What to do about ISIS

[Blaze The Great]

A lot of Christians still hold the old pact as truth though, note the quoting of Leviticus in many Christian arguments about gay rights for instance.

Which is a terrible idea because they don't devote their entire Sundays to God, follow Jewish methods for cancelling debts, make sacrifices of animals, wear clothes of only one fabric, or totally refuse shellfish. They get destroyed by almost anyone in an internet debate, even more so in a real life one.

[Chiki]

Ok, there's a lot of mistakes in just that short post. Let me start by giving a few basic definitions:

Faith = belief not based on proof.

Religious = being a devout follower of a religion. To believe strongly in God (to be a deist) is not to be religious. Does it follow that if one strongly believes that God exists, but thinks that all religions are stupid, then they're religious? So there's a huge difference between being religious and being a devout follower of God.

Atheism = a wide spectrum of beliefs which all have in common the idea that it's unlikely for God to exist. Some atheists believe that God doesn't exist. Some believe that it's extremely unlikely. Both views have in common the idea that it's unlikely (since impossibility entails unlikeliness).

Many people (if not all, I am unsure) have faith in something

Rationality comes in degrees. All men who are rational overall may have a few irrational beliefs based on faith. That's fine. So what? Kurt Godel was a rational man overall (he proved very important results in logic and math, like the completeness of predicate logic and two theorems on the incompleteness of Peano arithmetic) but he would only ever eat his wife's cooking because he thought everyone else was out to poison him. When his wife was hospitalized, he starved himself to death. His favorite movie was Snow White and the Seven Dwarves.

Gödel, who has often been called the greatest logician since Aristotle, was a strange and ultimately tragic man. Whereas Einstein was gregarious and full of laughter, Gödel was solemn, solitary, and pessimistic. Einstein, a passionate amateur violinist, loved Beethoven and Mozart. Gödel’s taste ran in another direction: his favorite movie was Walt Disney’s “Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs,” and when his wife put a pink flamingo in their front yard he pronounced it furchtbar herzig—“awfully charming.” Einstein freely indulged his appetite for heavy German cooking; Gödel subsisted on a valetudinarian’s diet of butter, baby food, and laxatives. Although Einstein’s private life was not without its complications, outwardly he was jolly and at home in the world. Gödel, by contrast, had a tendency toward paranoia. He believed in ghosts; he had a morbid dread of being poisoned by refrigerator gases; he refused to go out when certain distinguished mathematicians were in town, apparently out of concern that they might try to kill him.

even atheists do to some degree because it is impossible to disprove God and therefore it requires belief in God's inexistance.

First of all, it's not clear whether or not it is impossible to disprove God's existence. Many strong arguments have been made to prove the nonexistence of God, such as the problem of evil (why is there so much evil in the world if God exists?), paradoxes (can God make a stone so heavy that he can't lift it?) and so on.

The paradox arguments have been so effective that nowadays theists have changed the definition of omnipotence so that God can't violate the laws of logic. So in one sense it IS impossible for God to exist (when omnipotence allows him to violate the laws of logic). But then it's unclear whether or not the current theist idea of God as someone who can't violate the laws of logic is a good idea of God at all. Is omnipotence really omnipotence, so to speak, if God can't make a stone which he can't lift? Maybe not.

Second, don't for a second confuse atheism with faith in God's nonexistence. There's many kinds of atheists. Some atheists, those convinced by the aforementioned arguments, can rationally, based on philosophical proof, believe in the nonexistence of God. Some atheists can be like Richard Dawkins, and call themselves agnostic atheists, and believe that it's impossible to prove the nonexistence of God. They would say that they don't believe that God doesn't exist, though they believe it's very unlikely that God exists. Some atheists can indeed have faith that God doesn't exist.

And reason does not necessarily contradict faith.

Yes it does, but that doesn't mean that people who are rational overall can't have irrational beliefs. You're making the same stupid mistake I just warned someone else about. People can be rational while having certain irrational beliefs, see the example of Kurt Godel above.

Francis Bacon, Immanuel Kant and Leibniz come into mind as great men who were clearly religious and influenced by their faith.

A better example would be Isaac Newton, who was a hardcore Christian.

Kant believed in God but he wasn't religious.

Edited April 26, 2015 by Chiki

[blah the Prussian]

I would say that it is possible to act rationally and believe in God at the same time, even if being religious is not all that rational.

Why not? Many people (if not all, I am unsure) have faith in something, even atheists do to some degree because it is impossible to disprove God and therefore it requires belief in God's inexistance. Some just choose to direct their faith toward religion.

And reason does not necessarily contradict faith. Many reasonable men were faithful, or even contributed to the foundations of modern science that we know. Francis Bacon, Immanuel Kant and Leibniz come into mind as great men who were clearly religious and influenced by their faith.

Couldn't have said it better myself. Let me add to the pile with Joseph II, Bismarck, and Alexander II.

[dondon151]

I'm all for religion, I'm a Christian myself. However, there are some parts of the OT that I don't quite understand. Christians are not bound to the full Jewish law, fortunately.

christians are not bound to the full jewish law because christian authorities have at some time decided that this was so due to various non-theological reasons. the NT has self-contradictory passages about whether christians are bound to jewish law. many christians cannot even make up their mind as to what parts of the OT should be followed; they have the convenient argument where if someone brings up a clause from the OT that is not adhered to, they will simply say, "oh jesus made a new covenant and we don't have to follow the old laws" while they would be happy to invoke old laws when it serves to their advantage.

Edited April 26, 2015 by dondon151

[Blaze The Great]

christians are not bound to the full jewish law because christian authorities have at some time decided that this was so due to various non-theological reasons. the NT has self-contradictory passages about whether christians are bound to jewish law. many christians cannot even make up their mind as to what parts of the OT should be followed; they have the convenient argument where if someone brings up a clause from the OT that is not adhered to, they will simply say, "oh jesus made a new covenant and we don't have to follow the old laws" while they would be happy to invoke old laws when it serves to their advantage.

Exactly. There are tons of hypocritical Christians, I will be the first to admit. Jesus said that "I have come to fulfill the Law and the Prophets" which I interpret as "I am the one who was foretold by the OT prophets and I am giving my followers a new covenant to replace the old one of Judaism." Not sure if that is correct, but that seems to be the most logical interpretation to me. I suppose I will probably find out someday.

First of all, it's not clear whether or not it is impossible to disprove God's existence. Many strong arguments have been made to prove the nonexistence of God, such as the problem of evil (why is there so much evil in the world if God exists?), paradoxes (can God make a stone so heavy that he can't lift it?) and so on.

The paradox arguments have been so effective that nowadays theists have changed the definition of omnipotence so that God can't violate the laws of logic. So in one sense it IS impossible for God to exist (when omnipotence allows him to violate the laws of logic). But then it's unclear whether or not the current theist idea of God as someone who can't violate the laws of logic is a good idea of God at all. Is omnipotence really omnipotence, so to speak, if God can't make a stone which he can't lift? Maybe not.

Second, don't for a second confuse atheism with faith in God's nonexistence. There's many kinds of atheists. Some atheists, those convinced by the aforementioned arguments, can rationally, based on philosophical proof, believe in the nonexistence of God. Some atheists can be like Richard Dawkins, and call themselves agnostic atheists, and believe that it's impossible to prove the nonexistence of God. They would say that they don't believe that God doesn't exist, though they believe it's very unlikely that God exists. Some atheists can indeed have faith that God doesn't exist.

The problem of evil is not a strong argument to disprove God. God does not create evil, but he does not prevent it either. According to Christian beliefs, humans brought sin into the world, beginning with Adam and Eve in the fall of man. The Jews would have to make sacrifices to "atone" for their sins, until Jesus came along as the ultimate sacrifice and died around 30 AD. Now, Christians serve God and act as a testimony to his goodness, attempting to fight evil but never succeeding due to inner problems and increases in atheism. One day, we believe that God will return and restore everything to the perfect condition it had before sin was brought into the world.

The paradox argument is interesting. I'm not going to say anything against it, although it would be amusing to learn about how science works in heaven. Maybe omnipotence is different, but I really have nothing to say here. We don't know.

Edited April 26, 2015 by Blaze The Great

[Chiki]

God does not create evil, but he does not prevent it either. According to Christian beliefs, humans brought sin into the world, beginning with Adam and Eve in the fall of man. The Jews would have to make sacrifices to "atone" for their sins, until Jesus came along as the ultimate sacrifice and died around 30 AD. Now, Christians serve God and act as a testimony to his goodness, attempting to fight evil but never succeeding due to inner problems and increases in atheism. One day, we believe that God will return and restore everything to the perfect condition it had before sin was brought into the world.

And it's evil to not prevent it. It's evil to not stop Adam and Eve from bringing sin to the world. It's evil not to remove it if God is able to.

Here's a similar real life example. I see someone getting raped on the street, and I'm armed with a gun so I can easily end the rape if I wanted to. But I choose not to. The person gets raped, pregnant and so on. Don't you think that is evil, for letting that person get raped?

Edited April 26, 2015 by Chiki

[eclipse]

Here's a similar real life example. I see someone getting raped on the street, and I'm armed with a gun so I can easily end the rape if I wanted to. But I choose not to. The person gets raped, pregnant and so on. Don't you think that is evil, for letting that person get raped?

This is. . .extremely situational. What if it's an exhibitionist couple who likes it rough? Are you absolutely sure it's rape? What are your surroundings like? Are you the type of person who'd be profiled by the police, such that even if it you did stop a legitimate rape using lethal force, you'd be convicted of murder anyway because fuck yeah justice? What if you fuck up and accidentally kill the victim? What if the perpetrator is your friend? Or the victim is someone you despise? In the end, we're human.

[Chiki]

This is. . .extremely situational. What if it's an exhibitionist couple who likes it rough? Are you absolutely sure it's rape? What are your surroundings like? Are you the type of person who'd be profiled by the police, such that even if it you did stop a legitimate rape using lethal force, you'd be convicted of murder anyway because fuck yeah justice? What if you fuck up and accidentally kill the victim? What if the perpetrator is your friend? Or the victim is someone you despise? In the end, we're human.

Well, since I'm making up the example, I can just stipulate that it really is rape, and so on. Would it be evil in that case? Yes.

If you want a real life example, here's one: http://www.chicagotribune.com/lifestyles/columnists/ct-holocaust-trial-brotman-talk-0427-20150427-column.html

The Nazi prison guard just stood by and let Jews get beaten up and tortured, and he never did anything to stop it.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/doing-allowing/

This page covers the difference between doing harm vs. allowing harm really well.

Edited April 26, 2015 by Chiki

[ReaperGuardian]

What I miss in this thread, is that Islam also encourages love. I am not versed in the Islam, so I've been looking up these parts. Forgive me if I've cited wrongly, I did not mean to offend believers of the Islam.

Here are a few examples:

"It is not righteousness that you turn your faces to the East or the West, but truly righteous is he who believes in Allah and the Last Day and the angels and the Book and the Prophets, and spends his money for love of Him, on the kindred and the orphans and the needy and the wayfarer and those who ask for charity, and for ransoming the captives; and who observes Prayer and pays the Zakat; and those who fulfill their promise when they have made one, and the patient in poverty and afflictions and the steadfast in time of war; it is these who have proved truthful and it is these who are the God-fearing." (Verse 2:177) <http://www.comp.leeds.ac.uk/nora/html/2-177.html>

"Indeed, Allah enjoins justice, and the doing of good to others; and giving like kindred; and forbids indecency, and manifest evil, and wrongful transgression. He admonished you that you may take heed." (Verse 16:91) <http://islamawakened.com/quran/16/90/>

"And those who strive for Us, We will surely, guide them (to) Our ways. And indeed, Allah surely (is) with the good-doers." (Verse 29:69) <http://www.islamawakened.com/quran/29/69/>

So the Quran speaks about 'fight those that do not believe in Allah'. What does the Quran mean with 'fight'? Does that mean slaughter anyone that does not believe in Him? I don't think so, there are other ways. One can also fight with patience and with virtue, not necessary with violence. ISIS believes that they should, but as I've cited above, Allah awards those that do good. The Quran says so!

So I think that means ISIS believes in a perverted way of Islam, Allah would never encourage slaughter, when I look upon these verses. And there are many other verses like these.

Then there are the civilians, who believe properly in the Islam. They're the real victims. Because we got fools like ISIS on this world, that make us think that people who believe in Allah are like ISIS, what we shouldn't do. The common man/ woman that follows Islam would never resort to violence. I mean, I'm Christian myself, and I'm sure that the Bible says that we ought to make people believe in God, perhaps even through violence. I don't know, I haven't read the Bible.

What I'm trying to say is though, please don't say Islam is bad, because I don't think the problem lies with the Islam. The Islam encourages virtue, patience and love as well. To fight those who don't believe in Allah isn't necessarily through violence. At least that's what I believe when I read these verses.

[-Cynthia-]

This is. . .extremely situational. What if it's an exhibitionist couple who likes it rough? Are you absolutely sure it's rape? What are your surroundings like? Are you the type of person who'd be profiled by the police, such that even if it you did stop a legitimate rape using lethal force, you'd be convicted of murder anyway because fuck yeah justice? What if you fuck up and accidentally kill the victim? What if the perpetrator is your friend? Or the victim is someone you despise? In the end, we're human.

God is also all powerful and all knowing so he wouldn't make these kinds of errors.

[Rapier]

The rape case is faulty because, for it to have the same logic as Adam and Eve, both the raper and the 'victim' should have consented, because that's what the story says: Both Adam and Eve consented on eating the Apple of Enlightenment. I think it would be a better example if we were to compare it with two siblings having unsafe sex, being legal, and consenting on it. Should we intervene? It is morally wrong and they might have a deformed child which will suffer later, yet they are adults, and there is a pact between us that we should not intervene with their personal decisions.

Besides, I do recall God giving them free will and respecting it as a pact. Therefore, if both Adam and Eve consented, and God was willing to honor his deal (which he was morally compelled to), it would be only right to not intervene with their free will. In fact, the free will argument is one of the presented solutions to the problem of God.

If God did intervene, as Chiki proposes would be the best choice, wouldn't it also contradict with His nature? If God doesn't lie, then he can not break pacts. If He does, then he is not omnibenevolent. And if he were to take their free will (if God never made such a deal, to begin with, in other words), wouldn't that be an evil on itself? A God that manipulates his creations like minions is certainly evil.

Leibniz's answer, that this is the best of all possible worlds, seem more plausible through this point of view, although we can't either prove or deny it. But I suppose I must've failed logic forever at some point of this post, so feel free to shoot.

Edited April 26, 2015 by Rapier

[Vestige]

Okay, there's something that needs to be understood here as to the nature of the book itself, and what these verses actually mean. Where, and to whom was this book revealed to/delivered to? It was delivered to the Arabs, living in the Arabian Peninsula. Before the Quran was revealed, the Arabs were all pagans with their own customs, beliefs, and values. Now, what is this history of Islam as a religion? Those who sought to follow the religion, and preach it, were driven out of Mecca, or outright killed. Muhammad himself lived under the threat of death, by the Quraysh, or, in this case, the non-believers. So keeping that in mind, you can see where these verses of "violence" occur, and how they relate to the history of Islam. These verses are not meant for just anyone. They were meant for the people of the time, in the situation that they were in.

Qur'an (4:89) - "They wish that you should disbelieve as they disbelieve, and then you would be equal; therefore take not to yourselves friends of them, until they emigrate in the way of God; then, if they turn their backs, take them, and slay them wherever you find them; take not to yourselves any one of them as friend or helper."

Why don't we talk about the context of this verse in particular, and how it relates to Surah 4, as a whole? In fact, to start, you needn't look further than the very next verse. Verse 90. "do not take from among them, friend or helpers excepting those who join a people between whom and you there is a treaty, or such as come to you with hearts reluctant to fight you or to fight their own people...so if they keep out of your way and do not fight you, and offer you peace, then Allah does not allow you any course [of action] against them. (4:90)"

And the verse that you quoted is not even talking about "disbelievers" in terms of christians, jews, or atheists (the former two of which are referred to in Islam, as people of the book, but that's not the subject of this particular passage in any case). We're not even talking about polytheists in particular. Verse 88. "Why should you be two groups concerning the hypocrites, while Allah has made them relapse because of their deeds? Do you desire to guide someone Allah has led astray? Whomever Allah leads astray, you will never find any way for him. (4:88)" Who is this passage talking about? The hypocrites. Not just the disbelievers, but the hypocrites in specific. Who are "the hypocrites?" The people who would pretend to be Muslim, and while working for the enemy. Who are the enemy in this case? Not the Christians, not the Jews, but the Quraysh, and the Arabs living in Mecca whose goal was the eradication of Islam, and to kill Muhammad and those that followed him.

Lets look at Verse 91, for some more context. "You will find others desiring to be secure from you, and secure from their own people; yet whenever they are called back to polytheism, they relapse into it. So if they do not keep out of your way, nor offer you peace, nor keep their hands off [from fighting], then seize them and kill them wherever you confront them, and it is such against whom We have given you a clear sanction. (4:91)" So who is actually being killed here? Not the people who keep out of your way. Not the people who offer you peace. And not the people who stay their hands from fighting. It is those who seek to further conflict that are in question here. If you seek to kill me, is it not natural that my response should be self preservation? Can you really call that needless violence? When my own life is at stake?

Quran (4:76) - "Those who believe fight in the cause of Allah…"

What's your point? I already explained to what end this fighting is for. It's not random fighting, for the sake of it. It's to preserve Islam as a religion, because the Quraysh sought to exterminate Islam, and Muhammad. Why was this fighting taking place? Because of the oppression from the Arabs living in Mecca.

Quran (2:191-193) - "And kill them wherever you find them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out.

What I find particularly funny here, is that you say you're quoting Verse 191 to Verse 193, when you're actually only quoting half of Verse 191. Let's look at the context of these verses, first by examining Verse 190 "Fight in the way of Allah those who fight you, but do not transgress. Indeed Allah does not like transgressors." Who is the fighting being done against? Those who fight you. And then it goes on to say, but do not transgress. Don't torture--do not exceed the limits of what you have been told. Who is the verse for? It's not for the Muslims living in America, or Europe, or any other such nation. No. It's for the Muslims who were either thrown out of their own homes by the pagan Arabs, or in many cases, tortured and killed. But here in the Quran it says specifically, to not transgress.

The whole of Verse 191: "And kill them wherever you confront them, and expel them from where they expelled you, for faithlessness is graver than killing. But do not fight them near the Holy Mosque unless they fight you therein; but if they fight you, kill them; such is the requital of the faithless." Again, but if they fight you. Who is they? The Arabs of that time. It's not senseless violence. It's self-defense.

Verse 192: "But if they relinquish, then Allah is indeed all-forgiving, all-merciful."

Verse 193: "Fight them until faithlessness1 is no more, and religion becomes [exclusively] for Allah. Then if they relinquish, there shall be no reprisal except against the wrongdoers."

If they stop fighting you, and they give up paganism, then you must stop fighting them.

Here are two videos by people much more knowledgeable than I, and who can explain much more eloquently the context of these verses (or rather, the one verse which you quoted). Both videos speak on the same verses I discussed, Verse 191-Verse 193, and explain the issue of taking them out of context and what the context of those verses really is. Much like you seem to be doing.

Yusuf Estes: 5 min

Nouman Ali Khan: 10 min

Qur'an (2:228) - "and the men are a degree above them women"

Again, I just love how you seem to cherry pick which sentences you want to quote and then present them as the be all end all. Again, this is not the entirety of Verse 228, Surah 2. Let's take a look at it, then, shall we?

Verse 228: "Divorced women shall wait by themselves for three periods of purity [after menses], and it is not lawful for them to conceal what Allah has created in their wombs if they believe in Allah and the Last Day; and their husbands have a greater right to restore them during this [duration], if they desire reconcilement. The wives have rights similar to the obligations upon them, in accordance with honourable norms; and men have a degree above them, and Allah is all-mighty and all-wise."

So first of all, what are we even talking about here? What's the subject of this verse, and the Surah as a whole? Divorce. Rather than reading my paraphrase, why don't you take a moment of your time to find out what exactly this "degree above" is talking about. I guarantee, it's not what you think. It's a 2 minute video, by a Muslim woman, no less, who gives her thoughts of the misrepresentation of this verse.

Rasha al-Disuqi: 2 min

Qur'an (9:29) - "Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued."

Again, who are we fighting? As I've mentioned time and time again, the hypocrites, and the pagan Arabs. And then the subject of Jizya. What is the Jizya? It's a tax. What is the tax for, and to whom is it taken from? The Jews and the Christians, now living under Muslim rule. What is the result of the Jizya? Freedom to practice their religion, and guaranteed protection under the Muslims. That's pretty darn good, when the Muslims themselves were thrown from their homes, and killed. And it's not like this is a tax applied solely to Jews and Christians. Muslims have their own tax to pay as well, called Zakat. "You pay a tax, and we pay a tax". The Muslims of today are not living in such a time where they have been persecuted by extensively by such and such group of people. This was a verse that had relevancy at it's time of revelation. This is true for much of the Quran. Some verses are established for every Muslim, while others have a historical context they need to be viewed under.

Yes, groups like ISIS, and similarly people who scrutinize Islam, like to takes these verses out of context and misconstrue them, but frankly it's a very twisted way of interpreting the book, and the religion.

Again, let me point you towards two speakers who talk about Surah 9, Verse 29, and discuss the exact issue you bring up.

Jamal Badawi (6 min)

Shabir Ally (4 min)

Quran (33:59) - "Tell thy wives and thy daughters and the women of the believers to draw their cloaks close round them..."

Verse 59: "O Prophet! Tell your wives and your daughters and the women of the faithful to draw closely over themselves their chadors [when going out]. That makes it likely for them to be recognized and not be troubled, and Allah is all-forgiving, all-merciful."

First of all, I ask you, why is it an issue for you, if a woman chooses to cover herself because she wants to follow her religion? Why do you assume, that it's subjugation? A woman can choose to wear the veil, or hijab, or not to. There's nothing in the Quran that expressly forces a woman to cover herself. There's no, "wear the veil, or die". Second, what is the point of this verse? Why tell women to cover themselves? It is so that she is not recognized for her beauty, but for her character. So that she wont be troubled by the cat-calling of men. Sure you can argue that "women should be able to wear what they want without men bothering them" and sure, I agree. Doesn't mean that's the way it actually works. So what's the wisdom of this verse? "If you don't want to be troubled, cover yourself up". And, allow me to point out, that this "cloak" or "covering" is not, the burqah. It speaks about the hijab. The burqah is a cultural thing, imposed by the Saudi's, and is not required by Muslim women in any fashion.

Burqah: This is not what Islam asks of a woman to wear.

Hijab: This is. Is this veil not similar to that of a nun?

And on the subject of Jihad, which wasn't brought up, but I know people love to talk about it. Let's talk about what a Jihad really is, and what it means. The words itself means "struggle". And while people liken it to "holy wars" that's not all it really is. Yes, at the time of the Prophet, there were quite a few holy wars that took place, but of course in a society like our, in a time like ours, there is no need for such holy wars to be occurring. Islam is not being threatened from existence. While groups like ISIS, etc. may act on such a belief, it is heavily misconstrued and miscontextualized. The only jihad that should be occurring for any Muslim is Jihad un Nafs, Translated as, "The Struggle against desire". It is quite literally the battle one wages with oneself to stay true to their faith. This is the "greater" jihad.

[Rapier]

A question, though, Vestige: You claimed these verses were meant for an specific time and people, and I do recognize it is important to know the historical context, yet aren't religious books such as the Qu'ran and the Bible meant to have atemporal rules and commandments?

One may claim that the Old Testament was one made for a different time, and sure, it was, but the New Testament affirms what is to be followed from that point on, clinging to the atemporal nature of commandments and rules within a holy book. There is no such a thing on the Qu'ran citting a reform on its rules/commandments. So the distinction between what was and what is now doesn't really exist within the book.

If it is meant to have atemporal rules and commandments, then the argument that some verses are not meant to be strictly followed nowadays is flawed. And since the wording does not make it clear it refers to a very specific kind of group, but 'infidels', which in general includes a LOT of people, it wouldn't be farfetched to assume it incites violence toward everyone who fits in the classification of infidels. Because that's what the wording says, and it is atemporally valid.

Edited April 26, 2015 by Rapier

[Vestige]

I cannot speak for the New, or the Old Testament, I've never read them. But I can tell you this: yes, the Quran is meant to have atemporal rules and commandments, but as I mentioned it also has verses pertaining to the particular circumstance under which it was revealed. The life of a Muslim now, is of course, very different to the life of a Muslim back then. So how do I make the distinction of what is "atemporal" and what is not, without the Quran expressly telling me?

Again, the verses which seem to illicit violence have a historical context behind them, and I can guarantee you, most verses of the Quran, if not all that say something along the lines of "if they harm you, you harm them" come with the caveat of "but if they stop, then you must stop". You needn't look further than the verses from Surah 4 that I quoted. As a Muslim today, living in America or otherwise, I am not being persecuted. I have freedom of religion. I have not been thrown out of my home. I have no been tortured. My family has not had these things done to them. As such, I can clearly come to the conclusion that I as a Muslim, living in the 21st century, do not need to follow these commands, because they are not commands meant for me.

So then, what are the commands meant for me?

Let's talk about the rules that are expressly atemporal, as you say, and what a Muslim should really be focusing on. You'll find that violence is not a part of it, at all. They are "the five pillars of Islam".

1. Belief in the oneness of God

2. Maintaining the 5 daily prayers

3. Fasting during the holy month of Ramadan

4. Giving charity to the poor (this is the Zakat that I mentioned earlier)

5. Performing pilgrimage to Mecca, if you are able.

Again, I will agree, ISIS and other such groups like to take these verses out of context, much like other fear-mongers seem to do, and misconstrue them for their own devices. That's not the case at all. It's quite easy for me to come to the conclusion that "no, the Quran is not ordering me to kill infidels, non-believers, Christians, Jews," or what have you. You just need to read the book, or study the history of it's conception, and you'll understand quite clearly what pertains to the Muslims under a time of oppression and violence, and what pertains to Muslims under a time of peace. Of course, when you cherry-pick lines and bring them out of context, that's when you get groups like ISIS, who claim to be waging some type of "holy-war" or another. Or people who like to think that Islam promotes violence and take one line out of the entire book to "prove their claim".

[dondon151]

Again, the verses which seem to illicit violence have a historical context behind them, and I can guarantee you, most verses of the Quran, if not all that say something along the lines of "if they harm you, you harm them" come with the caveat of "but if they stop, then you must stop".

muslim radicals are not taking this injunction out of context so much as they are interpreting "harm" differently from the way that you are interpreting "harm." it is true, for example, that the west regularly intervenes in the affairs of the muslim world to advance their own interests, and these actions are often to the detriment of the native residents of that area of the world. even if the west were to not actively intervene, its position as global powers allows them to passively influence culture in a way that isn't satisfactory to muslim radicals.

this is how muslim radicals justify their hatred of the west; they manipulate the facts to portray the west as aggressors (which is actually true in many respects) and then use this verse to justify their actions. this verse just really shouldn't exist.

Edited April 26, 2015 by dondon151

[Chiki]

These verses are not meant for just anyone. They were meant for the people of the time, in the situation that they were in.

I really like to see the kind of mental gymnastics people have to come up with to defend the Quran. This is just dead wrong; you know something's wrong when people have to go so far as to say the Quran isn't meant for anyone.

http://islamicentre.org/articles/quran.htm

This verse clearly tells us that the Qur’an is meant to be a guidance for the entire human race

Also, before we start talking about interpretations and the Quran, I'd like to point out two easy replies to Quran defenders that I've come up with during my time on the Internet. People often forget these basic points so I'll just list them here so I can cite them whenever needed:

Chiki's Reply 1: Whenever you point out an alternate interpretation (reading) for a verse, there is no evidence that your interpretation is the right one over another interpretation.

Chiki's Reply 2: The fact that the verses of the Quran are so open to interpretation is a sign of imperfection, i.e. it's not written by God. A perfect book is one that is clear and easily understandable for everyone.

So who is actually being killed here?

Read closely.

excepting those who join a people between whom and you there is a treaty, or such as come to you with hearts reluctant to fight you or to fight their own people...so if they keep out of your way and do not fight you, and offer you peace,

Just from this verse, here's two conditions prescribed to people who belong in a group fighting against Muslims, if they wish to not get killed by Muslims:

1. They have to go and join another group, which has a treaty with Muslims

2. They are reluctant and they offer peace

Suppose neither condition is fulfilled. The absurd consequence is that Muslims now have permission to kill the innocent women and children of the enemy group who don't offer peace and who don't join another group which has a treaty with Muslims. If they just sit there, and do nothing at all, Muslims have permission to kill them.

Let's suppose for the sake of argument that you're right, though. Even then, why do we have to kill all of the ones who seek to further conflict? Why can't we just take them as prisoners? Why do we have to kill? That's unethical no matter what.

It's a 2 minute video, by a Muslim woman, no less, who gives her thoughts of the misrepresentation of this verse.

I watched it lol. It's just a case of Chiki's replies 1 and 2.

Also, it's very unclear what on earth she means by a degree of "compassion" and "largess." Could you explain it to me?

if a woman chooses to cover herself because she wants to follow her religion? Why do you assume, that it's subjugation

Because it's sexist and disgusting. How come men don't have to wear veils and women do?

---

What do you guys think of these 10 verses:

http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Top_10_Controversial_Verses_in_the_Qur%27an

The rape case is faulty because, for it to have the same logic as Adam and Eve, both the raper and the 'victim' should have consented, because that's what the story says: Both Adam and Eve consented on eating the Apple of Enlightenment™.

That's not what the counterexample was for. It was meant to represent a case where it was evil not to interfere when you could have. God can interfere but he won't. That's all.

Edited April 27, 2015 by Chiki

[Blaze The Great]

And it's evil to not prevent it. It's evil to not stop Adam and Eve from bringing sin to the world. It's evil not to remove it if God is able to.

Here's a similar real life example. I see someone getting raped on the street, and I'm armed with a gun so I can easily end the rape if I wanted to. But I choose not to. The person gets raped, pregnant and so on. Don't you think that is evil, for letting that person get raped?

But to remove evil requires God to remove free will. And therein lies the problem. Because evil stems from human nature, and therefore humans are by nature inclined to sin and carry out evil acts, God would have to remove free will from humans to keep them from being evil. God wants us to choose to love him, not just to be mindless robots worshiping him without a thought. That being said, Christians are not perfect people, as we still have free will. That's the difference between the ideal world and the real world.

Another real life example is this: would you rather pay a person $1,000 a day to make them love you unconditionally? Or would you want them to be able to choose to love you and then enjoy mutually the benefits of an actual relationship? The first example would be God removing evil, essentially, while the second is why actually happens.

[Chiki]

But to remove evil requires God to remove free will.

Good point! That's a contemporary reply made by theists nowadays. But since God is omniscient, can't he make it so that free will can exist without any evil, or a minimal amount of evil?

Further, do people have free will if God exists and is omnipotent and omniscient? Do we really make our own decisions if he created us and knows exactly what is going to happen to us? No.

Edited April 27, 2015 by Chiki

[Blaze The Great]

Good point! That's a contemporary reply made by theists nowadays. But since God is omniscient, can't he make it so that free will can exist without any evil, or a minimal amount of evil?

Further, do people have free will if God exists and is omnipotent and omniscient? Do we really make our own decisions if he created us and knows exactly what is going to happen to us? No.

That first part is, in fact, a key point of the Christian doctrine of belief and salvation. True Christians ask God to help them be more like Him, for we believe that he is completely good. However, because it is impossible for a human being to be perfect, we cannot "exist without any evil" in a world as sinful as this. Before sin, Adam and Eve still had free will, but they messed up. One day, when God recreates heaven and earth, the Christians who chose by free will to believe, love and trust and God, will be saved, because they used free will not for evil but for good.

If I know that a school bell will ring at 8 am, does that mean that I cause it to ring? No. If I created a piece of pottery, and because of circumstances it came into the pottery was damaged, did I damage it? No. That argument was flawed. Omniscience does not mean that God is also all-controlling.

[Chiki]

That first part is, in fact, a key point of the Christian doctrine of belief and salvation. True Christians ask God to help them be more like Him, for we believe that he is completely good. However, because it is impossible for a human being to be perfect, we cannot "exist without any evil" in a world as sinful as this. Before sin, Adam and Eve still had free will, but they messed up. One day, when God recreates heaven and earth, the Christians who chose by free will to believe, love and trust and God, will be saved, because they used free will not for evil but for good.

If I know that a school bell will ring at 8 am, does that mean that I cause it to ring? No. If I created a piece of pottery, and because of circumstances it came into the pottery was damaged, did I damage it? No. That argument was flawed. Omniscience does not mean that God is also all-controlling.

I don't think you understood my first argument. We know God is infinitely powerful. Why didn't God create a world with much less sin than this? Why is there so much sin? God could have created a world with a much smaller amount of sin where free will exist because he is omnipotent.

[dondon151]

Omniscience does not mean that God is also all-controlling.

but omnipotence combined with omnibenevolence do mean that god is all-controlling.

[Blaze The Great]

I don't think you understood my first argument. We know God is infinitely powerful. Why didn't God create a world with much less sin than this? Why is there so much sin? God could have created a world with a much smaller amount of sin where free will exist because he is omnipotent.

Then I don't think either of us is getting to the other as well as we would like. The point is that God created free will, and he created a world that was sinless for a time. God did not sin. Because free will by definition leaves the door open for anything, then evil is always a potential result of free will. Evil has become so prevalent because doing whatever one wishes is so much easier than following even a few laws contrary to human nature.

but omnipotence combined with omnibenevolence do mean that god is all-controlling.

That argument would work in a perfect system with controllable variables. However, humans have free will, and that hurts this argument because there is always a chance we could go astray. If we were robots, then I would agree with you.

[dondon151]

That argument would work in a perfect system with controllable variables. However, humans have free will, and that hurts this argument because there is always a chance we could go astray. If we were robots, then I would agree with you.

how do you know that humans have free will? i don't think humans have free will; they only have the illusion of free will.

i've been in this argument before and free will is only an escape hatch on your side. your argument hinges on the tenuous assumption of the existence of free will, which is not given by any means.

Edited April 27, 2015 by dondon151

[Blaze The Great]

how do you know that humans have free will? i don't think humans have free will; they only have the illusion of free will.

i've been in this argument before and free will is only an escape hatch on your side. you casually assume free will as if it is proven to exist, but whatever you just said doesn't hold up if free will doesn't exist.

So if, hypothetically, we are all just pawns in the game of a higher power, and God forced some to love him and do what is best for them, but not the others, then what would that make those others? Instruments to test those that God chose to love him? No, because God is omnipotent and would therefore make us love him. This post seems contradictory to your last one, because first you said that God should control us all because that would mean he is omnipotent and omnibenevolent, but now you seem to suggest that God does exactly that for some and yet not for others. Which makes no sense because going to heaven (the result of being controlled to love God) would be the best possible thing for us.

[Chiki]

Then I don't think either of us is getting to the other as well as we would like. The point is that God created free will, and he created a world that was sinless for a time. God did not sin. Because free will by definition leaves the door open for anything, then evil is always a potential result of free will. Evil has become so prevalent because doing whatever one wishes is so much easier than following even a few laws contrary to human nature.

Why didn't he intervene when Adam and Eve sinned? He's omnipotent so he could have limited the amount of sin in the world.

I'm not saying that God should get rid of sin entirely, but minimize it. So why didn't he?

Edited April 27, 2015 by Chiki