|
Immortan posted:You can't criticize beliefs which violate every known natural law of the universe only if brown people believe them. Tezzor won't allow it, folks. Pack your poo poo. Exactly what belief are those?
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2015 08:43
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 07:55 |
|
|
Ok, then. Thanks for the go ahead. When I get home from work tomorrow I'll get the first post up. I'm probably not gonna do the Surrahs in actual "order" because of the whole ordering system most Qurans use which doesn't serve much purpose. So I'll either do chronological or random.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2015 13:22
|
|
|
Schizotek posted:Ok, then. Thanks for the go ahead. When I get home from work tomorrow I'll get the first post up. I'm probably not gonna do the Surrahs in actual "order" because of the whole ordering system most Qurans use which doesn't serve much purpose. So I'll either do chronological or random. Some surrahs are pretty long, i'd prefer if the whole thing was posted though, its better than the cherry picking efforts that were posted thus far in this thread.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2015 15:26
|
|
|
Immortan posted:You can't criticize beliefs which violate every known natural law of the universe only if brown people believe them. Tezzor won't allow it, folks. Pack your poo poo. Well if you were actually merely criticizing Islam's supernatural claims then that would be one thing. You could make an argument about how these beliefs are corrosive to reason, but I think it would be much more difficult to claim that they were more corrosive or more of a pressing concern that needs strong action than any other religion or a lot of psuedoscience. But that is not what you - and by you, I mean the general you, the Islamophobe - are doing. You justify your belligerence centrally in human-rights concerns. As far as the extreme manifestations of those go, "women should be subordinate to men" or "sodomy should be punished by death" are certainly not nice opinions, but neither are they claims that violate the laws of physics. More centrally to my criticism of the Islamopobes, however, is that they use these criticisms to get puffed up and pious about Human Rights while their arguments are used to support bigotry against innocent people, when they do not in fact actively advocate counterproductive discrimination and war, which is virtually all the time. Tezzor fucked around with this message at 15:41 on Aug 4, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2015 15:35
|
|
|
TheImmigrant posted:Religious governance is, almost by definition, incompatible with modernity, and the concept of secularism/laïcité seems anathema to the dominant strands of contemporary Islam. And that's a more nuanced statement that can be worked with. It's this view I disagree with: Rakosi posted:The problems with fundamentalist Islam is the fundamentals of Islam. Liberal_L33t posted:Without the argument from authority to resort to, Islam is bankrupt. Without the club of the religious courts and the clenched fist of the abusive father beating acceptance into children, Islam won't even last one generation unless it backs way the gently caress off in terms of its political and lifestyle prescriptions. Liberal_L33t posted:If, by your definition, supporting secular, constitutional systems (even ones with problematic human rights records) and doing everything practical to hinder the progress of Islamist movements is "old fashioned colonial imperialism", then yes, I suppose I am guilty of supporting it. You keep using phrases like "de-Islamification" and I don't see how foreign powers can decide they need to de-Islamify a region by any means practical and not engage in what amounts to colonial imperialism to make that happen. Human rights violations by secular states no more permissible than human rights violations by sectarian states. I doubt you support what China does to its Muslim population under the excuse of 'fighting Islamic extemism'. My very poorly expressed point is that religious fundamentalism is bad, and opposing Islam in particular rather than religious fundamentalism generally just plays into the hands of the extremists on both sides who want a monolithic West waging war against a monolithic Islam. e:On the surahs I vote for a chronological order.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2015 16:47
|
|
|
PT6A posted:I realize that, but I don't understand it. What's the point of having a supreme being telling you what to do if you just stick your fingers in your ears for the bits you don't like? The Supreme Being does tell us what to do and we don't stick our fingers in our ears but we understand that while the Bible and presumably the Koran are to be taken seriously, it is not always literal. They were also written centuries ago for a different audience who lived in the bronze age in more brutal times and were not as culturally developed and needed things explained to them in a different way. We can all speak to God and form our own conclusions taking the Bible in to consideration. I don't know about the Koran but early Christians also cherry picked. There are whole books of the bible that were left aside as heresies for one reason or another and Revelation was almost one of them. Perhaps they were meant for us. It is up to all of us to seek God for ourselves.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2015 16:54
|
|
|
Mandy Thompson posted:The Supreme Being does tell us what to do and we don't stick our fingers in our ears but we understand that while the Bible and presumably the Koran are to be taken seriously, it is not always literal. They were also written centuries ago for a different audience who lived in the bronze age in more brutal times and were not as culturally developed and needed things explained to them in a different way. We can all speak to God and form our own conclusions taking the Bible in to consideration. I don't know about the Koran but early Christians also cherry picked. There are whole books of the bible that were left aside as heresies for one reason or another and Revelation was almost one of them. Perhaps they were meant for us. It is up to all of us to seek God for ourselves. Might as well speak to a wall for all the good it does. What an ineffective and useless supreme being.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2015 17:30
|
|
|
Schizotek posted:I'd like to go through the entire Quran one surrah at a time and see if that improves the quality of discussion a bit. To be fair, my Muslim friends and ex-gf(and thus maybe the average Muslim) probably had less knowledge of the actual contents of the quaran than half of the people here. The high point was a friend who was sure there was no mention of hell in the quaran. Oddly enough, examining the holy books of the major religions doesn't do much to understand the religion in my opinion. It only helps with understanding the books themselves, which are from any humanistic perspective dumb and bad. Edit: I'd still like to see you do a reading though!
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2015 17:55
|
|
|
Fizzil posted:Some surrahs are pretty long, i'd prefer if the whole thing was posted though, its better than the cherry picking efforts that were posted thus far in this thread. I'm not talking about splitting the Surrahs themselves. Starting with the second Surrahs are ordered by length. Which would mean we would have a bunch of gigantic ones to start with. I think number 2 is the last chronologically in addition to being the longest as well.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2015 17:58
|
|
|
Schizotek posted:I'm not talking about splitting the Surrahs themselves. Starting with the second Surrahs are ordered by length. Which would mean we would have a bunch of gigantic ones to start with. I think number 2 is the last chronologically in addition to being the longest as well. Try doing the 30th Juzh first. It has the shortest surahs.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2015 19:03
|
|
|
Schizotek posted:Ok, then. Thanks for the go ahead. When I get home from work tomorrow I'll get the first post up. I'm probably not gonna do the Surrahs in actual "order" because of the whole ordering system most Qurans use which doesn't serve much purpose. So I'll either do chronological or random. As part of what folks are talking about is how the content in the Surrahs, impacts belief and behavior, and because in case of contradiction, newer Surrahs contradict old ones, I would recommend either chronological or reverse chronological order. Also, if you wanted to split the work load, I'd be willing to do half of them.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2015 20:02
|
|
|
I thought the concept of chronological importance of the Surahs was 100% a theological convention? Is there something in the Quran or Hadith about it? Or is it just something that nearly all mainstream figures accept. Or am I totally wrong and there's an explicit Quranic basis for it?
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2015 21:22
|
|
|
I'll preface this by saying that I am not a Muslim, nor am I a scholar of Islam. but to the best of my knowledge abrogation is supported by a substantial majority of Sunni and Shia scholars. There are two verses that deal with abrogation:Surah 16:101 posted:And when We substitute a verse in place of a verse - and Allah is most knowing of what He sends down - they say, "You, [O Muhammad], are but an inventor [of lies]." But most of them do not know. Which suggests that replacement of verses is possible, and Surah 2:106 posted:We do not abrogate a verse or cause it to be forgotten except that We bring forth [one] better than it or similar to it. Do you not know that Allah is over all things competent? Which says that abrogation can happen, but only to make things better.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2015 23:59
|
|
|
Schizotek posted:Ok, then. Thanks for the go ahead. When I get home from work tomorrow I'll get the first post up. I'm probably not gonna do the Surrahs in actual "order" because of the whole ordering system most Qurans use which doesn't serve much purpose. So I'll either do chronological or random. This is a huge task and I applaud you for it. I'll be reading, too. Thanks in advance, Schizotek.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2015 00:50
|
|
|
Patrick Spens posted:I'll preface this by saying that I am not a Muslim, nor am I a scholar of Islam. but to the best of my knowledge abrogation is supported by a substantial majority of Sunni and Shia scholars. There are two verses that deal with abrogation: I'm not a scholar either, the problem is the use of abrogation is being pushed particularly by some critics to say "oh hey because of this, the whole rest of the Qur'an cancels the other half automatically", here is an example, the infamous surah used commonly for violence 9:5 says: Qur'an Sura 9 Verse 5 posted:"And when the sacred months have passed, then kill the polytheists wherever you find them and capture them and besiege them and sit in wait for them at every place of ambush. But if they should repent, establish prayer, and give zakah, let them [go] on their way. Indeed, Allah is Forgiving and Merciful" Because of that Surah apparently 127 or so verses are abrogated, therefore violence and offensive war should be the norm for muslims, but wait: Qur'an 9:6 posted:And if any one of the polytheists seeks your protection, then grant him protection so that he may hear the words of Allah . Then deliver him to his place of safety. That is because they are a people who do not know. Qur'an 9:7 posted:How can there be for the polytheists a treaty in the sight of Allah and with His Messenger, except for those with whom you made a treaty at al-Masjid al-Haram? So as long as they are upright toward you, be upright toward them. Indeed, Allah loves the righteous [who fear Him]. Which really means to say, "hey if you have a treaty uphold it" does it really abrogates something like this? Qur'an 2:190 posted:Fight in the way of Allah those who fight you but do not transgress. Indeed. Allah does not like transgressors. Well no, the school i follow (or was born in) is Maliki, and they are ok with the Sunnah or Hadith abrogating some verses in the Qur'an, therefore unless specifically pointed out then these do not contradict each other because the message is the same and thus aren't abrogated. But this post isn't about my school though, the other major schools disagree with how mine deals with abrogation, for example Shafi'i state that the Qur'an cannot be abrogated by Hadith. Islamic scholars have not defined what abrogation is, and do not unanimously agree with how it works, its different among each sect and school. Hey also, since i am a Muslim, let me preface something, as much as i try to sort of defend my religion, I will not defend passages that are misogynistic or homophobic, those exist, and from my understanding you don't go to hell for simple things like treating women and LGBTQ as human beings, but i'll let Schizotek stumble on them probably as this isn't the post for it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2015 01:53
|
|
|
Fizzil posted:I'm not a scholar either, the problem is the use of abrogation is being pushed particularly by some critics to say "oh hey because of this, the whole rest of the Qur'an cancels the other half automatically", here is an example, the infamous surah used commonly for violence 9:5 says: Thanks for this. Anyone else think it might be a good idea to make this its own thread? Current context is kind of unfortunate.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2015 03:46
|
|
|
Patrick Spens posted:Which says that abrogation can happen, but only to make things better. Who gets to decide what's better, though? If it's the word of god and god is perfect, whatever he last said is the best possible thing.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2015 03:50
|
|
|
Fizzil posted:I'm not a scholar either, the problem is the use of abrogation is being pushed particularly by some critics to say "oh hey because of this, the whole rest of the Qur'an cancels the other half automatically", Yeah, but the issue there is that people are being quote mining jackasses, not that they are mentioning the word abrogation. Smudgie Buggler posted:Who gets to decide what's better, though? If it's the word of god and god is perfect, whatever he last said is the best possible thing. Try reading that line as though it is offering reassurance, not setting up a criteria to judge future qur'anic verses.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2015 04:32
|
|
|
Smudgie Buggler posted:Who gets to decide what's better, though? If it's the word of god and god is perfect, whatever he last said is the best possible thing. this seems completely ridiculous given god's perfection, it would be absurd to suggest that he would say a thing that was less perfect in any instance, regardless of chronology - any coherent abrahamic god must be above time as a concept. it seems equally valid to say that what was said first is better, because it's given primacy in text abrogation only makes theological sense as an exegetic device, trying to apply some sort of strict algorithm is incoherent
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2015 13:17
|
|
|
Hey folks! I know its a bit late, by its time for the first installment of Wherin we shall delve into that most controversial of texts, the Quran. One surrah at a time. Starting with the first, Al Fatiha (The Opening). Al Fatiha posted:Praise belongs to God, the Lord of all Being, As the first Surrah, and a short one at that, it makes a good starting point for aspiring Hafiz and Hafiza, who then clutter up the Muslim corner of youtube with it. Its like the "dog howling with sirens" video for devout Muslims: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xlSMt5IkzqI As well as being common for doing the whole "calligraphy artwork" thing:  Shockingly, this short inoffensive prayer is our first step into controversy. The most widely and easily available English translation of the Quran is not the one I used. It's the so called "Noble Quran", or the Khan translation. That version goes: Al Fatiha for Wahhabi cunts posted:In the Name of Allah, the Most Beneficent, the Most Merciful. For the duration of Hawza 'Ilmiyya Al-Schizotek we shall be using Arberry's translation found here: http://www.iqbalcyberlibrary.net/pdf/QA.pdf Read the preface. It's pretty  at the end.
Schizotek fucked around with this message at 05:59 on Aug 7, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 05:57
|
|
|
That's really cool, thanks for making this thread a lot more worthwhile.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 06:58
|
|
|
V. Illych L. posted:this seems completely ridiculous Well, the logic I was using was that it seems possible that God may have given some advice that was perfect for Muslims at a particular time, but for whom that advice was no longer perfect further on down the track. The idea being that God tells his people exactly what the need to hear at any given time, so the most recent piece of advice on a given subject must be the one that applies now since we haven't heard anything since because Mohammed is the final prophet. I mean, how else can you possibly rationalise the myriad contradictions that are quite plainly there? What you're saying means that the very fact there are contradictions in the Quran means God's truth is dialethic. That leads to a much bigger mess than the assumptions I'm making. edit: Also, saying abrogation only makes theological sense as an exegetical device is tantamount to saying it makes sense because otherwise it the text doesn't. Patrick Spens posted:Try reading that line as though it is offering reassurance, not setting up a criteria to judge future qur'anic verses. I wasn't reading it as setting up criteria for judgment, since it offers none. But in what way is it reassuring? Is it saying something more meaningful than, "Don't worry, the best verses are the truest ones"? Because, while there is always a fair-to-good chance that I'm a raging idiot, I really can't find a way to read that verse that doesn't make me want to ask, "OK, but how do we know which are the best?" Smudgie Buggler fucked around with this message at 11:34 on Aug 7, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 11:23
|
|
|
Schizotek posted:Hey folks! I know its a bit late, by its time for the first installment of Hahaha, it's like the Conservative Bible Project except actually done and influential.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 11:35
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 15:41
|
|
|
Sethex posted:Swedish towns giving in to Islamists by introducing separate swimmings hours for men and women, says Iraqi-born women's rights activist Sara Mohammad: Some ultra-Orthodox neighborhoods in Israel have gender-segregated buses and sidewalks, among (many) other things. It's not, by any means, just an "Islamist" thing. Sexism in the name of conservative hyper-fundamentalism is not unique to any specific religion.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 16:02
|
|
|
Smudgie Buggler posted:I wasn't reading it as setting up criteria for judgment, since it offers none. But in what way is it reassuring? Is it saying something more meaningful than, "Don't worry, the best verses are the truest ones"? Because, while there is always a fair-to-good chance that I'm a raging idiot, I really can't find a way to read that verse that doesn't make me want to ask, "OK, but how do we know which are the best?" You're not an idiot, you're just an atheist. What it's saying is "everything I told you is good. And if I replace a given verse, I will replace it with something even better and don't worry about quote:OK, but how do we know which are the best? Because I am God, and I'm telling you which are the best."
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 16:08
|
|
|
Patrick Spens posted:You're not an idiot, you're just an atheist. What it's saying is "everything I told you is good. And if I replace a given verse, I will replace it with something even better and don't worry about No, I think I get all this, but God quite obviously didn't make it clear which are the best or there'd be no argument to be had about abrogation. I mean, in a way I suppose he did, since a replacement must necessarily come after the replaced. If the replacement is necessarily better than the replaced, then any given surah must necessarily abrogate any contradictory one that preceded it, at least to the extent of the inconsistency. But then why even include the abrogated verses at all, and how is it not entirely absurd for us to be having this argument? My point is, you say the verse is saying "Don't worry about it" but clearly scholars still do, and I can understand why.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 16:21
|
|
|
I think for many it comes down to the idea that God isn't necessarily giving universally truer guidance but that God is clarifying his intended message in a format more suitable for the new context that Muslims found themselves in. I'm not sure it's entirely clear that abrogation functions as a simple, 'oops that last one was wrong, here's the new directive' rather it's God explaining how to live according to his wishes in a way people will better be able to understand. I mean that way of thinking about it becomes awkward once you start thinking about Mohammed as the final prophet and all the differences of context that have occurred since then but if you're taking the Truth of the Quran as a given starting point then it's not an incomprehensible way of understanding it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 17:36
|
|
|
MrNemo posted:I think for many it comes down to the idea that God isn't necessarily giving universally truer guidance but that God is clarifying his intended message in a format more suitable for the new context that Muslims found themselves in. I'm not sure it's entirely clear that abrogation functions as a simple, 'oops that last one was wrong, here's the new directive' rather it's God explaining how to live according to his wishes in a way people will better be able to understand. I mean that way of thinking about it becomes awkward once you start thinking about Mohammed as the final prophet and all the differences of context that have occurred since then but if you're taking the Truth of the Quran as a given starting point then it's not an incomprehensible way of understanding it. It kinda follows from precedent too since they held all of the previous prophets (Moses, Jesus, etc) had the exact same message as before but people just didn't understand.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 17:39
|
|
|
Thanks for doing this Schizotek. But this: This is a god damned abomination. computer parts posted:It kinda follows from precedent too since they held all of the previous prophets (Moses, Jesus, etc) had the exact same message as before but people just didn't understand. It isn't 'did not understand', but 'went astray' as per the text. They got the message but for some reason deviated from the path their prophet preached. Rigged Death Trap fucked around with this message at 18:52 on Aug 7, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 18:47
|
|
|
Hey folks! It's time for round two of Todays Surrah is Al-Alaq (The Blood-Clot)! Al Alaq posted:Recite: In the Name of thy Lord who created, created Man of a blood-clot. Recite: And Widely considered to be the first of Muhammad's revelations, Al Alaq spends the majority of it's body lamenting Mankinds arrogance and tendency to lapse into wickedness when they become satisfied with themselves. Tradition states that the later half of the verse was revealed when Abu Jahl, a deeply pious leader of the Quraysh tribe*, was persecuting Muhammad as he prayed at the Kaaba. Supposedly by stomping on his neck as Muhammad was bowing down. He's one of the primary antagonists of the early Muslim community. The Khan translation inserts him directly into the verses multiple times, turning the surrah from a general lament and warning into a "gently caress you in particular Abu Jahl" hate note: Al Alaq for Salafists posted:Read! In the Name of your Lord, Who has created (all that exists), Tomorrows Surrah is our first longish one. Either Al-Muddathir or Al-Qalam, I haven't decided which chronology to use quite yet. But both are about 50 ayat long. *The same tribe that Muhammad himself belonged to, although Muhammad was of the Hashim clan and Abu Jahl of the Makhzūm. The other major Quraysh clan was the Umayya, famous for their fuckhuge Caliphate. e: Rigged Death Trap posted:Thanks for doing this Schizotek. Schizotek fucked around with this message at 18:54 on Aug 7, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 18:51
|
|
|
Wow, change "powerful" to "atrocious" and this is right on the money!
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 18:54
|
|
|
Schizotek posted:Great work, i like what you're doing. I didn't know the Khan translation is wide spread, which explains a whole lot of things i guess. I hear from others here that the practicing muslims in the United States represents a "true" Islam unlike ours, in a sort of praiseworthy tone, and thats from many people i know in the UAE, and for whats its worth, we're practically a step above Saudi Arabia, as far as conservative islam is concerned so coming from lots of people here about Muslims in the USA is interesting. I would have expected them to look down on these folks or something. Also whats a hawza?
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2015 02:56
|
|
|
Fizzil posted:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawza
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2015 03:14
|
|
|
Schizotek posted:If you got your Quran for free on your Ipad or Kindle, it was probably this one. The original Arabic doesn't mention Jews or Christians, but the translators felt that many passages should be "clarified" with the commentary of Muslim scholars who were alive during the Crusades. Literally loving medieval. Unsurprisingly this is the official Saudi translation into English, and they spread it as much as possible. Despite its overall popularity with people looking to read the Quran due to its easy availability and zealous Saudi missionaries throwing free copies at anything and everything, it's pretty widely despised among American Muslims. Pray it stays that way. This explains a lot. Every other translation I've started to read stopped me cold at the "God hates Jews" part on page 1. So, the explicit naming of Christians and Jews started as an interpolation by hostile western translators? And yet this is in the "official" Quran distributed by the Saudis? I would think the Saudi manufacture of defective Qurans would provoke outrage among practically all Muslims. How can devout Muslims tolerate such a sinister alteration of Allah's holy word? These are not drawings of the Prophet we're talking about here, but the inclusion in the Holy Book of Islam of things never said by Allah or Mohammad. Printing millions of these knock-off "Qurans" strikes me as blasphemy of the highest order. This suggests a simple ideological approach to getting rid of daesh. Outraged adherents of the world's second-largest religion could insist on a "product recall" of these mass-produced, poo poo-quality Saudi Qurans. All these books need to be replaced by the Arberry translation starting, like, yesterday. Then, in about 50 years, we can expect to see some progress. And there you go -- a prescription for a more peaceful Islam that doesn't involve bombs or brainwashing. All it takes is for a worldwide majority of Muslims to insist that their Holy book be distributed in a purer form. D&D -- solving the world's problems, one at a time. bitey fucked around with this message at 16:30 on Aug 8, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2015 16:24
|
|
|
It's an interpolation by far-right Wahabbist zealots, and yes Saudi Arabia pushes that hard
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2015 16:26
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:Some ultra-Orthodox neighborhoods in Israel have gender-segregated buses and sidewalks, among (many) other things. It's not, by any means, just an "Islamist" thing. Sexism in the name of conservative hyper-fundamentalism is not unique to any specific religion. Yet for some reason people go all  when you criticize Islam in the same way Christianity and Judaism has been criticized in countless threads.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2015 18:06
|
|
|
tsa posted:Yet for some reason people go all "I'm just criticizing black people the same way I criticize Italians and Anglos!"
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2015 18:11
|
|
|
bitey posted:This explains a lot. Every other translation I've started to read stopped me cold at the "God hates Jews" part on page 1. So I'm coming at this from somewhat of a position of ignorance but I can kind of see why this doesn't provoke the level of outrage you might expect. The Quran is, from an orthodox perspective, the literal words of God as they were spoken, thus they were Arabic. Translations as in any case are not the same as the original and so the Saudis pushing an obviously biased and highly ideological type translation with non-obvious authorial insertions wouldn't generate the leve of outrage something similar in the Bible might since it's accepted by all Muslims that, in virtue of being a translation, the book is already non-Holy.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2015 18:34
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 07:55 |
|
|
computer parts posted:"I'm just criticizing black people the same way I criticize Italians and Anglos!" Bad analogy. Belief systems are not immutable. There's a reason to treat fascism or Democratic Party membership or Islam differently than race or gender or orientation.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2015 19:54
|
|