Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Live and let live

2»

Comments

  • Closed Accounts Posts: 172 ✭✭tonyj


    r3boot wrote:
    In relation to your original question on acceptance in islam. During the time of the prophet muslims lived side by side with other religions in the arabian peninsula (or at least thats when most historical texts say) and the prophet often only went to war when he was forced to so I guess that the original followers of islam had to promote tolerance in their community in order to survive.
    Thanks for the reply r3boot. I'll think about it ... :)


  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,191 Mod ✭✭✭✭Wibbs


    r3boot wrote:
    interpretation of the quran and sunnah is incrediably difficult. even for native arabic speakers. The transilations which you provide give no context as to which ayah they are from and do not seem to be word for word transilations but rather an interpretation of the original classical arabic the quauran was written in at the time of the prophet (or rather after his death I think).
    This is a point I have always found strange, regardless of the religion in question. Why would God make these things so difficult. Surely clear instructions, such as "do not kill" are plain enough for everyone to understand? I do take your point about the Arabic translation though.
    Also give the names of the surahs rather than numbers in future since most muslims learn surahs by names and if you are quoting from the pprphet then you need to mention who gave the quote.
    Apologies. I'm as guilty of that. Sadly the site I use for reference and searching deals in the numbers. I'll see if I can get around that.
    i think the 9;29 surrah refers to islamic law as interpreted in the 7th century and mentions punishments for stealing. Also I think crucification was banned under islamic law since the time of the prophet so I'm not sure whats going on there.
    Is the Quran not unchanging? Even if it's a 7th century punishment? Surely it would be considered just even today as the instructions in the Quran are unchanging?
    In relation to your original question on acceptance in islam. During the time of the prophet muslims lived side by side with other religions in the arabian peninsula (or at least thats when most historical texts say) and the prophet often only went to war when he was forced to so I guess that the original followers of islam had to promote tolerance in their community in order to survive.
    Yes but he seems to have often gone to war to promote the faith, regardless, especially after he took Mecca.

    Islam does not tolerate other religons however it does tolerate those who worship other religons and to kill anyone who follows those religons for that reason means your going to hell.
    If someone could point to a sura that says this, that would be helpful(I'm just assuming(maybe wrongly) that you're taking this tolerance as read).

    It's hard to see the tolerance when reading some of the following;

    http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/002.qmt.html#002.191
    http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/008.qmt.html#008.065
    http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/009.qmt.html#009.029
    http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/025.qmt.html#025.052
    http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/047.qmt.html#047.004
    http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/008.qmt.html#008.039
    http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/003.qmt.html#003.085
    http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/009.qmt.html#009.023
    http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/005.qmt.html#005.051
    http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/009.qmt.html#009.005

    Apologies in advance. I realise it's a multi link post, but it's just the sheer number of verses(there's more too) that seem to me intolerant and that's before we get into the various Hadeeth. I know things can be taken out of context, but so many? This is the problem I have reconciling the religion itself with the Muslims I know(they don't seem to have a problem with an unbeliever such as myself :) ).

    Rejoice in the awareness of feeling stupid, for that’s how you end up learning new things. If you’re not aware you’re stupid, you probably are.



  • Closed Accounts Posts: 142 ✭✭r3boot


    The original post was regarding tolerance to other religions, the quote you gave outlines the cutting of limbs.

    This refers to 7th century islamic laws with regards to stealing. I know this because this is the only place where cutting of limbs is allowed under islamic law. The laws as were practiced at the time were based on what was understood from the quaran and sunnah. Please note the word understood our interpretation of the quran and sunnah defers from language to language and time to time as well as country to country.

    2 Countries still openly practice full islamic law of the 7th century. These are saudia arabia and the islamic reupblic of iran. In iran the verse you refer to (at least I think it is) is interpreted as amputating a single finger of the persons choice in saudia arabia its amuptating an arm then the contralateral leg then the other arm and then the other leg in accordance to howmany times the offence was comitted. This example shows how much implied meaning is involved in the interpretation of these texts don't just jump in and copy and paste links..... read the same section of the quaran from more than one source in english or go and learn classical arabic in order to understand the context of the quote.

    Personally I don't agree with this level of brutality which is why I probably should just stay quiet......


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 73 ✭✭tonyinuae


    Hobbes wrote:
    Luke 19:27 "But those mine enemies which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me."

    Matthew 10:34 "Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I come not to send peace, but a sword."

    Luke 2:22 refers to Mary being unclean after Jesus birth.

    John 15:6 refers to burning heretics.

    Romans 1:26-32 Gays/Lesbians should be killed.

    Corithians 11:3-15 refers to that Men are more important then women.

    Corithians 14:24-35 tells women they should not talk only learn from thier husbands.

    Ephesians 5:22-23 tells wives should submit to their husbands.

    Timothy 2:11-14 implies women are inferior to men.

    Timothy 3:2,12 More than one wife is allowed unless you a bishop or deacon.

    Timothy 6:1-5 Human slavery is endorsed

    Peter 3:1-7 Women should talk to their husbands in fear

    Revelations 17:1-6 A whore is stripped, burned, and eaten.

    ...

    Now I am only posting these to prove a point. If people continue to post quotes to claim out of context comments I will start stamping down on it.

    This is why I do not subscribe to any of the three great monotheistic religions - far too much slaying and suppressing going on!


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 73 ✭✭tonyinuae


    Isn't it possible that we've gone beyond all this 7th century stuff and can decide in our hearts what is right and wrong? Isn't that the point to which all these religions are endeavouring to bring us?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 142 ✭✭r3boot


    tonyinuae wrote:
    Isn't it possible that we've gone beyond all this 7th century stuff and can decide in our hearts what is right and wrong? Isn't that the point to which all these religions are endeavouring to bring us?


    I agree. I just wanted to clarify why people keep reading about severed limbs etc.


  • Registered Users Posts: 998 ✭✭✭Suff


    Tough topic, I only scanned through the posts...

    this is what i think:

    When God sent his message with the prophets (PBUT) this message was sadly changed/lost throughout the years.

    In Islam we beleive that Christ and Moses came with the same message as Muhammad.

    the message was to worship ONE GOD that's all.

    yes Islam does have tolerance to the people of the book.

    they are allowed to live in peace with Muslims.

    when Islam came into belad al sham (now Syria, lebanon, jordan and palestine) no chruches/ sinagogs were destroyed or converted into mousqes.

    till this day in Syria (where I'm from) you see harmony between Muslims and Christians and even Jews!
    we have Haret el yahood (the Jewish Quarter) in the city which containe Jewsih families who lived here in peace for years and years.

    under the islamic law, when the people of the book live amoung muslims thay must pay (jizyeh) a sum of money as a protection money to the islamic goverment.

    Muslims pay (Zakat) 2.5% to the poor and needy every year which is also used to fund the building of the community.
    when the (jisyah) is introduced onto the people of the book it is used to do the same thing.

    it's like Tax in our current day!

    when it comes to pegans, yes Islam does state that these people needs to be converted, before you say anything...it's also within the teachings of Christ and Moses.

    more to come...


Advertisement