Shocking Koran Quotes

joseph brand

Just a quick Google for quotes from that 'holy' old book shows it to be a book inciting anger, hatred, discrimination and bloodshed.

Is it rated over 18's?

"Seek out your enemies relentlessly." (Surah 4:103-)

"Believers, when you encounter the infidels on the march, do not turn your backs to them in flight. If anyone on that day turns his back to them, except it be for tactical reasons...he shall incur the wrath of God and Hell shall be his home..." (Surah 8:12-)

tactical reasons?

As Robin would say, "Holy Islamic Warmongers Batman".

ShooterSF

Mercurius wrote: »

There is the possibility of multiple translations from the classical arabic, some moderate (Laleh Bakhtiar, for example), some not.

I suppose it very much depends on whose doing the reading.

To take the first example...

"Believers, take neither Jews nor Christians for your friends." (Surah 5:51)

...multiple translations can be found here.

Given the plethora of possibilities, it seems narrow minded to take any one translation as literal, and to base criticisms on same.

(unless the moderates are apologists, of course)

The thing is when discussing the koran, bible or any other text from an non-religious view point it's quite acceptable that stuff in a very old book translated from a different language is likely to be mistranslated or screwed up.
However if one takes the view that the book is a holy text influenced by a deity a tonne of questions arise when such a point is made. For one if god influenced the writers of the book at the time so that it laid out his objective non-conflicting laws clearly why not equally guide the translators?

dead one

Dades wrote: »

If I'm honest - I'd rather this thread wasn't posted. It was always going to turn into this nonsense.

i see, What nonsense!!! Are you saying the word "cheating" is nonsense. Isn't wortozent cheating. What is he doing? what should i call him. Should i call him great man who is doing great a job to attack other's people faith. He is cheating other people by not giving complete verses but a text of his own choice. See, Dades, don't make your case doubtful. You know both bible and quran contain text of love and mercy. Why didn't he choose that text. What is purpose of this cherry picking. I call him cheater because he allowed me, I follow no rules when it comes to truth. I can sacrifice my life for truth and this is only ID, where you're sitting. I have no mortal desires in my mind. You love your IDs, Mortal IDs, Mortal minds, mortal existence. You won't live in this foram forever. Truth will remain and what i am saying is truth.

Dades wrote: »

But there's nothing in the charter stopping someone from posting actual quotes from religious texts (as per the similar Bible one). Not my cup of tea, but my only job in the matter is to stop people insulting each other (e.g. repeating the word cheater) or posting random gobbledegook (e.g. poetry/lyrics).

What actual quotes??, he is just copying text from complete quote. That is dishonesty and you're indirectly saying that charter of this foram supports dishonesty. Better you should amend this Chartres of hypocrisy.

Dades wrote: »

I appreciate you believe some quotes need to be in context, but your manner of getting this context across is frankly confusing, repetitive and lacking in substance.

I need no appreciation from a dishonest person who isn't honest to his work, See, moderation is pious job, there is no athiest/muslim/jew/christian in this Strictly work. You've problem with my lyrics, you don't have problem with a person who is disturbing feeling of christian and muslim. I smell hypocrisy, prejudice and bigotry in your job. I know my words may hurt you but i am sorry that is truth and don't give me warnings making this case personal. Its Nothing Personal. Its Strictly Business.

dead one

Sarky wrote: »

You're not going to convert anyone in this forum, dead one, if that's what you're asking. I'm just interested in seeing how you reconcile quotes like the above with "religion of peace", really.

b$, i ain't here to convert any one, i am here to clear prejudice. I know in what you're interested and i have no time for that. Ask someone else.

biko wrote: »

Thanks for your explanation but as this shows Muhammad did mean the sun sets in a pool of water.

In short:
Muhammad - Do you know where the sun sets?
Abu Dharr - I'm sure you know?
Muhammad - It sets in a spring of warm water.

Anyway, it's no biggie for me, an atheist, but it does show that Muhammad is not infallible.

abu dawood isn't authentic book of hadith. It has a lot of fabrications and i know you prefer fabrications. There are some hadiths which are authetic in abu dawood, the rest are doubtful/fabricated. Feel free to search, you believe you're true but hardly that isn't truth.

Mercurius

ShooterSF wrote: »

However if one takes the view that the book is a holy text influenced by a deity a tonne of questions arise when such a point is made. For one if god influenced the writers of the book at the time so that it laid out his objective non-conflicting laws clearly why not equally guide the translators?

There seems to have been a flaw in God's plan there alright.

Not that I accept the sanctity of religious texts, it's just when earthly beings, say Muslim extremists or anti-Muslim extremists, narrow in on any one translation in order to further foster hatred that gets my particular goat.

biko

dead one wrote: »

abu dawood isn't authentic book of hadith. It has a lot of fabrications and i know you prefer fabrications. There are some hadiths which are authetic in abu dawood, the rest are doubtful/fabricated. Feel free to search, you believe you're true but hardly that isn't truth.

Au contraire, Abu Dawud's book is one of the most important. I need you to point me to some reliable sourced for this claim since you made it.

Dades

dead one wrote: »

Dades wrote: »

If I'm honest - I'd rather this thread wasn't posted. It was always going to turn into this nonsense.

i see, What nonsense!!! Are you saying the word "cheating" is nonsense. Isn't wortozent cheating. What is he doing? what should i call him. Should i call him great man who is doing great a job to attack other's people faith.

What I meant was - I don't care for these type of easy-picking quote threads either, dead one. They're cheap entertainment and they drag out the worst in responses. You should learn to tell when someone is actually agreeing with you on a point.

But here's the deal.

If you continue to argue with me as a moderator (rather than a poster), I will ban you.
If you call someone a cheat again, I will ban you.
If you post random lyrics/poetry again, I will ban you.

Otherwise feel free to engage and clarify your claims of context by actually explaining in your own words that context instead of linking to some site that does nothing of the sort.

robindch

dead one wrote: »

i am here to clear prejudice.

If you really want to do that, you could start by not demonstrating it, time after time.

Other than that, What Dades Said ^^^.

dead one

biko wrote: »

Au contraire, Abu Dawud's book is one of the most important. I need you to point me to some reliable sourced for this claim since you made it.

the net is full with propaganda against islam. See, it's not smartness what you'r doing.

biko wrote: »

Abu Dawud's book is one of the most important.

how do you know it's most important, because it contain most of fabrications. These types of hadits don't represent islam.

fitz0

dead one wrote: »

how do you know it's most important, because it contain most of fabrications. These types of hadits don't represent islam.

Isn't that exactly the cherry picking you've been complaining about on this thread? You can't just take some parts of the whole and say that represents Islam, just like taking one line of a verse is misrepresenting the while verse.

MrPudding

I have deadone in ignore and that really helps with making this thread a little more readable. He is not going to supply any context for any of the quotes anyway, so it works out really well.

MrP

sensibleken

MrPudding wrote: »

I have deadone in ignore and that really helps with making this thread a little more readable. He is not going to supply any context for any of the quotes anyway, so it works out really well.

MrP

aw man youre missing all the fun

The Mad Hatter

sensibleken wrote: »

aw man youre missing all the fun

Like MrP, I have dead one on ignore. I've never had a fun aneurysm.

Lucy8080

can a thread get legendary status in just 5 pages?

biko

dead one wrote: »

how do you know it's most important, because it contain most of fabrications. These types of hadits don't represent islam.

Sunan Abu Dawud is one of six important and authentic collections (Sihah Sittah) of the Prophetic Traditions.
http://hadithcollection.com/background.html

Abu-Dawud's collection is recognized by the overwhelming majority of the Muslim world to be one of the most authentic collections of the Sunnah of the Prophet (pbuh), however it is also known to contain some weak ahadith (some of which he pointed out, others which he did not).
http://abudawudshareef.blogspot.com/

Now you link to some sources to back up your claim, if you can.

joseph brand

I have 'dead one' on ignore but I keep seeing their posts from other posters quoting. Seems I'm missing a lot. :rolleyes:

Genghiz Cohen

joseph brand wrote: »

I have 'dead one' on ignore but I keep seeing their posts from other posters quoting. Seems I'm missing a lot. :rolleyes:

You should see the posts what've been called "Too filthy to quote!" by some users.

ShooterSF

Mercurius wrote: »

There seems to have been a flaw in God's plan there alright.

Not that I accept the sanctity of religious texts, it's just when earthly beings, say Muslim extremists or anti-Muslim extremists, narrow in on any one translation in order to further foster hatred that gets my particular goat.

Indeed. Odds are we should see four groups when disagreements occur:

1. Believer disagrees with passage in holy book. Assumes context. Finds out book probably means what it says. Disregards holy book (becomes non-believer)
2. Atheist disagrees on a passage with holy book. Rejects holy book.
3. Believer disagrees with passage in holy book. Assumes context. Finds out holy book is actually in agreement with them.
4.Believer disagrees with passage in holy book. Assumes context. Finds out book probably means what it says. Changes own view on subject.

But number 4 seems to be I can't say non-existent but I haven't met one in person. I'd actually say number 4 is closer to:
4.Believer disagrees with passage in holy book. Assumes context. Finds out book probably means what it says. While (no agreeable context found) search for more context or way to disregard passage (relevant to a certain time anyone?). Finds out holy book is actually in agreement with them eventually.

biko

Pretty shocking stuff - the original Quran burner: Caliph Uthman ibn Affan
"Send us the manuscripts of the Qur'an so that we may compile the Qur'anic materials in perfect copies and return the manuscripts to you." Hafsah sent copies to Uthman.

Uthman then ordered four men to rewrite the manuscripts in perfect copies. After this had been done, the Hafsah codex was returned to her. "Uthman returned the original manuscripts to Hafsah."

Uthman sent to every Muslim province one copy of what they had copied, and ordered that all the other Qur'anic materials, whether written in fragmentary manuscripts or whole copies, be burnt.

Actually burned the original written Quran and replaced it with his own copies.

Brown Bomber

joseph brand wrote: »

Just a quick Google for quotes from that 'holy' old book shows it to be a book inciting anger, hatred, discrimination and bloodshed.

Is it rated over 18's?

"Seek out your enemies relentlessly." (Surah 4:103-)

"Believers, when you encounter the infidels on the march" do not turn your backs to them in flight. If anyone on that day turns his back to them, except it be for tactical reasons...he shall incur the wrath of God and Hell shall be his home..." (Surah 8:12-)

tactical reasons?

You could at least try to attribute the Surah correctly. It's Surah 8:16 and quite clearly it is forbidding a solider from deserting during combat with an enemy army.

Deserting is currently -- centuries later -- punishable by death in the US. The British killed over 300 of their own during WWI or deserting. http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/britain_wwone/shot_at_dawn_01.shtml

Brown Bomber

joseph brand wrote: »

"Seek out your enemies relentlessly." (Surah 4:103-)

Well no, this is in fact Sura 4:103 (in full)

Sahih International
And when you have completed the prayer, remember Allah standing, sitting, or [lying] on your sides. But when you become secure, re-establish [regular] prayer. Indeed, prayer has been decreed upon the believers a decree of specified times.
http://quran.com/4/103

Quite clearly it says nothing of the sort that you are claiming. So how have you reached such a staggeringly false conclusion...?

Well you said yourself it was"Just a quick Google for quotes from that 'holy' old book"

Since google can't read your mind and relies on you to enter search details it begs the question what you are searching for. This is the top google listing that contains both of your strange errors in an article titled "Islam is the religion of paedophilia". Is this where you got you information from? If not where? What is your trustworthy source that has enabled you to not even have to cross reference with the actual holy books?

Ironic don't you think that you can make such false claims and conclude that the falsely attributed quotes "shows it to be a book inciting anger, hatred, discrimination and bloodshed." when posting false information like that actually does incite anger, hatred, dicrimination which ultimately can lead to bloodshed?

Delirium

Brown Bomber wrote: »

You could at least try to attribute the Surah correctly. It's Surah 8:16 and quite clearly it is forbidding a solider from deserting during combat with an enemy army.

I was wondering if you know if any of the other major religions also include military law as part of their holy texts?

Deserting is currently -- centuries later -- punishable by death in the US. The British killed over 300 of their own during WWI or deserting. http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/britain_wwone/shot_at_dawn_01.shtml

from what I can find, the US stopped executing deserters in the 1940s. So it might still be an option as a punishment but they choose not to use it.

Brown Bomber

koth wrote: »

I was wondering if you know if any of the other major religions also include military law as part of their holy texts?

Yes, Christianity and Mormonism Judaism for a start.

koth wrote: »

from what I can find, the US stopped executing deserters in the 1940s. So it might still be an option as a punishment but they choose not to use it.

To be fair it's not a case of "might" being an option. It is an option.

zef

bnt wrote: »

Hey, it's OK: Islam is the religion of peace, remember? When all other religions have been forcibly crushed, and there is one global ummah, then there will be peace. I mean, seriously; people who don't get that deserve to die horribly for their ignorance ...

:rolleyes:

That is what THE POWERS THAT BE want you to believe, so that you think its acceptable for the us / uk to go fight wars with afghanistan, iraq, next Iran.

Delirium

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Yes, Christianity and Mormonism Judaism for a start.


To be fair it's not a case of "might" being an option. It is an option.

thanks for the links.

and you're right, it is an option for the US. but as I said, they haven't chosen to exercise that option since the 1940s.

Brown Bomber

koth wrote: »

thanks for the links.

and you're right, it is an option for the US. but as I said, they haven't chosen to exercise that option since the 1940s.

Your welcome, I do understand where you are coming from but my grandfather has tools in his shed that haven't been used since the 40's but should he wish to do so in any given special circumstance he has the option to do so.

An example in US law is seditious conspiracy.
http://www.nytimes.com/1995/10/02/nyregion/terror-conspiracy-charges-gamble-pays-off-prosecution-uses-obscure-19th-century.html

dead one

fitz0 wrote: »

Isn't that exactly the cherry picking you've been complaining about on this thread? You can't just take some parts of the whole and say that represents Islam, just like taking one line of a verse is misrepresenting the while verse.

i don't get your point. There is difference between hadith and Quran. Hadith is explanation of quran and explanation can be wrong according knowledge, understanding and source. So, what on earth you're talking about.

MrPudding wrote: »

I have deadone in ignore and that really helps with making this thread a little more readable. He is not going to supply any context for any of the quotes anyway, so it works out really well.
MrP

I have nothing to ignore as I've habit of facing reality. I don't run or ignore reality. ignorance is bliss. You want bliss then keep ignorance.

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

Like MrP, I have dead one on ignore. I've never had a fun aneurysm.

The Mad Hatter, You're not aware of madness of my heart. you've ignored me two or three time before. What makes you to ignore me again and again I feel pity on your ignorance. with ignorance, you must become ignorant.

biko wrote: »

Sunan Abu Dawud is one of six important and authentic collections (Sihah Sittah) of the Prophetic Traditions.
http://hadithcollection.com/background.html

There is difference between "sixth" and "most important". The hadiths, presented in abu dawood, aren't divine , so they can be wrong . Are you saying God revealed these hadiths. There is no difference between abu dawadood and bible. As bible contains truth with fabrications, so abu dawooad contains fabrications with truth .

biko wrote: »

Now you link to some sources to back up your claim, if you can.

Biko, honestly, first tell me, can you quote these fabricated hadith in real world as you're quoting in this imaginary world. I am saying again, there is no smartness of yours, it's smartness of internet which full with propaganda and brainwashing. The most important source is quran. Let's see what you will present from quran. Please be honest while quoting quran.

Genghiz Cohen wrote: »

You should see the posts what've been called "Too filthy to quote!" by some users.

So, why are you running from filth, why don't you clean the filth. Are you afraid of filth with your cleanness, piousness and rightfulness. I know why are you running from it, because you're afraid of truth. You've got nothing present. I smell weakness.

sensibleken wrote: »

aw man youre missing all the fun

You don't know pudding, he keeps things in heart and that is dangerous for his heart.

dead one

biko wrote: »

Pretty shocking stuff - the original Quran burner: Caliph Uthman ibn Affan
"Send us the manuscripts of the Qur'an so that we may compile the Qur'anic materials in perfect copies and return the manuscripts to you." Hafsah sent copies to Uthman.

Uthman then ordered four men to rewrite the manuscripts in perfect copies. After this had been done, the Hafsah codex was returned to her. "Uthman returned the original manuscripts to Hafsah."

Uthman sent to every Muslim province one copy of what they had copied, and ordered that all the other Qur'anic materials, whether written in fragmentary manuscripts or whole copies, be burnt.

Actually burned the original written Quran and replaced it with his own copies.

I've discussed the same issue with Mr Wibbs before but let's see what you've got in this issue to present. Mr. Wibbs didn't give me satisfactory answer. As Holy Qur'an wasn't disclosed all at once, i.e., various passage of it were being came down as and when appropriate, it wasn't likely from the very starting to write and preserve it in a book shape. So, during the first phase of Islam, main force was laid on memory as a source of maintaining the Holy Qur'an.
Remember, the memory, Muhammad was first memorizer of Quran. He memorized the whole quran in presence of angel Jabreel, who brought message from God. After Muhammad, His follower memorized quran in presence of Muhammad and many of these follower were present in council of quran. If Uthman were wrong or he had burnt the original copied, why would all the faithful companion follow him, you're making no sense. Below is some copy pasted text which might helpful. Feel free to search.

"" Usman was third Caliph by a Council called the Shura. As the elected leader of the Muslim Ummah (Brotherhood), it was his privilege and prerogative to appoint a Commission to collect all the available verses of the Qur'an from the 'Ummah and undertake the task of preparing a definitive compiled copy of the Qur'an. The Commission established a criteria for this specific purpose. When this Commission, headed by Zayd ibn Thabit - a reputable scribe and personal secretary to the Prophet, came up with a finally compiled copy of the Qur'an, it was approved by 'Uthman for circulation. The Caliph also supervised that the faithful copies of it were made and circulated to various provinces and Islamic countries. Having accomplished that, the next obvious question before him was; how to preserve this canonized text from being tainted at a later date? There were thousands of collected verses from which this final canonized copy was prepared. The majority of this collected verses met the criteria established by the Commission and there were a few that did not. They all were now superfluous. One of the criteria established by the Commission was that any verse that did not have the collaboration from another source, should be rejected. To keep such rejected verses within circulation would be to defeat the ultimate aim and purpose of this
and it's efforts. Hence, 'Uthman felt the need to destroy these superfluous copies of the verses and preserve the approved text from being tainted. A true Believer would say, within these Revelations, Allah had undertaken to preserve His Final Scripture. The third Caliph was just an instrument of Allah to do what Allah had intended to do."

MrPudding

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Deserting is currently -- centuries later -- punishable by death in the US. The British killed over 300 of their own during WWI or deserting. http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/britain_wwone/shot_at_dawn_01.shtml

Haven't read the article, so apologises if it is mentioned, but I believe the general consensus now is that a lot of the guys they exectuted were probably suffering from PTSD or some other kind of mental breakdown so were probably innocent in a legal and moral sense.

MrP

biko

dead one wrote: »

There is difference between "sixth" and "most important". The hadiths, presented in abu dawood, aren't divine , so they can be wrong . Are you saying God revealed these hadiths. There is no difference between abu dawadood and bible. As bible contains truth with fabrications, so abu dawooad contains fabrications with truth .

Biko, honestly, first tell me, can you quote these fabricated hadith in real world as you're quoting in this imaginary world. I am saying again, there is no smartness of yours, it's smartness of internet which full with propaganda and brainwashing. The most important source is quran. Let's see what you will present from quran. Please be honest while quoting quran.

There is no need to keep adding "honestly" to your posts, I'm always honest.
Of course god didn't reveal hadiths as you well know. Hadiths are "true" stories of Muhammads life so guess they could be likened to the Bible.

Abu Dawud isn't the 6th most important hadith in Islam, it's one of the 6 entirely authentic and accurate hadiths, along with Sahih al-Bukhari, Sahih Muslim, Sunan an-Nasa'ii, Sunan at-Tirmidhi, Sunan ibn Majah.
Since Shiʻism and Sunnism have different sets of hadith collections and Abu Dawud isn't part of the Shia hadiths I suppose that makes you either a Shia Muslim or an uninformed Sunni Muslim.
I have never heard of a Muslim that doubts the hadiths of his tradition.