I guess the answer lies in the scale of changes expected in the cultural and religious practices of the non-believers. Maybe a discussion on that particular topic is for another time and place . But just to pick up on what appears to be your view regarding what represents the 'crucial' element of Allahs demands, ie "following your religion, believing in God, obeying him, how you are living and what you are actually doing". How do you think Allah would judge a Jew or a Christian, who ticked all the boxes of those aforementioned list of demands , except from accepting Muhammed as God's final prophet ? Would he show any of his famous tolerance then ? I think a clue can be found in the 2 verses I quoted earlier in this post (3;110 and 98;6) !
Last edited by Lupus Rothstein on Sat Sep 07, 2019 7:02 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Lupus Rothstein
Posts: 48
Joined: Fri May 31, 2019 4:13 pm
Contact:

Re: misrepresenting religious scriptures to justify prejudice

Post by Lupus Rothstein » Sat Sep 07, 2019 6:51 am

Werd wrote:
Fri Sep 06, 2019 10:01 am

So Lupus I have a serious question for you. But before you indulge me, I would appreciate if if you took a look at this post of mine:
viewtopic.php?p=153770#p153770

Now that you have read it, be so kind as to tell me who I put at the top of the conspiracy pyramid that is NOT JEWISH/ISRAELI/ZIONIST. I want you to publicly acknowledge my words. Now after that, I want you to answer these questions honestly. Since you're aware of how bad Islam is, are you also willing to admit:

1. what Muslims are doing in Europe at huge rates in terms of rape, assault and other crimes?
2. that many leftist Jews are promoting and cheerleading for open borders in Europe?
3. This is causing resentment and anti-semitism?
4. That it is a slap in the face to the fleeing Jews in the 40's looking for refuge from Germany being compared to Muslims that come from a traditionally non-liberal culture that treats women and girls poorly?
5. That being a conservative and wanting closed borders doesn't leave no room inside the person for a dislike of fascism as a form of government? That people like my grandparents were real and actually existed?
It appears you are pointing the conspiracy finger at Jesuits and Freemasons.

I. Yes I am aware of such incidents
2. No doubt such people exist, but I cannot name these people. I am also aware of the general 'leftist' attitude that appears to promote this 'open border' policy.
3. I do not personally believe this should be the case. But I am aware that some people like to blame the Jews for a multitude of events, mostly of a negative nature.
4. Yes you may have a point here.
5. I strongly agree, being a 'conservative' and wanting 'closed borders' in no way means you are a fascist .

So, why all the questions ?

User avatar
been-there
Propositions Moderator
Posts: 8525
Joined: Tue Apr 30, 2013 8:59 am
Contact:

Re: Jews still can't figure out why gays are leaving for the right

Post by been-there » Sat Sep 07, 2019 7:36 am

Werd wrote:
Sat Sep 07, 2019 4:03 am
You've switched an argument from whether Muhammed and the Koran allows Muslims to be friends with Jews and Christians to Islamic law (sharia)?!?! :?
So that's another strawman argument from you.
Nope. It's called discussing one issue at a time. Nothing wrong with it.
Sure. Nothing wrong with discussing one issue at a time. But I don't think that was what you were doing. I think you were moving the goalposts to avoid correction.

Werd wrote:
Sat Sep 07, 2019 4:03 am
Secondly, you abandoned this issue about who can be a friend or ally long ago when you refused to deal with my questions...
It wasn't I who abandoned it. I still maintain there is nothing in the Koran that forbids friendship with Jews or Christians. On the contrary. You moved the goalposts to discussing shariah. And I responded to that argument also.
Anyway. I don't claim to be an authority on Shariah law. I have had friendly relations with muslims. And I am not aware of any Sharia law forbidding muslims from having friendship with Jews or Christians. Do you know of any?

Werd wrote:
Sat Sep 07, 2019 4:03 am
Too late for you to come back to it unless you want to actually answer my questions this time. If not, move on and quit beating that dead horse.
I did answer it: with a blog that dealt with this point written by a muslim. I can't force you to understand the answer.

Werd wrote:
Sat Sep 07, 2019 4:03 am
Personal attacks like this:
...you don't have a logical, reasoned, considered view, but instead have an irrational, emotional prejudice and hatred that is impervious to reason or argument.
are not direct responses to my questions above.
I agree. They are not an answer to your questions, they are an explanation for why I presume my answers aren't even acknowledged by you, let alone understood or responded to.

Werd wrote:
Sat Sep 07, 2019 4:03 am
been-there wrote:the majority of muslims of whatever branch or sect regard the Koran as MORE authorative than any hadith.
What are you babbling about again?
See? I just explained exactly this!! You appear not to have understood the answer... again. ;)

Werd wrote:
Sat Sep 07, 2019 4:03 am
b-t wrote:Among most hadithists, the importance of hadith is secondary to Qur'an
Then explain this:
While the number of verses pertaining to law in the Quran is relatively few, ahadith give direction on everything from details of religious obligations (such as Ghusl or Wudu, ablutions, for salat prayer), to the correct forms of salutations and the importance of benevolence to slaves. Thus the "great bulk" of the rules of Sharia (Islamic law) are derived from ahadith, rather than the Qur'an.
As I see it, there is no contradiction. The statement is undoubtedly correct. But we aren't discussing Islamic law (known as Sharia).
Sharia isn't Islam! Its just one aspect of it.
The mystical side of Islam distinguishes four stages of applying Koranic teachings: Sharia, Tariqa, Haqiqa and Marifa. Sharia is the first and lowest aspect and Marifa is the last and highest aspect of applying Islam.

The Koran came first. Haditha came after.
The Koran is primary. Haditha are secondary.
Haditha are like a commentary on the Koran: how to interpret and apply it. And as explained previously, there is no total consensus on what is a correct interpretation and commentary nor on which haditha are authentic. Which is precisely why there are so many branches and sects, each with different views and even different collections of haditha considered authentic/correct. But there is no different branch with a different Koran! All muslims revere the exact same Koran.

Why do you keep ignoring this?

Actually I think I know why. You give preference to select haditha over the Koran because you want to see Islam as one anti-social, dangerous, disgusting monolith. This truth of diversity of opinion and application causes you cognitive dissonance as you prefer to believe something negative about ALL muslims. Which I again respectfully suggest is an irrational prejudice.
You currently hold a view which is not healthy and is anti-social. Plus its an irrational and inaccurate view promulgated primarily by Jewish groups with zionist agendas (and also by fundamentalist Christian organisations with a missionary agenda).
Why are you supporting them?
Give it up!
"When people who are honestly mistaken learn the truth,
they either cease being mistaken
or they cease being honest"
-- Anonymous

Werd
Posts: 9002
Joined: Fri Oct 10, 2014 6:38 am
Contact:

Re: misrepresenting religious scriptures to justify prejudice

Post by Werd » Sat Sep 07, 2019 11:02 am

Lupus Rothstein wrote:
Sat Sep 07, 2019 6:51 am
It appears you are pointing the conspiracy finger at Jesuits and Freemasons.

I. Yes I am aware of such incidents
2. No doubt such people exist, but I cannot name these people. I am also aware of the general 'leftist' attitude that appears to promote this 'open border' policy.
3. I do not personally believe this should be the case. But I am aware that some people like to blame the Jews for a multitude of events, mostly of a negative nature.
4. Yes you may have a point here.
5. I strongly agree, being a 'conservative' and wanting 'closed borders' in no way means you are a fascist .

So, why all the questions ?
Because with your avatar, I suspected you were the same person who previously dodged those questions with the same avatar as you. The reason for all the questions is the same reason I asked the other person with the same avatar who I thought/still think was you: I want you to understand that my curiosity about world conspiracies leaves room for me to be a revisionist about gas chambers, and still NOT a whitewasher of Hitler and fascism as a form of government and anti semitism as a form of government policy. I.E. Interning as many Jews as possible into camps. Not to brag (but I will do it anyway), when you encounter someone like me on a holocaust revisionist board, you are encountering a rare specimen. My gas chamber revisionism is motivated by a curiosity in the topic in and of itself. Not by anything else. Secondly, by admitting that a lot of left leaning Jews engage in cultural distortion and parastism, I.E. cheering on the shrinking of the white middle class via immigration, you admit that SOME anti semitism is caused by Jews and is therefore rational in SOME cases. Not all of course. Communist and leftist Jews create anti semitism. It is my belief that more honest, American first, conservative Jews like Michael Savage and PatriotNurse on youtube help to kill anti semitism. In my conspiracy field that I look into as a hobby, I have found a lot of Jewish truthsayers like this who ARE loyal to their host nation and wouldn't dare excuse or condone things that the Mossad or the Zionist lobby has done to harm Americans. They correctly have pointed out (Michael Savage included) that leftist Jews who are pro immigration to the point of identifying with the foreigner first instead of the plight of middle class Americans only prove the stereotype that Jews are disloyal.

Look, obviously there are some anti semites that can't be cured. Such as the ones who shoot up synagogues and kill innocent Jews that have nothing to do with the world conspiracy. But there are some like me who watch what some say and do and go, "You know, this isn't going to get you liked in the long run. You probably should stop for your own good."

User avatar
been-there
Propositions Moderator
Posts: 8525
Joined: Tue Apr 30, 2013 8:59 am
Contact:

Re: misrepresenting religious scriptures to justify prejudice

Post by been-there » Sat Sep 07, 2019 4:07 pm

Lupus Rothstein wrote:
Sat Sep 07, 2019 6:41 am
...don't let the flag on my avatar influence your view, the path in life that I have chosen is purely godless !
Ok. But would it be fair to presume you find the beliefs and customs of practicing followers of Judaism, less offensive to you than the beliefs and customs of practicing followers of Islam?

Lupus Rothstein wrote:
Sat Sep 07, 2019 6:41 am
But even if we accept your interpretation of those 2 verses (which ironically appear similar to mine, albeit some semantical issues over the interpretation of the term 'conversion') I don't think you should have presented them as evidence that the Quran "promotes respect, tolerance and peaceful co-existence". I cannot find anything in those verses that resemble such.
Ok, I acknowledge that the passages on their own do not appear 'anti-semitic' or 'hostile to Jews because they are Jews", as these 'warnings' (or 'threats') would also be made to non-Jews too.
Precisely! :)

Lupus Rothstein wrote:
Sat Sep 07, 2019 6:41 am
But to fully understand the Quran's general attitude to non-believers, you also have to take into account what Allah says in later revelations.
Ah... but we are discussing the Koran's attitudes to believers and obeyers of the one semitic God, viz. Jews and Christians. We are not discussing the God of the Koran's attitude to non-believers and hypocritical pretenders.

Lupus Rothstein wrote:
Sat Sep 07, 2019 6:41 am
I touched on it previously when I mentioned the process of 'Abrogation'. Examples may follow in future postings but just to give you a taste of what Allah's views were post 2;62 , then read this :
Ye are the best of peoples, evolved for mankind, enjoining what is right, forbidding what is wrong, and believing in Allah. If only the People of the Book had faith, it would be better for them: among them are some who have faith, but most of them are perverted transgressors. (3:110)
Those who disbelieve from among the People of the Book and among the Polytheists, will be in Hell-Fire, to dwell therein (for aye). They are the worst of creatures. (98:6)
So how do these two ( out of many more) verses reconcile with your view that the Quran "promotes respect, tolerance and peaceful co-existence" ? Especially if we take into account they were spoken by Allah after the verses from chapter 2 !
We reconcile it by acknowledging this deity supposedly communicating through Muhammad was only referring to non-believers and people who make an outward pretence of religion but in reality are moral transgressors. This deity is referring to those who are Jews and Christians — 'people of the book' — but who actually "disbelieve". I.e. people living in Jewish and Christian communities who don't genuinely believe in God and who the God speaking in the Koran says have been transgressing his rules.
Its the same type of message that Jesus gave:
"You snakes, you generation of vipers, how will you escape the damnation of hell?"[Matthew 23:33]

"Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for you devour widows' houses, and for a pretence make long prayer: therefore you shall receive the greater damnation." [Matthew 23:14]

[Luke 6: 46,49]“Why do you call Me ‘Lord, Lord,’ but not do what I say? ...The one who hears My words and does not act on them is like a man who built his house on ground without a foundation. The torrent crashed against that house, and immediately it fell and great was its destruction.”

And like the Hebrew prophets:
they will pay the penalty for their sin, because they rejected My ordinances and abhorred My statutes.” [Leviticus 26:15]

Or check this out from the Hebrew Prophet Amos, 5:16-24:
Amos wrote:This is what Jehovah/Yahweh, the God of Hosts, the Lord, says:
“There will be wailing in all the public squares and cries of ‘Alas! Alas!’ in all the streets. The farmer will be summoned to mourn, and the mourners to wail. There will be wailing in all the vineyards, for I will pass through your midst. Woe to you who long for the Day of God! What will the Day of God be for you? It will be darkness and not light. It will be like a man who flees from a lion, only to encounter a bear, or who enters his house and rests his hand against the wall, only to be bitten by a snake. Will not the Day of God be darkness and not light, even gloom with no brightness in it? I hate, I despise your feasts! I cannot stand the stench of your solemn assemblies. Even though you offer Me burnt offerings and grain offerings, I will not accept them. For your peace offerings of fattened cattle, I will have no regard. Take away from Me the noise of your songs! I will not listen to the music of your harps. But let justice roll on like a river, and righteousness like an ever-flowing stream”.
Its the same message as in the Koran. Its telling people that their outward pretence at religious life is worthless without righteous living, kindness to others, prayer, etc.

Lupus Rothstein wrote:
Sat Sep 07, 2019 6:41 am
been-there wrote:
Fri Sep 06, 2019 11:39 am
It sounds to me like exactly the same warning that all the Hebrew Prophets gave to the Hebrew peoples of their times.
Would you regard Ezekiel, Micah, Joel, Amos, Hosea, Isaiah, etc., and all the other Hebrew prophets as 'anti-semites' for "chastising" Jews and telling them to believe and act upon THEIR message?
The words attributed to Jesus in the New Testament similarly "chastises" the Jewish people of his time, and invited them to follow his message. Do you regard him also as an anti-semite with an intrinsically anti-semitic message and teaching?
I am unaware of the words of those biblical characters you mention so for the sake of time please forgive me if I respond in a relatively 'general' manner :

Whatever the words of those prophets were, if they did resemble the above words of Allah then no, I don't think any rationally minded person would deem them 'anti-semitic'. For one, there is a different dynamic being played here, these prophets and the people they were addressing were of the same religion and "ethnicity", so I don't think the comparison is relevant. But just to get back to basics, my argument does not rely solely on those 3 verses that you presented. My argument/belief that the Quran is intolerant, anti- Christian, anti-Jewish or anti-Semitic is based on other verses, especially the later verses which (via the process of Abrogation) override any previous statements made by Allah. Maybe in your next response you can confirm whether you disagree with this , and if not then why .

been-there wrote:
Fri Sep 06, 2019 11:39 am

No, not "convert" to a new and different religion. Islam means submission. The words are supposedly direct from God via a new living prophet in their own time, exhorting them to reaffirm their covenant with him and to submit to his guidance and message given to them through his new messenger.

That is what the actual words in the Koran say:
2:81. Indeed, whoever commits misdeeds, and becomes besieged by his iniquities — these are the inmates of the Fire, wherein they will dwell forever.
2:82. As for those who believe and do righteous deeds — these are the inhabitants of Paradise, wherein they will dwell forever.
2:83. We made a covenant with the Children of Israel: “Worship none but God; and be good to parents, and relatives, and orphans, and the needy; and speak nicely to people; and pray regularly, and give alms.” Then you turned away, except for a few of you, recanting.
That isn't saying converting to a new religion and giving up their old one is crucial. It is saying genuinely following your religion, believing in God, obeying him, how you are living and what you are actually DOing is crucial.
2.62. Surely those who believe, and those who are Jews, and the Christians, and the Sabians, whoever believes in God and the Last day [Day of Judgement] and does good, they shall have their reward from their Lord, and there is no fear for them, nor shall they grieve.
It appears there are disagreements in our interpretation of the term 'convert' . I guess the answer lies in the scale of changes expected in the cultural and religious practices of the non-believers. Maybe a discussion on that particular topic is for another time and place . But just to pick up on what appears to be your view regarding what represents the 'crucial' element of Allahs demands, ie "following your religion, believing in God, obeying him, how you are living and what you are actually doing".

How do you think Allah would judge a Jew or a Christian, who ticked all the boxes of those aforementioned list of demands , except from accepting Muhammed as God's final prophet? Would he show any of his famous tolerance then ? I think a clue can be found in the 2 verses I quoted earlier in this post (3;110 and 98;6)!
Those two quotes were directed to unrighteous pretenders and disbelievers. Not practising genuine believers.
So I believe the answer is any Jew or a Christian, who ticked all the boxes of those aforementioned list of demands , except from accepting Muhammed as God's final prophet would be accepted.
The God of the Koran explicitly said so, twice!
Indeed, the believers, Jews, Christians, and Sabians — whoever truly believes in God and the Last Day and does good will have their reward with their Lord. And there will be no fear for them, nor will they grieve.[Quran 2:62]

Indeed, the believers, Jews, Sabians* and Christians — whoever truly believes in God and the Last Day and does good, there will be no fear for them, nor will they grieve.[Quran 5:69]
*The reference to the Sabians is thought to have been referring to a semitic Gnostic Christian sect called the Mandaeans.

There is nothing there saying they have to accept Muhammed or 'convert' to Islam. Muhammed wanted to live peacefully and respectfully with the Jewish tribes of Medina. He didn't insist they convert. Nor did he allow his followers to force conversion.
This revelation was given at that time in Medina: there is no compulsion in religion!
There is no compulsion in religion. The right way has been distinguished from error. Anyone who rejects false deities and believes in God has grasped a firm handhold which will never break. God is all-hearing, all-knowing.
Are you familiar with the history?
"When people who are honestly mistaken learn the truth,
they either cease being mistaken
or they cease being honest"
-- Anonymous

User avatar
Lupus Rothstein
Posts: 48
Joined: Fri May 31, 2019 4:13 pm
Contact:

Re: misrepresenting religious scriptures to justify prejudice

Post by Lupus Rothstein » Sun Sep 08, 2019 12:23 pm

been-there wrote:
Sat Sep 07, 2019 4:07 pm
Lupus Rothstein wrote:
Sat Sep 07, 2019 6:41 am
...don't let the flag on my avatar influence your view, the path in life that I have chosen is purely godless !
Ok. But would it be fair to presume you find the beliefs and customs of practicing followers of Judaism, less offensive to you than the beliefs and customs of practicing followers of Islam?
On a personal level, yes I do find them less offensive, especially on a social and cultural scale. But that is purely down to scale and numbers. Jewish culture and beliefs, however offensive, do not impact on me and my country on the same scale and magnitude as those offensive beliefs and customs of the Islamic community have done. You only have to look at the demographics of the UK to realise this.

If the UK Muslim population was at the same level as that of Jews, ie very low, then no doubt the scale of offense I encounter would also be reduced, and I probably wouldn't be sitting here communicating with you on the topic. I hope that answers your question.

I note you only included 'Jewish practices and beliefs' as an alternative to those of Islam. Maybe you, like me, find Christian practices and beliefs to be relatively inoffensive and therefore ineligible for any entry into some "Worlds Worst Religion" competition ?
been-there wrote:
Sat Sep 07, 2019 4:07 pm
Lupus Rothstein wrote:
Sat Sep 07, 2019 6:41 am
But even if we accept your interpretation of those 2 verses (which ironically appear similar to mine, albeit some semantical issues over the interpretation of the term 'conversion') I don't think you should have presented them as evidence that the Quran "promotes respect, tolerance and peaceful co-existence". I cannot find anything in those verses that resemble such.
Ok, I acknowledge that the passages on their own do not appear 'anti-semitic' or 'hostile to Jews because they are Jews", as these 'warnings' (or 'threats') would also be made to non-Jews too.
Precisely! :)
Are you agreeing with both of my points or just the last one ? My first point was to suggest that maybe those 3 verses were not exactly ideal to present as evidence that the Quran "promotes respect, tolerance and peaceful co-existence".
been-there wrote:
Sat Sep 07, 2019 4:07 pm
Ah... but we are discussing the Koran's attitudes to believers and obeyers of the one semitic God, viz. Jews and Christians. We are not discussing the God of the Koran's attitude to non-believers and hypocritical pretenders.

We reconcile it by acknowledging this deity supposedly communicating through Muhammad was only referring to non-believers and people who make an outward pretence of religion but in reality are moral transgressors. This deity is referring to those who are Jews and Christians — 'people of the book' — but who actually "disbelieve". I.e. people living in Jewish and Christian communities who don't genuinely believe in God and who the God speaking in the Koran says have been transgressing his rules.
Its the same type of message that Jesus gave:

Those two quotes were directed to unrighteous pretenders and disbelievers. Not practising genuine believers.

.
I acknowledge your interpretation of these verses. To be honest I had never considered this take on things before. So thank you for 'enlightening me' somewhat. However , I still have some 'issues' regarding this. I will return to this later.


been-there wrote:
Fri Sep 06, 2019 11:39 am
So I believe the answer is any Jew or a Christian, who ticked all the boxes of those aforementioned list of demands , except from accepting Muhammed as God's final prophet would be accepted.
Except maybe for those Christians who believed that Jesus was actually God ? This is what Allah has to say about them in verse 5:72 :

Surely, they have disbelieved who say: "Allah is the Messiah , son of Mary." But the Messiah said: "O Children of Israel! Worship Allah, my Lord and your Lord." Verily, whosoever sets up partners in worship with Allah, then Allah has forbidden Paradise for him, and the Fire will be his abode . And for the Zalimun (polytheists and wrong-doers) there are no helpers.

Not very tolerant to the 'polytheists' either I see !

Allah also makes it clear what his views are on Jesus being the Son of God, see below verse 5;75 :

The Messiah ['Iesa (Jesus)], son of Maryam (Mary), was no more than a Messenger; many were the Messengers that passed away before him. His mother [Maryam (Mary)] was a Siddiqah [i.e. she believed in the words of Allah and His Books (see Verse 66:12)]. They both used to eat food (as any other human being, while Allah does not eat). Look how We make the Ayat (proofs, evidences, verses, lessons, signs, revelations, etc.) clear to them, yet look how they are deluded away (from the truth).

And the fate of these Jews/Christians who believe in Ezra/Jesus is the 'Son of God' and not merely a 'messenger' ?? see below verse 9:30 :

And the Jews say: 'Uzair (Ezra) is the son of Allah, and the Christians say: Messiah is the son of Allah. That is a saying from their mouths. They imitate the saying of the disbelievers of old. Allah's Curse be on them, how they are deluded away from the truth!

These subsequent verses, therefore appear to throw a spanner in the works over your view how Allah views Christians, and Jews. How will they be be allowed into paradise if their beliefs are unacceptable to Allah ? He has already made it clear that the Christians who believe Jesus is God won't be allowed beyond the pearly gates , and he doesn't seem too keen on allowing entry to the Christians who believe Jesus is the Son of God either ! In fact he curses them. Surely this means the majority (if not all) of Christians and Jews would be classed as 'unbelievers' based on the criteria set down by Allah, and therefore not accepted, either by Allah or Muslims.

been-there wrote:
Fri Sep 06, 2019 11:39 am

The God of the Koran explicitly said so, twice!

Indeed, the believers, Jews, Christians, and Sabians — whoever truly believes in God and the Last Day and does good will have their reward with their Lord. And there will be no fear for them, nor will they grieve.[Quran 2:62]

Indeed, the believers, Jews, Sabians* and Christians — whoever truly believes in God and the Last Day and does good, there will be no fear for them, nor will they grieve.[Quran 5:69]
*The reference to the Sabians is thought to have been referring to a semitic Gnostic Christian sect called the Mandaeans.



See previous response above. These verses are contradicted by the later verses I quoted above. 5:72, 5:75 and 9:30. Note, it appears when Muhammed has achieved religous and territorial dominance in his later life, the later verses that are revealed simultaneously appear significantly less 'tolerant' to non-Muslims !! So, I cannot agree with you when you claim that these 'box-ticked' non-Muslims would be 'accepted'.
been-there wrote:
Fri Sep 06, 2019 11:39 am
There is nothing there saying they have to accept Muhammed or 'convert' to Islam. Muhammed wanted to live peacefully and respectfully with the Jewish tribes of Medina. He didn't insist they convert. Nor did he allow his followers to force conversion.
This revelation was given at that time in Medina: there is no compulsion in religion!
There is no compulsion in religion. The right way has been distinguished from error. Anyone who rejects false deities and believes in God has grasped a firm handhold which will never break. God is all-hearing, all-knowing.
Again, the chronology of these verses need to be factored in before we can determine the reality of Islamic conquest during the time of Muhammed. Here is another later verse 9:29, which again appears to contradict earlier more 'tolerant' verses :
Fight against those who (1) believe not in Allah, (2) nor in the Last Day, (3) nor forbid that which has been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger (4) and those who acknowledge not the religion of truth (i.e. Islam) among the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians), until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.
Note the added injustice of what can only be described as an extortion racket on Christians and Jews who do not 'submit to Allah'. Again, this doesn't appear very 'tolerant' or 'peace-loving' does it ? So , if there is 'no compulsion in religion' then why are religious people of other faiths 'compulsed' to pay this extortion tax, just because their religion is different to that of their Islamic conquerers ?

Also, the above verse appears to contradict your view that Muhammed did not insist on conversion. When read in conjunction with the hadiths of Sadih Muslim and Sahih Bukhari , it appears this is exactly what was occurring . Conquered non-Muslims had 3 choices - 1) Submit to Allah (convert to Islam) 2) Pay the Jizyah or 3) Death (?) . I am assuming 'death' is the third, what else could it be ?

Related Hadiths :

"If they refuse to accept Islam, demand from them the Jizya. If they agree to pay, accept it from them and hold off your hands. If they refuse to pay the tax, seek Allah's help and fight them" Sahih Muslim 19:4294

Our Prophet, the Messenger of our Lord, has ordered us to fight you till you worship Allah Alone or give Jizya (i.e. tribute); and our Prophet has informed us that our Lord says:-- "Whoever amongst us is killed (i.e. martyred), shall go to Paradise to lead such a luxurious life as he has never seen, and whoever amongst us remain alive, shall become your master." Sahih Bukhari 53:386

been-there wrote:
Fri Sep 06, 2019 11:39 am

Are you familiar with the history?
Something tells me probably not as familiar as you !

User avatar
Lupus Rothstein
Posts: 48
Joined: Fri May 31, 2019 4:13 pm
Contact:

Re: misrepresenting religious scriptures to justify prejudice

Post by Lupus Rothstein » Sun Sep 08, 2019 12:25 pm

Werd wrote:
Sat Sep 07, 2019 11:02 am
Lupus Rothstein wrote:
Sat Sep 07, 2019 6:51 am
It appears you are pointing the conspiracy finger at Jesuits and Freemasons.

I. Yes I am aware of such incidents
2. No doubt such people exist, but I cannot name these people. I am also aware of the general 'leftist' attitude that appears to promote this 'open border' policy.
3. I do not personally believe this should be the case. But I am aware that some people like to blame the Jews for a multitude of events, mostly of a negative nature.
4. Yes you may have a point here.
5. I strongly agree, being a 'conservative' and wanting 'closed borders' in no way means you are a fascist .

So, why all the questions ?
Because with your avatar, I suspected you were the same person who previously dodged those questions with the same avatar as you. The reason for all the questions is the same reason I asked the other person with the same avatar who I thought/still think was you: I want you to understand that my curiosity about world conspiracies leaves room for me to be a revisionist about gas chambers, and still NOT a whitewasher of Hitler and fascism as a form of government and anti semitism as a form of government policy. I.E. Interning as many Jews as possible into camps. Not to brag (but I will do it anyway), when you encounter someone like me on a holocaust revisionist board, you are encountering a rare specimen. My gas chamber revisionism is motivated by a curiosity in the topic in and of itself. Not by anything else. Secondly, by admitting that a lot of left leaning Jews engage in cultural distortion and parastism, I.E. cheering on the shrinking of the white middle class via immigration, you admit that SOME anti semitism is caused by Jews and is therefore rational in SOME cases. Not all of course. Communist and leftist Jews create anti semitism. It is my belief that more honest, American first, conservative Jews like Michael Savage and PatriotNurse on youtube help to kill anti semitism. In my conspiracy field that I look into as a hobby, I have found a lot of Jewish truthsayers like this who ARE loyal to their host nation and wouldn't dare excuse or condone things that the Mossad or the Zionist lobby has done to harm Americans. They correctly have pointed out (Michael Savage included) that leftist Jews who are pro immigration to the point of identifying with the foreigner first instead of the plight of middle class Americans only prove the stereotype that Jews are disloyal.

Look, obviously there are some anti semites that can't be cured. Such as the ones who shoot up synagogues and kill innocent Jews that have nothing to do with the world conspiracy. But there are some like me who watch what some say and do and go, "You know, this isn't going to get you liked in the long run. You probably should stop for your own good."
Werd, my friend. I can assure you I was not the person who you engaged with previously, who happened to have the same avatar as me.

I will respond more to your comments later tonight.

User avatar
Huntinger
Posts: 4954
Joined: Mon Aug 20, 2018 4:56 am
Location: Gasthaus Waldesruh. Swabia
Contact:

Re: misrepresenting religious scriptures to justify prejudice

Post by Huntinger » Sun Sep 08, 2019 4:23 pm

Lupus Rothstein wrote:
Sun Sep 08, 2019 12:25 pm
Werd, my friend. I can assure you I was not the person who you engaged with previously, who happened to have the same avatar as me.

I will respond more to your comments later tonight.
Perhaps you should change your avatar.

User avatar
been-there
Propositions Moderator
Posts: 8525
Joined: Tue Apr 30, 2013 8:59 am
Contact:

Re: misrepresenting religious scriptures to justify prejudice

Post by been-there » Sun Sep 08, 2019 5:05 pm

Lupus Rothstein wrote:
Sun Sep 08, 2019 12:23 pm
been-there wrote:
Sat Sep 07, 2019 4:07 pm
Lupus Rothstein wrote:
Sat Sep 07, 2019 6:41 am
...don't let the flag on my avatar influence your view, the path in life that I have chosen is purely godless !
Ok. But would it be fair to presume you find the beliefs and customs of practicing followers of Judaism, (or Christianity), less offensive to you than the beliefs and customs of practicing followers of Islam?
On a personal level, yes I do find them less offensive, especially on a social and cultural scale. But that is purely down to scale and numbers. Jewish culture and beliefs, however offensive, do not impact on me and my country on the same scale and magnitude as those offensive beliefs and customs of the Islamic community have done. You only have to look at the demographics of the UK to realise this.
I don't understand. Can you elucidate? What difference does the numbers make and how do practioners of Islam affect you personally more ‘offensively'?

Lupus Rothstein wrote:
Sun Sep 08, 2019 12:23 pm
If the UK Muslim population was at the same level as that of Jews, i.e. very low, then no doubt the scale of offense I encounter would also be reduced, and I probably wouldn't be sitting here communicating with you on the topic. I hope that answers your question.
No, it doesn't answer. Can you ignore — for the sake of clarity — the issue of numbers and scale and just answer whether one person genuinely trying to follow Islam is more offensive to you than one person genuinely trying to follow Judaism, and if so how exactly?

Lupus Rothstein wrote:
Sun Sep 08, 2019 12:23 pm
I note you only included 'Jewish practices and beliefs' as an alternative to those of Islam. Maybe you, like me, find Christian practices and beliefs to be relatively inoffensive and therefore ineligible for any entry into some "Worlds Worst Religion" competition ?
No. I have known Muslims who have impressed me more as noble humans than some Christians and Jews. I don't generalise in this way. I think behaviour has more to do with parental upbringing, standards of living, cultural conditioning than soley religious conditioning. E.g. Muslims in the Far East have different cultural values to those in Africa. And these have subtly different cultural values to those in India. Who again have differences to those in Pakistan and Bangladesh. Some generalisations can be made of course. But I believe there maybe many Bible-belt Christians who are more war-loving, intolerant, bigoted, etc., than many muslims.

Lupus Rothstein wrote:
Sun Sep 08, 2019 12:23 pm
been-there wrote:
Sat Sep 07, 2019 4:07 pm
Lupus Rothstein wrote:
Sat Sep 07, 2019 6:41 am
But even if we accept your interpretation of those 2 verses, I don't think you should have presented them as evidence that the Quran "promotes respect, tolerance and peaceful co-existence". I cannot find anything in those verses that resemble such.
Ok, I acknowledge that the passages on their own do not appear 'anti-semitic' or 'hostile to Jews because they are Jews", as these 'warnings' (or 'threats') would also be made to non-Jews too.
Precisely! :)
Are you agreeing with both of my points or just the last one ?
Just the last one.

Lupus Rothstein wrote:
Sun Sep 08, 2019 12:23 pm
been-there wrote:
Sat Sep 07, 2019 4:07 pm
Ah... but we are discussing the Koran's attitudes to believers and obeyers of the one semitic God, viz. Jews and Christians. We are not discussing the God of the Koran's attitude to non-believers and hypocritical pretenders.

... We reconcile it [the apparent distinction you perceive] by acknowledging this deity supposedly communicating through Muhammad was only referring to non-believers and people who make an outward pretence of religion but in reality are moral transgressors. This deity is referring to those who are Jews and Christians — 'people of the book' — but who actually "disbelieve". I.e. people living in Jewish and Christian communities who don't genuinely believe in God and who the God speaking in the Koran says have been transgressing his rules.
Its the same type of message that Jesus gave:

Those two quotes were directed to unrighteous pretenders and disbelievers. Not practising genuine believers.
I acknowledge your interpretation of these verses. To be honest I had never considered this take on things before. So thank you for 'enlightening me' somewhat. However , I still have some 'issues' regarding this. I will return to this later.

been-there wrote:
Fri Sep 06, 2019 11:39 am
So I believe the answer is any Jew or a Christian, who ticked all the boxes of those aforementioned list of demands , except from accepting Muhammed as God's final prophet would be accepted.
Except maybe for those Christians who believed that Jesus was actually God ? This is what Allah has to say about them in verse 5:72 :

Surely, they have disbelieved who say: "Allah is the Messiah , son of Mary." But the Messiah said: "O Children of Israel! Worship Allah, my Lord and your Lord." Verily, whosoever sets up partners in worship with Allah, then Allah has forbidden Paradise for him, and the Fire will be his abode . And for the Zalimun (polytheists and wrong-doers) there are no helpers.

Not very tolerant to the 'polytheists' either I see !
I make a distinction between:
1.) the intolerance and certainty of the message and
2.) the historical evidence of generous treatment and offer of co-existence with people of whatever belief.
The message is uncompromising. Sure.
But as I showed with just a few fire-and-brimstone biblical quotes, that is the nature of the message of all the semitic prophets also. If these guys were telling people of their own religion they would be going to hell if they followed it incorrectly, I don't think its either logically consistent or fair to judge Muhammad's similar message so differently.

The common western portrayal of Muhammed as an intolerant, self-righteous, cruel, belligerent, warring, murderous, philandering paedophile is so far from my understanding of the actual historical truth, that this view can only be adequately explained as being a deliberate deceitful distortion, in my opinion. The Christian missionaries taught this portrayal because this was how they justified to themselves the superior intolerance of their own religion. But in my opinion its a self-serving, hypocritical and bogus view. The stuff that Yahweh/Jehovah and his people did with his blessings in the Tanakh/old testament out-does anything Muhammed is accused of, yet Christians and Jews accept this as 'divine' just because its in their holy books. I think that we who have been brought up in European-based Christian cultures have been infected with this hypocrisy. Which is partly why I asked if you were familiar with the history.

Lupus Rothstein wrote:
Sun Sep 08, 2019 12:23 pm
Allah also makes it clear what his views are on Jesus being the Son of God, see below verse 5;75 :

The Messiah, son of Mary, was no more than a Messenger; many were the Messengers that passed away before him. His mother [Mary] was a Siddiqah [i.e. she believed in the words of Allah and His Books (see Verse 66:12)]. They both used to eat food (as any other human being, while Allah does not eat). Look how We make the Ayat (proofs, evidences, verses, lessons, signs, revelations, etc.) clear to them, yet look how they are deluded away (from the truth).

And the fate of these Jews/Christians who believe in Ezra/Jesus is the 'Son of God' and not merely a 'messenger' ?? see below verse 9:30 :

And the Jews say: 'Uzair (Ezra) is the son of Allah, and the Christians say: Messiah is the son of Allah. That is a saying from their mouths. They imitate the saying of the disbelievers of old. Allah's Curse be on them, how they are deluded away from the truth!

These subsequent verses, therefore appear to throw a spanner in the works over your view how Allah views Christians, and Jews. How will they be be allowed into paradise if their beliefs are unacceptable to Allah ? He has already made it clear that the Christians who believe Jesus is God won't be allowed beyond the pearly gates p, and he doesn't seem too keen on allowing entry to the Christians who believe Jesus is the Son of God either ! In fact he curses them. Surely this means the majority (if not all) of Christians and Jews would be classed as 'unbelievers' based on the criteria set down by Allah, and therefore not accepted, either by Allah or Muslims.
Firstly, we must understand that the pre-Islamic Arabian Christian communities who interacted with Muhammad were connected to the Syrian and Coptic Christian Churches NOT the Roman Catholic churches. There are some theological differences.
There were still some remnants of pre-Pauline theoligical belief in Arabia (what we now know as Christianity has come from the missionary work of St. Paul, not the twelve apostles who knew Jesus).
St. Paul never met Jesus and he invented the Divine being sacrificed for our sins and who did away with Judaic law.
By contrast Jesus and his followers were Nazarene/Essene Hebrews who followed Judaic law. The earliest christian groups (Ebionites, Nazarenes, etc.,) did not believe in the divinity of Jesus, and their teaching was completely compatible with the teaching of Muhammed on this point. Muhammed worked as a trader for his first wife and that involved travelling with her caravans to places where he met and conversed with Arabian 'Christian' monks and hermits.
The Koran doesn't refer to 'Christians' but to Nazarenes (nasrani)

And I repeat the distinction explained above. If a deity is telling a simple, desert-dweller through the Angel Gabriel, which people that deity will be admitting into Heaven, what is the illiterate son-of-the-desert supposed to do? He has to deliver the message. But in my view that doesn't detract from the historical evidence that Muhammed as a person sought peaceful, tolerant co-existence with everyone. Even with the polytheistic 'unbelievers' in Mecca and EVEN AFTER they had attempted to murder him and then attacked his fledgling community in Medina twice with huge armies! That seems quite tolerant and forgiving to me. :)

Lupus Rothstein wrote:
Sun Sep 08, 2019 12:23 pm
been-there wrote:
Fri Sep 06, 2019 11:39 am
The God of the Koran explicitly said so, twice!

Indeed, the believers, Jews, Christians, and Sabians — whoever truly believes in God and the Last Day and does good will have their reward with their Lord. And there will be no fear for them, nor will they grieve.[Quran 2:62]

Indeed, the believers, Jews, Sabians* and Christians — whoever truly believes in God and the Last Day and does good, there will be no fear for them, nor will they grieve.[Quran 5:69]
*The reference to the Sabians is thought to have been referring to a semitic Gnostic Christian sect called the Mandaeans.
See previous response above. These verses are contradicted by the later verses I quoted above. 5:72, 5:75 and 9:30. Note, it appears when Muhammad has achieved religous and territorial dominance in his later life, the later verses that are revealed simultaneously appear significantly less 'tolerant' to non-Muslims !! So, I cannot agree with you when you claim that these 'box-ticked' non-Muslims would be 'accepted'.
First, the revelations in the Koran haven't been compiled in the chronological order that they were revealed!
And secondly, as I read them, they don't contradict. As I see it, the message remained the same. Muhammad and muslims still today believe that the message from Yahweh/Allah/God has always been the same. And Muhammad himself believed and taught that what he was delivering was the EXACT same message from the EXACT same deity, which was a message that could be traced back to Jesus, Moses and Abraham: no false idols; no other deities; be good; do good.

Lupus Rothstein wrote:
Sun Sep 08, 2019 12:23 pm
been-there wrote:
Fri Sep 06, 2019 11:39 am
There is nothing there saying they have to accept Muhammad or 'convert' to Islam. Muhammad wanted to live peacefully and respectfully with the Jewish tribes of Medina. He didn't insist they convert. Nor did he allow his followers to force conversion.
This revelation was given at that time in Medina: there is no compulsion in religion!
There is no compulsion in religion. The right way has been distinguished from error. Anyone who rejects false deities and believes in God has grasped a firm handhold which will never break. God is all-hearing, all-knowing.
Again, the chronology of these verses need to be factored in before we can determine the reality of Islamic conquest during the time of Muhammed. Here is another later verse 9:29, which again appears to contradict earlier more 'tolerant' verses :
Fight against those who (1) believe not in Allah, (2) nor in the Last Day, (3) nor forbid that which has been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger (4) and those who acknowledge not the religion of truth (i.e. Islam) among the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians), until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.
Note the added injustice of what can only be described as an extortion racket on Christians and Jews who do not 'submit to Allah'. Again, this doesn't appear very 'tolerant' or 'peace-loving' does it ? So , if there is 'no compulsion in religion' then why are religious people of other faiths 'compulsed' to pay this extortion tax, just because their religion is different to that of their Islamic conquerers ?

Also, the above verse appears to contradict your view that Muhammad did not insist on conversion. When read in conjunction with the hadiths of Sadih Muslim and Sahih Bukhari , it appears this is exactly what was occurring . Conquered non-Muslims had 3 choices - 1) Submit to Allah (convert to Islam) 2) Pay the Jizyah or 3) Death (?) . I am assuming 'death' is the third, what else could it be ?

Related Hadiths :

"If they refuse to accept Islam, demand from them the Jizya. If they agree to pay, accept it from them and hold off your hands. If they refuse to pay the tax, seek Allah's help and fight them" Sahih Muslim 19:4294

Our Prophet, the Messenger of our Lord, has ordered us to fight you till you worship Allah Alone or give Jizya (i.e. tribute); and our Prophet has informed us that our Lord says:-- "Whoever amongst us is killed (i.e. martyred), shall go to Paradise to lead such a luxurious life as he has never seen, and whoever amongst us remain alive, shall become your master." Sahih Bukhari 53:386
Regarding the Jizyah or tax on non-muslims. That is a big subject. Very briefly, at its origin it was a tax for protection ('dhimmi') as non-muslims weren't permitted to serve in the army. Non-muslims were protected in muslim society. Not just tolerated, PROTECTED and given full rights.
Proof that the Jizyah tax wasn't an intolerant taxation for following the 'wrong' religion is the indisputable evidence that Christian monks and clergy were exempt from paying it. But sure, there were abuses later in different places at different times. As with all religions.

Lupus Rothstein wrote:
Sun Sep 08, 2019 12:23 pm
been-there wrote:
Fri Sep 06, 2019 11:39 am
Are you familiar with the history?
Something tells me probably not as familiar as you!
Well just to be clear I didn't enquire as some sort of a one-upmanship comparison or a contest. I only ask because there is a historical context that I believe is crucial to understanding these messages that later — after Muhhamad's demise — were collected, put in an order and written down for posterity and for the guidance of new followers.

HISTORICAL CONTEXT in brief:
Muhammad was just a simple, illiterate, uneducated, orphaned Meccan who worked for and later married a succesful widow who was older than him and who he genuinely loved. He also was a deeply introspective ('spiritual'?) person who was already respected in Mecca for his honesty, fairness, trustworthyness and wisdom. He regularly took himself off to desert caves and spent many hours praying/meditating in solitude. The first revelation in a desert cave — which he believed was from God via the Angel Gabriel, but wasn't sure — deeply troubled and frightened him and he feared he perhaps had gone mad or maybe was being possessed by a djinn (evil spirit). His wife comforted him and after she'd calmed him down, got him to narrate everything. She was extremely impressed with the message and his account and encouraged him to return to his prayerful contemplation and trust the visitation.

He consequently received more messages to give to the people of his time and place. Many people were impressed that an illiterate like him could come out with such beautiful, poetic, rhythmic Arabic. But many didn't like the critical content of the poetry.

In the beginning these messages were unbidden and uninvited. They were messages warning people that there was an ultimate Creator God and there was an after life. The messages warned that there would be an end-time of divine judgement and they'd better get their lives in order if they wanted the outcome of that judgement to be favourable. I.e. they'd better stop behaving selfishly and instead start sharing with those less fortunate than themselves, start looking after the orphans and widows, respecting and caring for the eldely, stop abusing their servants and slaves, and stop making money off of simple people's religious naivety.
Naturally those at the bottom of society liked the message and became followers and many of those at the top didn't and were alarmed by this developement.
The one's who saw themselves in the firing line of the criticism resented an illiterate orphan with no tribal protection daring to tell them the elite elders that their behaviour and codes of conduct needed amending. PLUS Meccan wealth came from being an idolatrous pilgramage centre focused on the meteorite / black rock. They had 360 idols to different deities to encourage more 'customers'/polytheistic-pilgrims. So by criticising the source of their income as idolatrous and abominable, Muhammad's 'divine' messages hit them not only theologcally but more importantly financially.

Interestingly, this is also precisely why Jesus upset the priestly class in Jerusalem when he turned out the sacrificial animal sellers and money-changers from the temple. Jerusalem was also big business, as the priesthood taught the Jerusalem temple was the one and only divinely-sanctioned centre for sacrificial offerings. The Passover annual sacrifice when Jesus drove them from the temple was the most profitable period of the year for them. Jesus was the Chief Rabbi or 'Teacher of Righteousness' of the vegetarian Essenes who regarded the sacrifices at the temple as sacrilegious. By criticising and demonstrating against their biggest animal sacrifice day, he was undermining not just their religious status but also their livlihood.

People who make money from religion and who are used to respect as elders and as high priests, don't like common folk coming along thinking they have divine guidance, criticising them and gathering large possibly revolutionary followings. So such people successfully arrested Jesus and got the Romans to execute him as a dangerous revolutionary.
Likewise six hundred years later the leaders of Mecca attempted to assassinate Muhammad, for similar reasons. But he was tipped off and fled in the night and then avoided patrols sent out to find and kill him and made it to Medina

Here is the key thing to understand the content of the Koran, in my opinion. By the time he was well-established with his growing following in Medina, the revelations and messages that form the Koran were not always unbidden, as at the beginning. He had a growing community wanting guidance, asking questions. So revelations would come AFTER he had sought guidance and would be received answers to specific issues and questions.
This is crucial to a proper understanding of the verses in the Koran.

The Koranic content was given at a specific time in history to a specific set of people under a specific set of changing circumstances. Exactly as was the message of Jesus and all the Hebrew prophets. As also with Buddha, Zoroaster, Kabir, Guru Nanak, etc.

If you read those writings in the Koran from that perspective, they take on a slightly different meaning.

The idea that all those messages were for all people for all time I suggest is a later developement. Some messages were, some weren't. Historical context is key to distinguishing.
"When people who are honestly mistaken learn the truth,
they either cease being mistaken
or they cease being honest"
-- Anonymous

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests