I.S.I.S has Nothing to Do With Islam?

[Joyousperson]

JosephZ,

Re your argument that 9:5 is historical, note this counter;

Is Quran 9:5 Historical Only?

 

[JosephZ]

The Biblical verses happened to be similar but there is no good reason to assume they are Islamic in any way, not so with many Christians who would not want to be associated with Islam which as you agree is a false religion from a false god. Are you changing your mind on this?

When did I ever suggest that those verses found in the Bible were Islamic?

Let's look at this conversation again.

Muslims are to follow what the prophets before Muhammad taught. Abraham, Moses, David, Jesus, etc. If what they said in today's Bible or Torah doesn't contradict what is found in the Qur'an, then it is accepted by Muslims.

You are lost in comparing the Quran with present the Bible and Torah.
Allah did claim Allah sent the original pristine Torah and Injeel to the Jews and Christians respectively in one moment in time, but the Jews and Christians has corrupted the original copy and what they have on hand at present are the corrupted copies and should not never be accepted by Muslims.

Yes, of course the Bible and the Torah are rejected by Muslims because in their opinion they are corrupted. I never said they did accept them. This is what I said: Muslims are to follow what the prophets before Muhammad taught. Abraham, Moses, David, Jesus, etc. If what they said in today's Bible or Torah doesn't contradict what is found in the Qur'an, then it is accepted by Muslims. They follow what the prophets said. So when Jesus said the following in the book of Matthew, “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself,’" then this can be attributed to Jesus since this is also taught in Islam.

The originals are with God and not available on Earth, so how can Muslims know what are the verses that are the same or contradict with the original in heaven??

Because they have the Qur'an to compare the verses found in to today's gospels and Torah. The ones that are in agreement are accepted and those that are not are rejected. It's also important to note that the gospel referred to in the Qur'an is not referring to the four gospels found in the Bible. The gospel in the Qur'an was revealed to Jesus Himself and no one else. The gospels found in the Bible are only accounts of Jesus' ministry here on earth. Since these gospels quote Jesus, the it's the quotes found in today's gospels that can be compared to what is written in the Qur'an. This concept also applies to what was revealed to Moses and the Torah and the Psalms which were revealed to David.

Note I have argued, the Quran subsequently claimed the Torah and Gospels in the hands of Jews and Christians respectively at present are corrupted.

Yes, this is what is taught in Islam, however, as I point out earlier, if a verse from one of these sources doesn't contradict what is found in the Qur'an, it is accepted.

If the Quran is so contentious how can you or anyone else decide which Torah and Gospels which themselves has contentious verses, should match with the Quran.

Like this:

The Lord our God is one Lord (Mark 12:29)
The LORD our God, the LORD is one. (Deuteronomy 6:4)
Know that there is no god but God, (Qur'an 47:19)
Your God is one God. There is no god but He (Qur'an 2:163)

The gospel, the Torah, and the Qur'an are all in agreement in that example.

No where did I suggest that verses in the Bible or the Torah are Islamic, nor would I.

The concept of 'abrogation' is only complex for those who are caught in a dilemma from the mess the Quran has presented itself.

You cannot deny there is definitely a chronological order the revelations were revealed to Muhammad. It is also very common feature of life and time, where later expression are abrogating older materials unless explicit stated it is not the case.

Once again, you clearly have no understanding of the concept of abrogation and how it applies to the Qur'an.

I understand the term "this day" and "perfected" would imply 'completion' and final, but that is not always the case. It could meant 'perfected' but not yet delivered completely. Therefore 5:3 and Chapter 5 need not be the final chapter that was revealed.

Only verse 3 from chapter 5 was was revealed to Muhammad at Arafat on his farewell pilgrimage. There is no dispute of this from any Islamic scholar that I'm aware of going back more than 1,400 years and it's also recorded in the hadiths.

I do not rely on third parties as my primary conclusions. I did my own research from the Quran and Ahadiths and evidences.

Then why are you using anti-Islamic propagandists in these threads as sources to support your position instead of presenting your own research? With the exception of your unsubstantiated claims of 3400++ or 55% of the 6236 verses being antagonistic, contemptuous, or evil laden verses towards non-Muslims and your mythical pool of 320 million evil prone Muslims, everything you are saying can be found on the multiple anti-Islamic propagandist sites that can be found online.

You are an Islamist apologist for not recognizing the seriousness of the inherent evil and violent elements in the Quran which is exposed to a natural 20% or 320 million evil prone Muslims. It is obvious, there are evil and violent elements in the Quran and Ahadith that are influencing the 20% or 320 million of evil prone Muslims, but you are defending them using historical perspectives as a defense.
Rightly and morally you should call for their censoring or banning.

Since better than 99.9% of those who follow the religion of Islam don't interpret these verses you feel are violent in such a way that leads them to resort to violence, shouldn't that tell you that you are wrong in your interpretation?

If there are 320 million "evil prone Muslims" as you call them being influenced by these verses, then why are fewer than 1% of this select group involved in violent jihad?

Let's look at some global statistics related to violence:

Worldwide, an estimated 1.6 million people lost their lives to violence in 2000. About half were suicides, one-third were homicides, and one-fifth were casualties of armed conflict.

There were around 560,000 people killed violently worldwide which included acts of war, terrorism, and murder in 2016.

There have only been around 180,000 terror attacks in the past 50 years globally. That is counting all attacks by all ideologies, not just Islam.

If every terrorist attack for the past 50 years and every single violent death that occurs in any given year globally was carried out by someone claiming to be a Muslim, it doesn't even add up to 1% of your mythical pool of 320 million evil prone Muslims. It's closer to 1/10th of 1%. Remember that is counting every single violent death in the world, so the actual number involving Muslims is much lower. Isn't that fact alone convincing enough for you that Islam doesn't teach violence? How would it be possible with such a low percentage of Muslims being violent globally? This percentage of less than 1% of a population being violent is in line with violence committed in all societies.

Let's look at the United States as an example of this. There were an estimated 1,247,321 violent crimes in 2017 according to the FBI. This included murder, rape, assaults, bullying, and violent robberies. The population was around 320 million in 2017 with approximately 21% of those being under the age of 14. Some of these crimes would have had multiple perpetrators, while some perpetrators would have had multiple victims. To keep it simple I will assume one victim = one perpetrator. Based on that assumption and not counting people younger than 14 years of age, less than 1/2 of 1 percent of the US population committed a violent crime in 2017.

Since violence among the Muslim population is at or below that of other groups, how can you come to the conclusion that the religion of Islam is the problem?

Muslims put the verses you feel are violent into their textual and historical context which is the proper way to interpret the Qur'an. You are in error when you fail to do this. This is also what Islamic extremists and anti-Islamic propagandist do.

Should we also call for the censoring or banning of the verses found in the Bible that Christian terrorists have recently used to justify killing Jews? What about the verses that Christian terrorist groups use to justify the overthrowing of governments and conquering lands and people in the name of Jesus to establish Christian theocracies like we are seeing in Africa and India?

If less than 1% of Christians and Muslims are justifying their violence and atrocities by using verses from their holy books, are the religious texts the problem or the extremists?

Shouldn't we instead be putting our focus on the individuals and groups that are perverting these religions to justify violence instead of the religions themselves and their holy books?

Some Muslims may claim they are the same because they believe all religions and messengers were sent by their Allah. This is actually an insult to the other religions.

As a Christian I don't see it as an insult. I instead see it as a connection between the two religions that allows us to reach Muslims with the gospel.

Many other theistic religions also have very similar divine doctrines to those of Islam but there is no way they would want to be associated with Islam where it is so evident SOME Muslims are using Quranic verses to justify their evil and violent acts.

Some Muslims in this case would be less than 1/10th of 1% of the world's Muslim population. Which once again raises the question. Is it the verses or the individuals that distort and pervert them that are the problem?

 

[Joyousperson]

When did I ever suggest that those verses found in the Bible were Islamic?

Let's look at this conversation again.


No where did I suggest that verses in the Bible or the Torah are Islamic, nor would I.

To avoid further confusion, the final stance of the Quran is the Torah and Gospels that are in the hands of the Jews and Christians respectively, are corrupted.
Since they are corrupted Muslims has to ignore them and rely on the final revelation of Allah, i.e. the Quran's 6236 verses.

Once again, you clearly have no understanding of the concept of abrogation and how it applies to the Qur'an.

Only verse 3 from chapter 5 was was revealed to Muhammad at Arafat on his farewell pilgrimage. There is no dispute of this from any Islamic scholar that I'm aware of going back more than 1,400 years and it's also recorded in the hadiths.

Consensus among Islamic scholars do not count in this case.
As mentioned, many in consensus had believed the Earth was flat for eons of time but that was false.

Even if 5:3 is the final, it does not absolved the Quran from being inherently evil and violent with 9:5 and other violent verses in chapter 9 as the penultimate verses.

Then why are you using anti-Islamic propagandists in these threads as sources to support your position instead of presenting your own research? With the exception of your unsubstantiated claims of 3400++ or 55% of the 6236 verses being antagonistic, contemptuous, or evil laden verses towards non-Muslims and your mythical pool of 320 million evil prone Muslims, everything you are saying can be found on the multiple anti-Islamic propagandist sites that can be found online.

Where I agreed with third parties who critique Islam, those points that I agreed are in alignment with my own research. In other words I do not accept them blindly and stupidly.
Why I rely in them is a matter of convenience since they have compile and presently the points logically.

Re the 3400++ anti-disbelievers verses you can read them from any Quran. I will present my findings in my own time.
I have also demonstrated the 320 million of evil prone Muslims with the appropriate argument which you have not countered at all.

Since better than 99.9% of those who follow the religion of Islam don't interpret these verses you feel are violent in such a way that leads them to resort to violence, shouldn't that tell you that you are wrong in your interpretation?

Note most agreed and accepted scientific theory started with one person [e.g. Einstein, Copenicus, etc.] or a small group with a large group not agreeing to the theory until theory is proven via testing and empirical justifications.

Therefore that the majority do not agree with the other group of Muslims does not conclusive meant the majority are right.
Note the ad populum fallacies.

If there are 320 million "evil prone Muslims" as you call them being influenced by these verses, then why are fewer than 1% of this select group involved in violent jihad?

Let's look at some global statistics related to violence:

Worldwide, an estimated 1.6 million people lost their lives to violence in 2000. About half were suicides, one-third were homicides, and one-fifth were casualties of armed conflict.

There were around 560,000 people killed violently worldwide which included acts of war, terrorism, and murder in 2016.

There have only been around 180,000 terror attacks in the past 50 years globally. That is counting all attacks by all ideologies, not just Islam.

If every terrorist attack for the past 50 years and every single violent death that occurs in any given year globally was carried out by someone claiming to be a Muslim, it doesn't even add up to 1% of your mythical pool of 320 million evil prone Muslims. It's closer to 1/10th of 1%. Remember that is counting every single violent death in the world, so the actual number involving Muslims is much lower. Isn't that fact alone convincing enough for you that Islam doesn't teach violence? How would it be possible with such a low percentage of Muslims being violent globally? This percentage of less than 1% of a population being violent is in line with violence committed in all societies.

Let's look at the United States as an example of this. There were an estimated 1,247,321 violent crimes in 2017 according to the FBI. This included murder, rape, assaults, bullying, and violent robberies. The population was around 320 million in 2017 with approximately 21% of those being under the age of 14. Some of these crimes would have had multiple perpetrators, while some perpetrators would have had multiple victims. To keep it simple I will assume one victim = one perpetrator. Based on that assumption and not counting people younger than 14 years of age, less than 1/2 of 1 percent of the US population committed a violent crime in 2017.

Since violence among the Muslim population is at or below that of other groups, how can you come to the conclusion that the religion of Islam is the problem?

Muslims put the verses you feel are violent into their textual and historical context which is the proper way to interpret the Qur'an. You are in error when you fail to do this. This is also what Islamic extremists and anti-Islamic propagandist do.

Should we also call for the censoring or banning of the verses found in the Bible that Christian terrorists have recently used to justify killing Jews? What about the verses that Christian terrorist groups use to justify the overthrowing of governments and conquering lands and people in the name of Jesus to establish Christian theocracies like we are seeing in Africa and India?

If less than 1% of Christians and Muslims are justifying their violence and atrocities by using verses from their holy books, are the religious texts the problem or the extremists?

Shouldn't we instead be putting our focus on the individuals and groups that are perverting these religions to justify violence instead of the religions themselves and their holy books?


As a Christian I don't see it as an insult. I instead see it as a connection between the two religions that allows us to reach Muslims with the gospel.


Some Muslims in this case would be less than 1/10th of 1% of the world's Muslim population. Which once again raises the question. Is it the verses or the individuals that distort and pervert them that are the problem?

Your 1% argument is very narrow minded.

Note this Analogy:

During WW II, all the German people in Germany were supposedly supporting the Nazi ideology. It is the same with the Japanese imperialism.

What is seen is only a small % [1% or a bit more] of Germans and Japanese were involved and are active in fighting and killing enemies.
But based on the concept of national loyalty, it is likely 90% of the German and Japanese citizens would have supported their government in their imperialistic impulses. While the majority may not be involved in fighting and killing, they support the cause in other ways that is not seen directly by outsiders.​

Similarly, it is the same with desperate Muslims under the torment of Angst.
Only a small minority [tip of the iceberg] will be seen fighting and killing disbelievers in the forefront, but there is a whole load of majority of Muslims [in this case 320 million evil prone] behind the scene supporting the cause of Allah to ensure their passage to paradise with eternal life.

Note my approximation of 20% or 320 million evil prone Muslims is VERY conservative.
Based on the various Pew and other polls, the figure could be up to 60% of Muslims supporting the evil and violent elements of the Quran in a range of degrees from low to high.

As I had argued there is a state of desperation due to the inherent existential crisis and Angst which will drive ordinary people to do the most evil thing against a promise of salvation. Note the classic example, in Abraham's willingness to sacrifice his own son to God.

The clue is to the higher % support for the extremists are the examples from innocent school girls going to Syria to be brides of jihadists or volunteer to sacrifice themselves as bombers. Note the very innocent looking mothers and fathers who are willing to sacrifice the lives of their sons and daughters for the cause of Allah as exhorted by verses in the Quran.
Note the very educated and rich Muslims who had turned to become jihadists.
In other cases, note the many ordinary Muslims who are filling to sent money to fund the extremists.

Your usual 1% counter is not realistic, thus toothless.

And the final the point is the STALEMATE Dilemma inherent within Islam.
WHO ON EARTH can judge and insist those with the above views of the extremist Islamist are wrong?

Actually I do not view those extremist Islamists as evil people in a way, but rather they are merely desperate human beings trying to be better Muslims to please their Allah to secure their passage to paradise with eternal life. The main problem is thus the wrong ideology that they had followed in ensure their passage to paradise with eternal life.

 

[JosephZ]

To avoid further confusion, the final stance of the Quran is the Torah and Gospels that are in the hands of the Jews and Christians respectively, are corrupted. Since they are corrupted Muslims has to ignore them and rely on the final revelation of Allah, i.e. the Quran's 6236 verses.

Once again, there is no question that Islam teaches that the Torah and the gospel (singular) have been corrupted.

Keep in mind that the Qur'an isn't talking about the gospels of Matthew, Luke, John, and Mark. It's talking about the gospel that was revealed to Jesus. It doesn't exist in written form. The original Torah that was revealed to Moses has also been distorted. Regardless, if the words of Jesus found in one of the four gospels today don't contradict what is written in the Qur'an, then it's accepted. Examples would be Jesus saying there is one God or to love others. Since these are also teachings in Islam, there is no contradiction.

Consensus among Islamic scholars do not count in this case.

Below is from what is considered to be the most authentic hadith:

“This day I have Perfected your religion for you, Completed My Favor upon you And have chosen for you Islam as your religion” (5.3) `Umar said, “I know the place where it was revealed; It was revealed while Allah’s Apostle was staying at `Arafat.” -- Sahih Bukhari (Vol. 5, Book 59, Hadith
689)

In another thread you posted this:

Note my source quoted the most famous Islamic scholar, Ibn Khatir
Ibn Kathir - Wikipedia

Here is what he has to say

(This day, I have perfected your religion for you...) was revealed, during the great day of Hajj (the Day of `Arafah, the ninth day of Dhul-Hijjah) `Umar cried. The Prophet said, `What makes you cry' He said, `What made me cry is that our religion is being perfected for us. Now it is perfect, nothing is perfect, but it is bound to deteriorate.' -- Tafsir Ibn Kathir- Surah 5. Al-Maida, Ayah 3

There is a reason why there is a consensus on this particular verse.

As mentioned, many in consensus had believed the Earth was flat for eons of time but that was false.

When was this? Before education was available to the masses? The consensus among the educated has always been that the earth is round. This dates back prior to the birth of Christ.

Even if 5:3 is the final, it does not absolved the Quran from being inherently evil and violent with 9:5 and other violent verses in chapter 9 as the penultimate verses.

Even if 5:3 isn't the final, it still doesn't matter one way or the other, because once again the consensus among Muslim scholars and Muslims in general is that the verses in Chapter 9 are in reference to a historical event and do not apply to Muslims today.

Note most agreed and accepted scientific theory started with one person [e.g. Einstein, Copenicus, etc.] or a small group with a large group not agreeing to the theory until theory is proven via testing and empirical justifications.
Therefore that the majority do not agree with the other group of Muslims does not conclusive meant the majority are right. Note the ad populum fallacies.

Islamic extremists have been pushing their teachings pretty much since the inception of Islam and they haven't caught on yet. Historically the teachings of Islamic extremists have been rejected and this has been the case for more than 1,400 years. Don't you think that if the extremist versions of Islam were the correct interpretations that there would be more Muslims adhering to these teachings than what we are seeing today? Once again, we are talking about a period of time that spans over 1,400 years.

Note my approximation of 20% or 320 million evil prone Muslims is VERY conservative.
Based on the various Pew and other polls, the figure could be up to 60% of Muslims supporting the evil and violent elements of the Quran in a range of degrees from low to high.

I've never seen a poll that suggests anywhere close to 60% of Muslims supporting evil and violent elements of the Qur'an (Your words not mine). Can you provide some sources?

Actually I do not view those extremist Islamists as evil people in a way, but rather they are merely desperate human beings trying to be better Muslims to please their Allah to secure their passage to paradise with eternal life.

This claim has zero support. Studies on Islamic extremism have not come to this conclusion as I have pointed put before.

 

[Joyousperson]

Once again, there is no question that Islam teaches that the Torah and the gospel (singular) have been corrupted.

Keep in mind that the Qur'an isn't talking about the gospels of Matthew, Luke, John, and Mark. It's talking about the gospel that was revealed to Jesus. It doesn't exist in written form. The original Torah that was revealed to Moses has also been distorted. Regardless, if the words of Jesus found in one of the four gospels today don't contradict what is written in the Qur'an, then it's accepted. Examples would be Jesus saying there is one God or to love others. Since these are also teachings in Islam, there is no contradiction.

Your point has no significance at all.

In that case, anything written anywhere that is in agreement with what is written in the Quran will be accepted.
This will include the anti-semitism that is included in the Mein Kampf of Hitler which led to the genocides of the Jews.

The principle is, the Christians and Muslims are covenanted [contracted] with God to comply with the covenanted terms within their respective holy texts.
If you sign a contract A with its specific contract terms, you cannot refer [not legal] to the terms from another contract B.

Below is from what is considered to be the most authentic hadith:

“This day I have Perfected your religion for you, Completed My Favor upon you And have chosen for you Islam as your religion” (5.3) `Umar said, “I know the place where it was revealed; It was revealed while Allah’s Apostle was staying at `Arafat.” -- Sahih Bukhari (Vol. 5, Book 59, Hadith
689)

In another thread you posted this:



Here is what he has to say

(This day, I have perfected your religion for you...) was revealed, during the great day of Hajj (the Day of `Arafah, the ninth day of Dhul-Hijjah) `Umar cried. The Prophet said, `What makes you cry' He said, `What made me cry is that our religion is being perfected for us. Now it is perfect, nothing is perfect, but it is bound to deteriorate.' -- Tafsir Ibn Kathir- Surah 5. Al-Maida, Ayah 3

There is a reason why there is a consensus on this particular verse.

This is not a very significant issue. As I had stated, even if 5:3 is the last verse, 9:5 as the penultimate is still horrific.

Nevertheless, it is very odd that this particular point among 5:3 which mentioned 'food' should the last point spoken by Muhammad to his listeners.

When was this? Before education was available to the masses? The consensus among the educated has always been that the earth is round. This dates back prior to the birth of Christ.

Note the common sense perception the Earth was flat.

Even if 5:3 isn't the final, it still doesn't matter one way or the other, because once again the consensus among Muslim scholars and Muslims in general is that the verses in Chapter 9 are in reference to a historical event and do not apply to Muslims today.

It is more likely that the verses in Chapter 9 [which do not expressed anything historical] are principles of the doctrine of the ideology of Islam.

WHO ARE YOU to judge what is final?
What I inferred is objective to what is in the Quran itself.

In addition, you cannot resolve the STALEMATE Dilemma with personal views which is not from Allah.

Islamic extremists have been pushing their teachings pretty much since the inception of Islam and they haven't caught on yet. Historically the teachings of Islamic extremists have been rejected and this has been the case for more than 1,400 years. Don't you think that if the extremist versions of Islam were the correct interpretations that there would be more Muslims adhering to these teachings than what we are seeing today? Once again, we are talking about a period of time that spans over 1,400 years.

WHO ARE YOU or they to judge, since only Allah can made the final judgment.

I've never seen a poll that suggests anywhere close to 60% of Muslims supporting evil and violent elements of the Qur'an (Your words not mine). Can you provide some sources?

Note for example there are polls which show >60% of Muslims support Sharia Law which imposed death for apostates and other violent punishments.
There are polls that show certain % [to be confirmed] support the Islamic states.

This claim has zero support. Studies on Islamic extremism have not come to this conclusion as I have pointed put before.

The studies you quoted are bias.

The principle is this;

A Muslim is a person who had entered into a covenant with Allah to comply with the covenanted terms in the Quran.

The Quran contains commands to commit divine acts which end up as evil and violent.

Therefore a Muslim are expected to carry out their divine duty which end up as evil and violent.​

There are loads of empirical evidence of SOME Muslims who had committed terrible evil and violent acts and justifying these acts with verses from the Quran and Ahadith.

Note the quote where IS claimed foreign intervention is secondary but what is primary is the non-Muslims are disbelievers of Islam, thus a threat, fasadin.

 

[Yytz6]

Such words are worthless from non-Muslims if they're not supported by Muslims. It's one thing to speak up about something like poorly applied shaira, as a non-Muslim. But Islam is a religion. It requires faith to be a Muslim. If a person has none they just can't criticise the religion without the words sounding empty to Muslims.

Why do you think Muslim scholars never really talk about these non-Muslim "critics"? Because they don't matter. Their opinion is irrelevant.

As to the topic, whether islam has anything to do with ISIS. It depends on what one means by "something to do with". But since that is made clear in the op - with that definion: no, ISIS has nothing to do with Islam.

 

[Joyousperson]

Such words are worthless from non-Muslims if they're not supported by Muslims. It's one thing to speak up about something like poorly applied shaira, as a non-Muslim. But Islam is a religion. It requires faith to be a Muslim. If a person has none they just can't criticise the religion without the words sounding empty to Muslims.

Why do you think Muslim scholars never really talk about these non-Muslim "critics"? Because they don't matter. Their opinion is irrelevant.

As to the topic, whether islam has anything to do with ISIS. It depends on what one means by "something to do with". But since that is made clear in the op - with that definion: no, ISIS has nothing to do with Islam.

Your above is merely a very subjective views without a sound argument nor evidence.

It is a silly excuse that only Islamic Scholars are expert in Islam. In fact, all Muslims and Islamic Scholars will have an inherent propensity for confirmation bias due to the high existential issue at stake, i.e. a matter of eternal life in paradise or eternal death to be burnt in Hell.

Confirmation bias - Wikipedia
Confirmation bias is the tendency to search for, interpret, favor, and recall information in a way that confirms one's preexisting beliefs or hypotheses.[1] It is a type of cognitive bias and a systematic error of inductive reasoning.
People display this bias when they gather or remember information selectively, or when they interpret it in a biased way.
The effect is stronger for desired outcomes, emotionally charged issues, and for deeply entrenched-beliefs.​

Religion is a highly emotionally charged issue with deeply entrenched beliefs. This is why there is so much killing when one religion is perceived to be threatened as in the case of Islam and SOME Muslims.

Note anyone can verify whether IS has anything to with Islam or not on an OBJECTIVE basis based on evidence;

As I had argued, to be objective, we need to compare the manifesto of IS and the acts of their members to the requirements stated in the 6236 verses of the Quran - the core and final authority of Islam.

Show me a significant number [not one or two contentious verses out of 6236 verses] of the critical verses that IS do not agree with nor comply with the 6236 verses in the Quran?

 

[Yytz6]

Show me a significant number [not one or two contentious verses out of 6236 verses] of the critical verses that IS do not agree with nor comply with the 6236 verses in the Quran?

Critical verses? Suppose you want me to quote them saying it? Rejecting verses of the Qur'an is much the same as apostasy.

 

[mindlight]

Dr. Jeffrey M. Bale is an Associate Professor in the Nonproliferation and Terrorism Studies Program at the Monterey Institute of International Studies (MIIS), where his focus is on the study of political and religious extremism and terrorism. He obtained his B.A. in Middle Eastern and Islamic history at the University of Michigan, and his Ph.D. in modern European history at the University of California at Berkeley.​

This is a very interesting and insightful article from Jeffrey Bale which is worth reading to access the truth. He concluded with the following.

Although many Muslims, like other religious believers, can be expected to be overly defensive about their faith, it remains far less understandable why so many Western leaders and commentators are also peddling the same falsehoods about the IS having "nothing to do with Islam."

If the latter honestly believe what they are saying, then they are either hopelessly ignorant about Islam, Islamic history, and Islamism, or are wearing impenetrable ideological blinders that prevent them from seeing reality, or are living in an acute state of psychological denial that borders on the pathological and the clinically delusional.

But if such Westerners do not actually believe what they are saying, then they are fooling themselves that their embarrassingly facile attempts to divorce Islam from Islamism will somehow end up being the most effective way to counter Islamist ideology or rally support from Muslims for various Western foreign policy and counterterrorist initiatives in the region.
Analysis: Does the Islamic State Really Have 'Nothing to Do with Islam'?

Views?​

It would be impossible to honestly disassociate Islam from Islamism in the way that modern liberal journalists are dishonestly obliged to do by their editors. The Daesh worldview is saturated with Islamic quotes from Quran and Haddith that make it distinctively Muslim in tone. But it is easier to distinguish Daesh and indeed the modern Wahabbi regime in Saudia Arabia from the Islam of Muhammad or the first four Caliphs on the issue of religious freedom for example. Muhammad himself said there was no compulsion in religion and the reign of the last 3 of the first four Caliphs was characterised by sharing places of worship, funding church repairs, allowing freedom of worship for Christians. Indeed in Islams golden age Christians were free to contribute to the success of the caliphate whereas they had no such freedoms under Daesh and formed the majority of the population in Caliphate provinces like Palestine, Syria and Egypt.

 

[Joyousperson]

It would be impossible to honestly disassociate Islam from Islamism in the way that modern liberal journalists are dishonestly obliged to do by their editors. The Daesh worldview is saturated with Islamic quotes from Quran and Haddith that make it distinctively Muslim in tone. But it is easier to distinguish Daesh and indeed the modern Wahabbi regime in Saudia Arabia from the Islam of Muhammad or the first four Caliphs on the issue of religious freedom for example. Muhammad himself said there was no compulsion in religion and the reign of the last 3 of the first four Caliphs was characterised by sharing places of worship, funding church repairs, allowing freedom of worship for Christians. Indeed in Islams golden age Christians were free to contribute to the success of the caliphate whereas they had no such freedoms under Daesh and formed the majority of the population in Caliphate provinces like Palestine, Syria and Egypt.

Logically and rationally, the acts of Muslims is not the sole critical representation of what is Islam.

What is Islam is represented by its ideology as presented in the 6236 verses in the Quran.
As evident from all the 6236 verses within the Quran, it can be inferred objectively the main ethos of Islam is the inherent evil and violent against non-Muslims.

Notably, there are 3400+ verses or 55% that contain 'evil' and violent elements that are directed contemptuously against non-Muslims.
(evil = any act that is net negative to the well being of an individual or group).
How can one claim a religion is peaceful when 55% of its verses in its main holy texts is anti-believers in a negative, derogatory and contemptuous mode.

Re No Compulsion in Religion, re 2:256;
Note there are 1000s of articles written to counter this point, here is one [from a quickie google search];
https://www.theexmuslim.com/2016/02/25/on-there-is-no-compulsion-in-religion/

Similarly there is no Goldern Age that is specific to the ideology of Islam. Yes, there was a one-off golden age among Muslims, but it has nothing to do with Islam specifically. That is an inherent Scientific impulse of human beings and has nothing to do with the ideology of Islam which is anti-Science - as evident from the Muslim-majority countries we have today.

There were only two "real" Muslim Nobel Prize winners in Science. One [Abdus Salam] who was supposedly a Muslim [an Ahmadiyya] was denounced by Muslims in general as not a Muslim.
There are many counters to denounce Islam [specifically] has something to do with the Golden Age.

 

[mindlight]

Logically and rationally, the acts of Muslims is not the sole critical representation of what is Islam.

What is Islam is represented by its ideology as presented in the 6236 verses in the Quran.
As evident from all the 6236 verses within the Quran, it can be inferred objectively the main ethos of Islam is the inherent evil and violent against non-Muslims.

The main driver of Islam is worship of the One God. But within that there is an overemphasis on hell and the punishment of those who do not follow Muhammads teachings

Notably, there are 3400+ verses or 55% that contain 'evil' and violent elements that are directed contemptuously against non-Muslims.
(evil = any act that is net negative to the well being of an individual or group).
How can one claim a religion is peaceful when 55% of its verses in its main holy texts is anti-believers in a negative, derogatory and contemptuous mode.

Yes the negative tone is off putting. Much of that anger is directed against Makkan idolaters rather than People of the Book however.

Re No Compulsion in Religion, re 2:256;
Note there are 1000s of articles written to counter this point, here is one [from a quickie google search];
https://www.theexmuslim.com/2016/02/25/on-there-is-no-compulsion-in-religion/

Yes the verse goes on to say but the wicked will be punished and go to hell but it was specifically talking about Makkan idolaters not Christians and Jews.

Similarly there is no Goldern Age that is specific to the ideology of Islam. Yes, there was a one-off golden age among Muslims, but it has nothing to do with Islam specifically. That is an inherent Scientific impulse of human beings and has nothing to do with the ideology of Islam which is anti-Science - as evident from the Muslim-majority countries we have today.

There were only two "real" Muslim Nobel Prize winners in Science. One [Abdus Salam] who was supposedly a Muslim [an Ahmadiyya] was denounced by Muslims in general as not a Muslim.
There are many counters to denounce Islam [specifically] has something to do with the Golden Age.

Islam had its golden age when it dominated Christian majority provinces of the old Byzantine empire. Arab goat herders relied heavily on this knowledge, skill and experience and then claimed much of the credit for it. Muslims continue to underperform in science, wealth creation, freedom, arts, sports etc etc

 

[Joyousperson]

The main driver of Islam is worship of the One God. But within that there is an overemphasis on hell and the punishment of those who do not follow Muhammads teachings.

You missed the point.
It is not only Islam, but there are many other religions which are monotheistic, including Hinduism and others.

"What is Islam" is very specific and imperative to the specific Quran [6236 verses] orally delivered by Allah to Muhammad via Angel Gibreel during the period 610 to 632 CE.
Therefore 'what is Islam' must be contained within those 6236 verses only. A religion without any of the bolded items cannot be Islam per se.

Thus the following that is in the Quran is Islamic;

2:216. Warfare is ordained [l-qitālu] for you [Muslims], though it is hateful unto you [Muslims]; but it may happen that ye [Muslims] hate a thing which is good for you, and it may happen that ye love a thing which is bad for you. Allah knoweth, ye know not.​

5:33. The only reward [punishment] of those [infidels] who make war upon Allah and His messenger and strive after corruption [fasadin, mischiefs, wronged] in the land - will be that they [infidels] will be killed or crucified, or have their [infidels'] hands and feet on alternate sides cut off, or will be expelled out of the land.​

Since the above is Islam as a divine command from Allah, all Muslims are obliged to comply to the above as a religious duty, they must go to war with non-Muslims, kill them, where there is a threat [fasadin] against Islam. The point is the term 'fasadin' is so loose that merely drawing of cartoons of Muhammad is a justification for Muslims to kill non-Muslims and this is so evident as a reality.

Yes the negative tone is off putting. Much of that anger is directed against Makkan idolaters rather than People of the Book however.

Yes the verse goes on to say but the wicked will be punished and go to hell but it was specifically talking about Makkan idolaters not Christians and Jews.

I don't think you have read the 6236 verses of the Quran thoroughly.

In general the enemies of Islam are the disbelievers, whoever who do not believe in Allah and Muhammad as his messenger as specified in the Quran. This can be the pharaohs, pagans, Jews, Christians and any one who is not a Muslim. They [enemies of Islam] in general are the disbelievers, the non-Muslims.
Other Muslims who are hypocrites are also deemed to be disbelievers, thus a target for killing.

Islam had its golden age when it dominated Christian majority provinces of the old Byzantine empire. Arab goat herders relied heavily on this knowledge, skill and experience and then claimed much of the credit for it. Muslims continue to underperform in science, wealth creation, freedom, arts, sports etc etc

Nope, it was not Islam itself which has its golden age.

It so happened that Muslims conquered certain areas where there were already had a great pre-existing civilization with an intellectual and philosophical history, e.g. Persians, Iraqians with Hindus & Greek influence and others.
It was only a certain groups of Muslims during a certain age who happened to have a good background in philosophy and knowledge who ventured to explore scientific knowledge.

For example, the USA was claimed to be one of the greatest space explorers who first landed on the Moon. But this specifically has nothing to do with America, but rather it was a captured Russian prisoner [Wernher von Braun] who helmed the Moon Project. In this case, America itself cannot claim full credit for its space explorations.
​

It is the same with Islam, the supposedly "Golden Age of Islam"
has nothing to do with Islam-itself as scientifically inclined, but rather it was the prisoners [and their sons] captured by Muslims who contributed to that 'Golden Age'.
Islam itself denounced earthly living and knowledge as an illusion in preference for the afterlife and paradise.

57:20. Know that the life of this world is only play, and idle talk, and pageantry, and boasting among you, and rivalry in respect of wealth and children; [is similar to that] as the likeness of vegetation after rain, whereof the growth is pleasing to the husbandman, but afterward it drieth up and thou seest it turning yellow then it becometh straw.
And in the Hereafter there is grievous punishment [infidels and sinners], and (also) forgiveness [for Muslims] from Allah and His good pleasure, whereas the life of the world is but matter of illusion [GhRR: l-ghurūri].​

The supposedly 'Golden Age' should have been rightly called "The Golden Age of the Prisoner's [victims] of Islam."

Note many of the contributors to the supposedly "Golden Age of Islam" were deemed apostates and then condemned / killed because there is no way Science and Western Philosophy can be compatible with the essence of Islam which is based purely on faith.

If Islam itself is inherently scientific and respect scientific knowledge, then its contribution to science should be continuous since its emergence to the present and not a one-off affair.

 

[Yytz6]

You missed the point.
It is not only Islam, but there are many other religions which are monotheistic, including Hinduism and others.

Hinduism can hardly be called monotheistic.

"What is Islam" is very specific and imperative to the specific Quran [6236 verses] orally delivered by Allah to Muhammad via Angel Gibreel during the period 610 to 632 CE.

No one knows the exact years it was revealed. And again the number of verses is also not specific.

 

[Joyousperson]

Hinduism can hardly be called monotheistic.

Hinduism comprised of various and different traditions with different theistic views, and these views have been described by scholars, polytheism, monotheism, henotheism, panentheism, pantheism, monism, agnostic, humanism, atheism or Nontheism.

The term may be contentious, but in Hinduism, there are Hindus who simply belief in one God, i.e. Brahman.

No one knows the exact years it was revealed. And again the number of verses is also not specific.

At least it is commonly accepted the period was 610-632 within 23 years.
It was claimed the revelations were revealed in chapters.
As such there must be a time sequence in chronological order when the chapters were revealed.

As I had stated history surrounding Islam is useful but not primary.
From the history, we may not know the specific year, but one can infer roughly which chapter appear earlier and which appeared later.

 

[Yytz6]

It was claimed the revelations were revealed in chapters.

That's not true.

 

[mindlight]

You missed the point.
It is not only Islam, but there are many other religions which are monotheistic, including Hinduism and others.

"What is Islam" is very specific and imperative to the specific Quran [6236 verses] orally delivered by Allah to Muhammad via Angel Gibreel during the period 610 to 632 CE.
Therefore 'what is Islam' must be contained within those 6236 verses only. A religion without any of the bolded items cannot be Islam per se.

Some of the early Meccan suras are not texts I would really disagree with and there is also some fine poetry in the text praising God and reminding believers of their precarious position in this world without God. In the Quran I read that God is Creator (tick), Sovereign (tick), The Judge of all (Tick). But the Quran falls apart first and foremost in its understanding of God (trinity and incarnation) and its lack of a feasible Redemptive mechanism for all mankind (The Cross). The focus on Muhammad that Muslims are obsessed with is not really there in the Quran which talks about Jesus and Moses far more for instance even if from an obviously culture bound Arabic male perspective. The references to Jihad in the early Meccan suras are different than in the later Medinan ones and could be used to support a spiritual view of jihad. But in the end Islam did expand with conquest inside Arabia and then against the Byzantines and Sassine Empires and the later Medinan suras support that shift to a physical jihad by a Muslim state with its own external rules and regulations. Also Muhammad and indeed Abu Bakr the first Caliph were extremely intolerant of opposition to themselves while at the same time honouring pacts made with Jewish tribes in the Arabian region and the Christians of Najran for example. So long as they were dominant the first 4 Caliphs generally treated Christians and Jews alright. For example the Byzantines banned the Jews from worshipping in Jerusalem while the Muslims gave them the freedom to do that.

Thus the following that is in the Quran is Islamic;

2:216. Warfare is ordained [l-qitālu] for you [Muslims], though it is hateful unto you [Muslims]; but it may happen that ye [Muslims] hate a thing which is good for you, and it may happen that ye love a thing which is bad for you. Allah knoweth, ye know not.​

5:33. The only reward [punishment] of those [infidels] who make war upon Allah and His messenger and strive after corruption [fasadin, mischiefs, wronged] in the land - will be that they [infidels] will be killed or crucified, or have their [infidels'] hands and feet on alternate sides cut off, or will be expelled out of the land.​

It is a violent religion in its core texts and historical practice we do not disagree on that. Though there are Muslims who can find reasons to be peaceful from the Quran , should we be discouraging them in that?

Since the above is Islam as a divine command from Allah, all Muslims are obliged to comply to the above as a religious duty, they must go to war with non-Muslims, kill them, where there is a threat [fasadin] against Islam. The point is the term 'fasadin' is so loose that merely drawing of cartoons of Muhammad is a justification for Muslims to kill non-Muslims and this is so evident as a reality.


I don't think you have read the 6236 verses of the Quran thoroughly.

In general the enemies of Islam are the disbelievers, whoever who do not believe in Allah and Muhammad as his messenger as specified in the Quran. This can be the pharaohs, pagans, Jews, Christians and any one who is not a Muslim. They [enemies of Islam] in general are the disbelievers, the non-Muslims.
Other Muslims who are hypocrites are also deemed to be disbelievers, thus a target for killing.

Yes Muslims can wage wars against people of other religions or even other Muslims who think they think are in practice disbelievers. I have not contradicted that actually.

Nope, it was not Islam itself which has its golden age.

It so happened that Muslims conquered certain areas where there were already had a great pre-existing civilization with an intellectual and philosophical history, e.g. Persians, Iraqians with Hindus & Greek influence and others.
It was only a certain groups of Muslims during a certain age who happened to have a good background in philosophy and knowledge who ventured to explore scientific knowledge.

For example, the USA was claimed to be one of the greatest space explorers who first landed on the Moon. But this specifically has nothing to do with America, but rather it was a captured Russian prisoner [Wernher von Braun] who helmed the Moon Project. In this case, America itself cannot claim full credit for its space explorations.
​

It is the same with Islam, the supposedly "Golden Age of Islam"
has nothing to do with Islam-itself as scientifically inclined, but rather it was the prisoners [and their sons] captured by Muslims who contributed to that 'Golden Age'.
Islam itself denounced earthly living and knowledge as an illusion in preference for the afterlife and paradise.

57:20. Know that the life of this world is only play, and idle talk, and pageantry, and boasting among you, and rivalry in respect of wealth and children; [is similar to that] as the likeness of vegetation after rain, whereof the growth is pleasing to the husbandman, but afterward it drieth up and thou seest it turning yellow then it becometh straw.
And in the Hereafter there is grievous punishment [infidels and sinners], and (also) forgiveness [for Muslims] from Allah and His good pleasure, whereas the life of the world is but matter of illusion [GhRR: l-ghurūri].​

The supposedly 'Golden Age' should have been rightly called "The Golden Age of the Prisoner's [victims] of Islam."

Note many of the contributors to the supposedly "Golden Age of Islam" were deemed apostates and then condemned / killed because there is no way Science and Western Philosophy can be compatible with the essence of Islam which is based purely on faith.

If Islam itself is inherently scientific and respect scientific knowledge, then its contribution to science should be continuous since its emergence to the present and not a one-off affair.

You actually just repeated my own point about the Golden Age of Islam being something that Islam did not generate itself but I guess since we agree this is a moot point. Islams afterlife focus is more about sex than the Christian vision of heaven which is more God focused but the focus on heavenly rewards and the self sacrificial service of God in this life is not in itself a bad thing even if it seems women have a poor time of it in both this life and paradise.

 

[mindlight]

Hinduism can hardly be called monotheistic.

Some Hindus think all their idols lead to the same God and others that they lead to a plurality of gods. But there is so much confusion and disagreement about what Hinduism is it depends on who you are talking to really.

 

[Joyousperson]

Joyousperson said: ↑
It was claimed the revelations were revealed in chapters.

That's not true.

Proofs?

 

[Joyousperson]

It is a violent religion in its core texts and historical practice we do not disagree on that.
Though there are Muslims who can find reasons to be peaceful from the Quran, should we be discouraging them in that?

Obviously Muslims should be peaceful people.
But that the majority of Muslims are peaceful people is not because of Islam and the Quran.
They are peaceful because of their own human nature because the majority of human beings are naturally inclined to be peaceful. This due to the greater number of mirror neurons they have in their brain.

Note the growth of Mirror neurons in humans;
Mirror neuron - Wikipedia
which are responsible for empathy and compassion, thus tendency toward peace.​

Islam is inherently in a large part, evil and violent as represented by the majority of verses that contain loads of evil and violent elements that are commanded by Allah.

Therefore in Principle, a Muslim as a follower of Islam and the Quran has to comply with the commands of Allah in the Quran where the majority are evil and violent in nature. If the Muslim do not comply with the commands of Allah, the Muslim's assurance of going to paradise with eternal life may be compromised.

What is frightening is this;

DNA wise, ALL humans has the potential to commit evil and violence.
A percentage, I conservatively estimate to be 20% of all humans are naturally born with an active evil tendency. In one perspective, the mirror neurons in them are not very active.

Now, 20% is a potential pool of 320 million Muslims [total 1.6 b] who are naturally evil prone.
A large % of these evil prone Muslims will likely to be influenced and inspired by the evil and violent elements in the Quran.
This is already a reality [with glaring evidences] where there are terrible evil and violent acts committed by evil prone Muslims throughout the 1400 years history of Islam till the present.

A good and wise religion should be fool proof of evil and violent elements so there is absolute no way a believer can commit evil and violence in the name of the religion, examples are Christianity, Buddhism, Jainism and others.

But this is not the case with Islam and the Quran where it has tons of evil and violent elements that will influence SOME Muslims who are evil prone to commit evil and violent acts to please Allah so that they are more assured of a passage of paradise with eternal life, as promised in the Quran.