Support NeoGAF

[Azih]

I have just stated this because many people here claim that Islam is not a violent religion, just like the guy that wrote the comment below you on this page, that's it.

And what I am trying to get across is that by quite a lot of standards a philosophy or world view that advocates self-defense is not violent. I don't care that you're not using your point to attack Islam, I do care that it is a completely meaningless point.

 

[Anaxagoras]

Here you go:

Quran 4:34:

ٱلرِّجَالُ قَوَّٲمُونَ عَلَى ٱلنِّسَآءِ بِمَا فَضَّلَ ٱللَّهُ بَعۡضَهُمۡ عَلَىٰ بَعۡضٍ۬ وَبِمَآ أَنفَقُواْ مِنۡ أَمۡوَٲلِهِمۡ‌ۚ فَٱلصَّـٰلِحَـٰتُ قَـٰنِتَـٰتٌ حَـٰفِظَـٰتٌ۬ لِّلۡغَيۡبِ بِمَا حَفِظَ ٱللَّهُ‌ۚ وَٱلَّـٰتِى تَخَافُونَ نُشُوزَهُنَّ فَعِظُوهُنَّ وَٱهۡجُرُوهُنَّ فِى ٱلۡمَضَاجِعِ وَٱضۡرِبُوهُنَّ‌ۖ فَإِنۡ أَطَعۡنَڪُمۡ فَلَا تَبۡغُواْ عَلَيۡہِنَّ سَبِيلاً‌ۗ إِنَّ ٱللَّهَ كَانَ عَلِيًّ۬ا ڪَبِيرً۬ا

Men are the managers of the affairs of women for that God has preferred in bounty one of them over another, and for that they have expended of their property. Righteous women are therefore obedient, guarding the secret for God's guarding. And those you fear may be rebellious admonish; banish them to their couches, and beat them. If they then obey you, look not for any way against them; God is All high, All great

There are plenty of examples that I can use from the example, but I choose this simply because this is not considered self defense, you can justify it but its still violence.

 

[Anaxagoras]

And what I am trying to get across is that by quite a lot of standards a philosophy or world view that advocates self-defense is not violent. I don't care that you're not using your point to attack Islam, I do care that it is a completely meaningless point.

I don't know about that, I know that violence is considered violence whether justified, needed or accepted.

I know that in Sweden, using violence in self defense is considered ok, depending on the situation of course, but it is still considered and looked upon as violence.

 

[A.R.K]

your statements here alone indicate that you haven't read the quran properly, if you want i can digg you a lot of verses that preach on violence from the quran, no problem.

And while you at it, give me the correct context of those verses when they were revealed and for what purpose. Look you can believe whatever you want but don't preach false statements based on your judgements. A religion that says killing just ONE innocent human is like killing the whole humanity, can't have its roots in preaching violence. Anyways have a good day my fellow human.

 

[Dever]

I don't know about that, I know that violence is considered violence whether justified, needed or accepted.

I know that in Sweden, using violence in self defense is considered ok, depending on the situation of course, but it is still considered and looked upon as violence.

I would say that it's misleading to call a religion violent if it only preaches self-defense and does not incite it's followers to attack other religions or command other violent things not related to self-defense.

Although in the light of the passage you just posted, this does not seem to apply to Islam. :/

 

[Azih]

Here you go:

Quran 4:34:





There are plenty of examples that I can use from the example, but I choose this simply because this is not considered self defense, you can justify it but its still violence.

http://www.beliefnet.com/Faiths/Islam/2007/07/Does-The-Quran-Tolerate-Domestic-Abuse.aspx

 

[Anaxagoras]

And while you at it, give me the correct context of those verses when they were revealed and for what purpose. Look you can believe whatever you want but don't preach false statements based on your judgements. A religion that says killing just ONE innocent human is like killing the whole humanity, can't have its roots in preaching violence. Anyways have a good day my fellow human.

No worries, read the verse that I posted above.

 

[Anaxagoras]

http://www.beliefnet.com/Faiths/Islam/2007/07/Does-The-Quran-Tolerate-Domestic-Abuse.aspx

Before you force me to read that page, does it change the fact that God asks men to beat their wives who rebel them? if not then it doesn't change anything.

 

[Azih]

Before you force me to read that page, does it change the fact that God asks men to beat their wives who rebel them? if not then it doesn't change anything.

Yes it does.

Edit: And it is odd that you would refuse to even read something I link you to.

 

[Anaxagoras]

I would say that it's misleading to call a religion violent if it only preaches self-defense and does not incite it's followers to attack other religions or command other violent things not related to self-defense.

Although in the light of the passage you just posted, this does not seem to apply to Islam. :/

I have studied Islamic history in Saudi Arabia and I know what I am talking about, Islam has had a very bloody history and some very bloody victories that many muslims are proud of.

The quran doesn't only preach on violence only in self defense, look at the verse I provided you were God asks men to beat their wives if they rebel them, also look at the sharia punishments for example.

 

[Anaxagoras]

Yes it does.

Edit: And it is odd that you would refuse to even read something I link you to.

no I am going to read, just wana make sure that it will be of use in this discussion, because trust me I have been linked and forced to read pages and pages that didn't contribute anything useful to the discussion.

 

[Azih]

I have studied Islamic history in Saudi Arabia and I know what I am talking about, Islam has had a very bloody history and some very bloody victories that many muslims are proud of.

The quran doesn't only preach on violence only in self defense, look at the verse I provided you were God asks men to beat their wives if they rebel them, also look at the sharia punishments for example.

To conflate the wars of Muslim Empires with 'Islam' is nuts. *Every* successful Empire has had a bloody history and a bloody victories and yet it is only with the Muslim ones that that gets foisted onto the religion. Read "No God but God" by Reza Aslan. The common wisdom of "Islam's bloody borders" is ridiculous.

Also around my parts 'violence' is mostly used as pejorative term for unjustifed aggression. A person who defended their family from muggers for example would not be considered a violent person.

 

[Anaxagoras]

Yes it does.

Edit: And it is odd that you would refuse to even read something I link you to.

That was an interesting read, I am no expert in arabic language history, but I am sure most arabs disagree with this new translation, I will have to look deeper into it, but to be honest it looks just a way to sugar coat Islam nothing more.

 

[Azih]

That was an interesting read, I am no expert in arabic language history, but I am sure most arabs disagree with this new translation, I will have to look deeper into it, but to be honest it looks just a way to sugar coat Islam nothing more.

It's an issue of translation and interpretation. The argument is that the Quran has been interpreted and translated by partriarchal scholars for millenia and at a point the 'gates of ijtihad' were closed and 'taqlid' was emphasised instead of the independant interpretation of ijtihad. It's an interesting time in Islamic jurisprudence. Look it up.

 

[Anaxagoras]

To conflate the wars of Muslim Empires with 'Islam' is nuts. *Every* successful Empire has had a bloody history and a bloody victories and yet it is only with the Muslim ones that that gets foisted onto the religion. Read "No God but God" by Reza Aslan. The common wisdom of "Islam's bloody borders" is ridiculous.

The prophet himself took part in several bloody battles in the name of Islam.

Also around my parts 'violence' is mostly used as pejorative term for unjustifed aggression. A person who defended their family from muggers for example would not be considered a violent person.

What about the sharia punishments?

 

[Anaxagoras]

It's an issue of translation and interpretation. The argument is that the Quran has been interpreted and translated by partriarchal scholars for millenia and at a point the 'gates of ijtihad' were closed and 'taqlid' was emphasised instead of the independant interpretation of ijtihad. It's an interesting time in Islamic jurisprudence. Look it up.

Will do so.

 

[Azih]

The prophet himself took part in several bloody battles in the name of Islam.

War of self defence applies. The Prophet only engaged in war with the forces of the Quraysh which were hostile towards him and his supporters in Yathrib (Medina). Attacking the enemy and forcing a surrender is permissable in the Quranic view of war.

What about the sharia punishments?

For one thing I'm not a follower of the Sunnah. For another the radically different ways in which Shariah is applied in all Islamic countries shows that Islamic law is just as open to interpretation as the Quran and is not some kind of monolith hive mind.

Really a lot of what I'm saying is said, and said better, by the Reza Aslan book "No god but God".

 

[Dude Abides]

Yes it does.

Edit: And it is odd that you would refuse to even read something I link you to.

No, it doesn't. It establishes only that one scholar has come forth with an interpretation whereby "beat them" should actually say "go away from them." That interpretation is disputed by other scholars.

This leads me to a question about the Koran. My understanding is that the Koran purports to be the direct word of Allah, unchanged and without corruption. But clearly when it is translated into English, competing interpretations arise. How does Islam address this issue. Is it only the Arabic version of the Koran that is Allah's word, and translations are corrupted by the interventions of men? Is it incumbent on a Muslim who does not speak Arabic to learn the language so that s/he may read the unadulterated word of Allah?

 

[Anaxagoras]

Azih, I will have a look at the book in order to a proper discussion with you on this topic.

 

[A.R.K]

No worries, read the verse that I posted above.

I am not sure if you would read this or not but I am just posting this for the context of that verse.

http://www.themodernreligion.com/women/dv-4-34-shafaat.html

Try to understand the real intent of the verse before just saying 'Islam says BEAT THE WOMAN!!!!!11!!!!!!'

 

[GSG Flash]

Check this out: http://www.boston.com/bigpicture/2009/08/ramadan_2009.html .

I remember when I was young and wanted to fast like everyone. My mother used to tell me since I'm small, it's ok to eat lunch (2 pm) then start fasting until iftar :lol . Good times.

Woah, nice pictures

Although I'm almost 100% sure the dessert in picture 10 isn't kheer but rather seviyan, you can see the vermicelli in the cups.

 

[Anaxagoras]

I am not sure if you would read this or not but I am just posting this for the context of that verse.

http://www.themodernreligion.com/women/dv-4-34-shafaat.html

Try to understand the real intent of the verse before just saying 'Islam says BEAT THE WOMAN!!!!!11!!!!!!'

I would have appreciated if you marked the part that discusses the beating, I had to read the whole page to make sure that i don't miss anything and finally find it at the bottom of the page.

it doesn't change anything, the verse still speaks to men and preaches them to use violence against their wives if they rebel them, it only justifies it and explains why its necessary and point out what circumstances allow it.

So, it doesn't change anything, its still violence and its still in part of Islam.

 

[Darackutny]

There are several contradictions between creationism in the quran and science today, one example of this is the big bang theory.

If you open the Quran and read from [41:10] to [41:12], surat فصلت, we will find the following:
Quote:

وَجَعَلَ فِيهَا رَوَٰسِىَ مِن فَوْقِهَا وَبَٰرَكَ فِيهَا وَقَدَّرَ فِيهَآ أَقْوَٰتَهَا فِىٓ أَرْبَعَةِ أَيَّامٍۢ سَوَآءًۭ لِّلسَّآئِلِينَ

(10) And He made in it mountains above its surface, and He blessed therein and made therein its foods, in four periods: alike for the seekers.

ثُمَّ ٱسْتَوَىٰٓ إِلَى ٱلسَّمَآءِ وَهِىَ دُخَانٌۭ فَقَالَ لَهَا وَلِلْأَرْضِ ٱئْتِيَا طَوْعًا أَوْ كَرْهًۭا قَالَتَآ أَتَيْنَا طَآئِعِينَ

(11) Then He directed Himself to the heaven and it is a vapor, so He said to it and to the earth: Come both, willingly or unwillingly. They both said: We come willingly.

فَقَضَىٰهُنَّ سَبْعَ سَمَٰوَاتٍۢ فِى يَوْمَيْنِ وَأَوْحَىٰ فِى كُلِّ سَمَآءٍ أَمْرَهَا ۚ وَزَيَّنَّا ٱلسَّمَآءَ ٱلدُّنْيَا بِمَصَٰبِيحَ وَحِفْظًۭا ۚ ذَٰلِكَ تَقْدِيرُ ٱلْعَزِيزِ ٱلْعَلِيمِ

(12) So He ordained them seven heavens in two periods, and revealed in every heaven its affair; and We adorned the lower heaven with brilliant stars and (made it) to guard; that is the decree of the Mighty, the Knowing.

This Basically states that God created the earth, at a time when the rest of the universe was smoke, and after furnishing earth with mountains and foods, he turned then to the heavens and made them into the sky we have today and created the stars.

Interesting post.

I will admit that I don't really all too knowledgable when it comes to science, but think we are overlooking a couple of things when examining the verses. Firstly, in 41:11, we do find that the heaven, in some form, did exist before the earth. This is because we find ثُمَّ ٱسْتَوَىٰٓ إِلَى ٱلسَّمَآءِ (Then He directed Himself to the heaven). Note, thuma here also implies the existence of the heaven in some form. Once again, I'm not aware of its form or shape, but the verse does imply that the heavens existed.

Also, we read in Al-Nazi'aat 27-32:

Are ye the harder to create, or is the heaven that He built?
He raised the height thereof and ordered it;
And He made dark the night thereof, and He brought forth the morn thereof.
And after that He spread the earth,
And produced therefrom the water thereof and the pasture thereof,
And He made fast the hills, A provision for you and for your cattle.

Now, these verses here imply the creation of the heavens before the earth.

Do these points that I have brought up fit in with modern science? I don't know. All I do know is that the issue is open to some interpretation.

 

[SuperAngelo64]

I can't believe Nizar is still trolling this thread.

It's Ramadan.

Give it a fucking rest.

 

[Instigator]

Nizar is not trolling.

He's under no obligation to change his behavior just because of the time of the year. It's not like this thread became a mosque all of a sudden either.

The only thing going against Nazir is there should be less Muslims to argue with because they're either fasting, reading the Qu'ran or are less involved in world affairs (like posting at GAF!) in this holy month.

 

[crazy monkey]

Nizar is not trolling.

He's under no obligation to change his behavior just because of the time of the year. It's not like this thread became a mosque all of a sudden either.

The only thing going against Nazir is there should be less Muslims to argue with because they're either fasting, reading the Qu'ran or are less involved in world affairs (like posting at GAF!) in this holy month.

Nizar is trolling .

 

[Darackutny]

The only thing going against Nazir is there should be less Muslims to argue with because they're either fasting, reading the Qu'ran or are less involved in world affairs (like posting at GAF!) in this holy month.

Nizar wants Muslims to learn about their religion though.

 

[Instigator]

Nizar is trolling .

Trolling would only apply he were trying to get a rise out of people.

As far as I see it, he has a minority opinion (which is not a crime in itself), he expresses it in the appropriate thread(s), he argues his points logically (no 'islam iz for suckas!') and the worst he probably expects is to get people to agree with him.

Some of you seem to have forgotten what trolling really means. I suggest you check out the gaming subforum to refresh your memory.

 

[crazy monkey]

Trolling would only apply he were trying to get a rise out of people.

As far as I see it, he has a minority opinion (which is not a crime in itself), he expresses it in the appropriate thread(s), he argues his points logically (no 'islam iz for suckas!') and the worst he probably expects is to get people to agree with him.

Some of you seem to have forgotten what trolling really means. I suggest you check out the gaming subforum to refresh your memory.

He did troll in the other thread and derailed it in totally different direction. he did not even commented on the main discussion of the topic. And regarding appropriate thread when I asked him to move discussion of Islam in this thread this was his reply

Someone needs reinforcement from the Muslim brothers and sisters.

so we continued there.

 

[Instigator]

Actually, his first post in that topic was completely on topic with the story in the OP:

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=17259527&postcount=112

Topic tends to go in all directions and you can't automatically blame it on 'trolling' when a topic that spans several pages veers away from what was posted in the OP.

And essentially, Nizar said the same thing I said in this thread a few weeks ago: the pro-Islam side at GAF needs better and more eloquent spokesmen.

 

[crazy monkey]

Actually, his first post in that topic was completely on topic with the story in the OP:

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=17259527&postcount=112

Topic tends to go in all directions and you can't automatically blame it on 'trolling' when a topic that spans several pages starts veers away from what was posted ion the OP.

And essentially, Nizar said the same thing I said in this thread a few weeks ago: the pro-Islam side at GAF needs better and more eloquent spokesmen.

read the five or six post above you regarding the same verse.

 

[Instigator]

read the five or six post above you regarding the same verse.

Someone else points out another account of Islamic creationism and somehow, that implies that Nizar is a troll?

 

[Anaxagoras]

Interesting post.

I will admit that I don't really all too knowledgable when it comes to science, but think we are overlooking a couple of things when examining the verses. Firstly, in 41:11, we do find that the heaven, in some form, did exist before the earth. This is because we find ثُمَّ ٱسْتَوَىٰٓ إِلَى ٱلسَّمَآءِ (Then He directed Himself to the heaven). Note, thuma here also implies the existence of the heaven in some form. Once again, I'm not aware of its form or shape, but the verse does imply that the heavens existed.

Also, we read in Al-Nazi'aat 27-32:

Are ye the harder to create, or is the heaven that He built?
He raised the height thereof and ordered it;
And He made dark the night thereof, and He brought forth the morn thereof.
And after that He spread the earth,
And produced therefrom the water thereof and the pasture thereof,
And He made fast the hills, A provision for you and for your cattle.

Now, these verses here imply the creation of the heavens before the earth.

Do these points that I have brought up fit in with modern science? I don't know. All I do know is that the issue is open to some interpretation.

Good points, at least you are using verses from the quran its self, just like i did, to counter my arguments, and not quote opinions expressed by some guy on www.islamicsciencetoday.info or something.

According to both the big bang and Islam space existed before the earth was formed and created, there is no problem with at when it comes to contradictions.

The contradiction here is that, earth, according to the quran, was created and furnished with mountains and foods at a point were the rest of the universe (heavens/space) was vapor, and after earth was created the stars were created.

That is a contradiction when it comes to science, because a) at the time earth was created the rest of the universe was not vapor, b) Earth was not created before the stars.

 

[Darackutny]

That is a contradiction when it comes to science, because a) at the time earth was created the rest of the universe was not vapor, b) Earth was not created before the stars.

a) Do we even know that the universe ever was vapor?
b) Hmm... Does that apply to all stars and do the stars fall under the term "heavens"? I'm personally not all that sure.

 

[Anaxagoras]

a) Do we even know that the universe ever was vapor?

According to the quran the universe except for earth, at that point was vapor. that is not scientificaly true.

b) Hmm... Does that apply to all stars and do the stars fall under the term "heavens"? I'm personally not all that sure.

I don't really know, it depends how you interpret and understand the verses, its just says that stars were made at that point, it doesn't say all stars, nor does it say some stars, it just says stars.

However, we have to keep in mind that God is explaining his creation of the heaven and the earth, he is also representing it in some sort of timeline were he proceeds from one point of creation to the next one. the stars weren't mentioned anywhere before earth was created so that must be the point were he created them specially when he said that before that the universe was vapor, notice also that he said vapor, not 'only vapor', he also said the heavens, not all the heavens, so it depends how you want to understand it.

For me, I think that God is trying to be clear here on how everything came to existence, keep in mind that the surrah its self is called ''In detail'', it would be pointless to argue that these verses didn't mean that earth came first, or stars were there but he didn't mention them, for if that is true he would have rephrased and worded the verses differently.

 

[Instigator]

According to the quran the universe except for earth, at that point was vapor. that is not scientificaly true.



I don't really know, it depends how you interpret and understand the verses, its just says that stars were made at that point, it doesn't say all stars, nor does it say some stars, it just says stars.

However, we have to keep in mind that God is explaining his creation of the heaven and the earth, he is also representing it in some sort of timeline were he proceeds from one point of creation to the next one. the stars weren't mentioned anywhere before earth was created so that must be the point were he created them specially when he said that before that the universe was vapor, notice also that he said vapor, not 'only vapor', he also said the heavens, not all the heavens, so it depends how you want to understand it.

For me, I think that God is trying to be clear here on how everything came to existence, keep in mind that the surrah its self is called ''In detail'', it would be pointless to argue that these verses didn't mean that earth came first, or stars were there but he didn't mention them, for if that is true he would have rephrased and worded the verses differently.

These verses are still fuzzy and open to interpretation, when they are supposed to be plain and factual.

And you can't even blame it on a bad translation or something else like that since it's the 'perfect' word of God brought to us after all those centuries with no errors.

God sucks at writing!

 

[Darackutny]

3:7 - He it is Who hath revealed unto thee (Muhammad) the Scripture wherein are clear revelations - they are the substance of the Book - and others (which are) allegorical. But those in whose hearts is doubt pursue, forsooth, that which is allegorical seeking (to cause) dissension by seeking to explain it. None knoweth its explanation save Allah. And those who are of sound instruction say: We believe therein; the whole is from our Lord; but only men of understanding really heed.

... and yes, I agree with Instigator, the specific verses we are discussing aren't really all that clear, at least not to me.

 

[Anaxagoras]

3:7 - He it is Who hath revealed unto thee (Muhammad) the Scripture wherein are clear revelations - they are the substance of the Book - and others (which are) allegorical. But those in whose hearts is doubt pursue, forsooth, that which is allegorical seeking (to cause) dissension by seeking to explain it. None knoweth its explanation save Allah. And those who are of sound instruction say: We believe therein; the whole is from our Lord; but only men of understanding really heed.

... and yes, I agree with Instigator, the specific verses we are discussing aren't really all that clear, at least not to me.

Are you a muslim? do you speak arabic fluently?

 

[Darackutny]

Hahah, I see where this is going. Yes and yes. Go on. =)

 

[Anaxagoras]

Hahah, I see where this is going. Yes and yes. Go on. =)

no that was it, just curious. ^^

what were you thinking?

 

[Darackutny]

no that was it, just curious. ^^

what were you thinking?

Hahah, nevermind. =)

I find it hard to believe that you had some doubts regarding me being a Muslim though.

 

[Anaxagoras]

Hahah, nevermind. =)

I find it hard to believe that you had some doubts regarding me being a Muslim though.

no, I remember that you are on the muslim side, but you seem open minded and quite calm, you don't jump into irrational conclusions, link to irrelevant websites or get angry if what I am saying might be found offensive.

 

[Darackutny]

no, I remember that you are on the muslim side, but you seem open minded and quite calm, you don't jump into irrational conclusions, link to irrelevant websites or get angry if what I am saying might be found offensive.

*shrugs* Thanks for the compliments.

 

[Fady K]

*shrugs* Thanks for the compliments.

I'd give you some compliments as well once you reply to that ancient e-mail

 

[Darackutny]

I'd give you some compliments as well once you reply to that ancient e-mail

You should post that stuff in this thread, if you feel man enough. =p

 

[Anaxagoras]

what's this about?

 

[Instigator]

no, I remember that you are on the muslim side, but you seem open minded and quite calm, you don't jump into irrational conclusions, link to irrelevant websites or get angry if what I am saying might be found offensive.

But you are a troll!

 

[kobashi100]

This is a very good article. explains just how treacherous the rulers have become!

The month of Ramadhan is indeed a month of blessing in which the Muslim seeks to gain nearness and the immense reward from Allah سبحانه وتعالى. It is also a month in which many lessons can be drawn from Islamic history. During this month the Muslims fought many battles thereby expanding the mercy of Islam into new lands and also repelling the aggressors that invaded the Islamic lands to restore the protection and authority of Islam and the Muslims. One such famous battle was the Battle of Ain Jaloot in 658 Hijri against the Tartar invasion, which is considered as one of the greatest victories in the annals of human history. Considering the current predicament of the Muslims in Afghanistan, Palestine, Kashmir, Indonesia, Bosnia, Chechnya - indeed the Muslims all over the world, there are many comparisons and key lessons that can be learnt from this famous battle.

http://www.khilafah.com/index.php/ramadan/ramadan/3748-the-battle-of-ain-jaloot-ramadan-658-hijri

 

[Zapages]

Here's interesting Question... Earlier today at a Mosque, a Turkish professor was teaching us about the Islamic System on how we elect our Youth Group representative. Anyway on to the question.

He told us that we should chose of an Emir, as their was only true Caliph who was Hazarat Abdul Bakr (PBUH)... After Hazarat Abdul Bakr (PBUH), the rest of them were Emirs. I am just wondering if there were sources and what does everyone here thing about this? As it repeatedly stated in history there was only 4 righteous Caliphs and after that the Caliphate became a Monarchy ie. Ummayads, Abbasids, and Ottomans.

 

[Darackutny]

He told us that we should chose of an Emir, as their was only true Caliph who was Hazarat Abdul Bakr (PBUH)... After Hazarat Abdul Bakr (PBUH), the rest of them were Emirs. I am just wondering if there were sources and what does everyone here thing about this? As it repeatedly stated in history there was only 4 righteous Caliphs and after that the Caliphate became a Monarchy ie. Ummayads, Abbasids, and Ottomans.

What about Al-Hasan, the son of Ali? What about Mu'awiya? Or even Omar bin Abdulaziz?