Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    That is two questions.[/QUOTE]

    Instead of being annoying, try to appreciate I'm trying to help u understand/answer ur questions instead of preparing for Eid. If ur serious about it reply otherwise I can use my time well elsewhere


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Shiby_123)
    How can killing Muslims be seen as jihad from ur viewpoint, ur logic is flawed.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    it's very simple : Daesh (and Al Qaida, Boko Haram etc etc) consider that those who oppose them are in fact opposing the law of Allah, and therefore they should be punished, e.g. as per Quran 33:5

    "The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger, and strive with might and main for mischief through the land is: execution, or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides, or exile from the land"

    also, Daesh etc consider that those who oppose the jihad conducted by them in reality are not Muslims - since they support the disbelievers against Islam, and therefore have become apostates

    so, where is the problem ? in their view, there is none

    while you may hold different views, Daesh etc moves entirely within an Islamic frame of mind, and takes great care to find daleel (Islamic proof : texts and precedents) for all of its actions

    best
    Offline

    11
    (Original post by mariachi)
    it's very simple : Daesh (and Al Qaida, Boko Haram etc etc) consider that those who oppose them are in fact opposing the law of Allah, and therefore they should be punished, e.g. as per Quran 33:5

    "The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger, and strive with might and main for mischief through the land is: execution, or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides, or exile from the land"

    also, Daesh etc consider that those who oppose the jihad conducted by them in reality are not Muslims - since they support the disbelievers against Islam, and therefore have become apostates

    so, where is the problem ? in their view, there is none

    while you may hold different views, Daesh etc moves entirely within an Islamic frame of mind, and takes great care to find daleel (Islamic proof : texts and precedents) for all of its actions

    best
    The verse u gave does not have anything to do with ur point what u said. Who is waging war against them? They kill innocent people so stop lying. Infact the verse would be more applicable to ISIS themselves.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Shiby123)
    try to appreciate I'm trying to help u understand/answer ur questions instead of preparing for Eid. If ur serious about it reply otherwise I can use my time well elsewhere


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    and we are also trying to help you understand the viewpoints of Daesh, Al Qaida etc, and how they relate to Islamic doctrine

    I hope you appreciate our investment of time and efforts

    it is interesting that the effort to explain the terrorists' point of view raises such strong sentiments...
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hibzish)
    The verse u gave does not have anything to do with ur point what u said. Who is waging war against them? They kill innocent people so stop lying.
    if you want to discuss, you should avoid similar expressions. I'll pass this, but only once
    Infact the verse would be more applicable to ISIS themselves.
    in the views of Daesh and the like, there is a war going on between Islam and kufr. They embody Islam, and on the side of kufr, you have not only the Kuffar States but also the apostate "Muslim" States, and those who support them. This includes e.g citizens who voted for kuffar/apostate Governments, or even just paid taxes to them

    and, while they realise that "innocents" may become "collateral damage" in such operations, they consider that there are ahadith which justify such operations (most notably, from Sahih Muslim

    Chapter 9: PERMISSIBILITY OF KILLING WOMEN AND CHILDREN IN THE NIGHT RAIDS, PROVIDED IT IS NOT DELIBERATE
    Book 019, Number 4321:

    It is reported on the authority of Sa'b b. Jaththama that the Prophet of Allah (may peace be upon him), when asked about the women and children of the polytheists being killed during the night raid, said: They are from them.

    Book 019, Number 4322:

    It is narrated by Sa'b b. Jaththama that he said (to the Holy Prophet): Messenger of Allah, we kill the children of the polytheists during the night raids. He said: They are from them.

    Book 019, Number 4323:

    Sa'b b. Jaththama has narrated that the Prophet (may peace be upon him) asked: What about the children of polytheists killed by the cavalry during the night raid? He said: They are from them.

    http://www.usc.edu/org/cmje/religiou...im/019-smt.php

    best
    Online

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by champ_mc99)
    I'm not using any scholarly interpretation in this specific case because I'm looking through the perspective of ISIS via a face-value literal one. They could probably use these ayats to justify those Muslims literally fighting against them but not innocent people minding their own business.
    But if they are refusing to submit to Islam, or disobeying god's law, they are not "innocent people minding their own business", are they? According to the tafsir under question, they become guilty of "fasad".
    And we all know what the Quran says about people guilty of fasad, don't we? (For those who don't, it says that they can be killed - 5:32-33)

    So, I think we can agree that we have cleared up the question of the likes of ISIS justifying killing "innocent people minding their own business".
    Online

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Shiby_123)
    That is two questions

    Instead of being annoying, try to appreciate I'm trying to help u understand/answer ur questions instead of preparing for Eid. If ur serious about it reply otherwise I can use my time well elsewhere
    With all due respect, I have encountered your brand of unsophisticated apologetics, out of context misquoting and sanitised cherry-picking many times and it does not answer any questions that have not already been answered. It would appear that I understand the nature of Islamic ideology better than you do, so in fact, it is I who is trying to help you understand. Feel free to ask me any questions.

    However, here is one question that I would like you to answer for me.
    Given that the classical understanding of sura 4:34 is that Muslim husbands are allowed to beat their wives (under certain conditions), to you think that such behaviour is acceptable or unacceptable?
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3wACzVQLvHM
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1azySjz4edkhttp://www.way-to-allah.com/en/docum...meninIslam.pdf

    BTW, I follow many religions, but believe all of them to be false.
    Online

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hibzish)
    The verse u gave does not have anything to do with ur point what u said. Who is waging war against them?
    You cannot physically 'wage war' against Allah as he has no physical form in this world. Therefore, it has to refer to the spiritual.
    This is conformed in Ibn Kathir's tafsir (if you don't know who he was, look him up) where he explains that 'wage war' includes such things as "opposition, contradiction and disbelief".
    The verse also says that those guilty of "fasad" may be killed. Ibn Kathir and as Suddi' tafsir explain that "fasad" includes disbelief and disobeying god's law.

    They kill innocent people so stop lying.
    They seem innocent to us, but not to ISIS, in the context of the Quran, sunnah and tafsir.
    You see, you cannot truly understand the meaning of the Quran simply by reading it. You need the knowledge of scholars.

    Infact the verse would be more applicable to ISIS themselves.
    Yes! Exactly!
    Muslims who favour a different interpretation view ISIS as "not Muslims", and if your favoured interpretation allowed you to kill them for being Munafiqun and Murtaddin, it would be exactly the same.
    The only difference between ISIS and "moderate Muslims" is which interpretation they favour and how willing they are to actually apply it in the real world.

    For example, I'm sure that you don't reject sura 4:34, but I am equally sure (I hope) that you do reject wife-beating, no matter what the conditions.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    QE2 Plantagenet Crown


    The point that I was making, is that the Quran is not just for reading while having a cup of tea, the Quran is also used for politics and law for countries. That's why you see those verses as violent. Similar to the law of any country for example, if you commit a crime, then there will be punishments.

    Also, those punishments you suggested, do not happen anymore. You need to also consider the time. It was normal back in the days. For example, Bilal was being punished by his owner for saying 'there is only one God' - He punished him by taking him around town with a rope on his neck or putting a rock on his back which nearly crushed him.
    The Quran also mentions that punishments need to depend on the society at that time. No one uses swords anymore during wars, so cutting hands will not be effective. It's kind of common sense.

    I said war and corruption.

    In reference to America, I'm trying to show you that, punishments like these are normal. Actually only one state allows firing squad, and it's illegal in other states, it was once seen as a normal punishment but not anymore. Same as the Quran, those punishments are what was seen as normal on those times, but times have changed.

    Fornication - There are no verses in the Quran regarding stoning to death as a punishment. The Quran does not distinguish the difference between fornication or adultery (zina), only unlawful sex.

    Theft - cutting of hands is only used as a last punishment, 'a punishment by way of example (Arabic: Nakalan) from God'. Other verses in the Quran that include the word 'Nakalan' are only used for serious transgressions and crimes, when there are no other resorts. Example, on Pharaoh who slaughtered children.

    Apostasy - There are no verses in the Quran mentioning punishment for apostasy is the death.
    "And say: (It is) the truth from your Lord. Then whosoever will, let him believe, and whosoever will, let him disbelieve..."

    Beating of women - 'But those [wives] from whom you fear arrogance - [first] advise them; [then if they persist], forsake them in bed; and [finally], strike them'.
    The Arabic word for strike is 'idrib'. Idrib can be defined as 'strike or turn away'. Whenever the word 'idrib' is used in the Quran, it always mentions what object to use and what part of the body to use it on. Therefore, the definition of 'Idrib' in this verse is 'shun, turn away from' as there are no objects specified. There's also another verse supporting this 'and do not retain them for injury/hurt'. We know Idrib means turn away because there is another verse where the word 'n(dhrib) was used as ignore you (turn away).

    The Quran isn't for anyone to interpret. You can't just read a verse and claim you understand the Quran. Especially if you do not speak Arabic.
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    No.Replace the word ISIS/Muslim for - 1. Christian2. Trans/Straight/Bi3. Scientist4. PsychologistThen replace any book or doctrine with what the subset of people tend to believe in. There's no difference it's just the methodology and how people respond. Then the emotional response to said statement or action. In short: it's the individual personalities not the group, which in this case is Muslims from what I gather.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    [QUOTE=rhia9;66263043]Islam is a religion of peace. Is ISIS really "Islamic" or are they just using this as a mask and the real reason for the attacks is the urge to have power? Why do people say "Muslims were responsible for the 9/11 attacks, or the Paris bombings?" Were they really?


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    After listening to arguments from a variety of sources i think that Muslims themselves are not responsible for terrorist attacks (everyone is an individual in my eyes and it is dishonest to blame every singe Muslim for terrorist attacks) however Islam as a religion most definitely a factor in these attacks and a reason as to why they keep happening. I have watched countless you tube videos that explore the verses in the Quran and Hadith and whilst some verses are peaceful they are undermined by more horrid verses that command Muslims to commit atrocious acts of violence.

    personally i know that there are peaceful Muslims but Islam as a religion is not one of peace as far as i see it.
    Online

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mona-S)
    The point that I was making, is that the Quran is not just for reading while having a cup of tea, the Quran is also used for politics and law for countries. That's why you see those verses as violent. Similar to the law of any country for example, if you commit a crime, then there will be punishments.
    So you agree that the Quran and Islam contain violence, but there is a reason and purpose behind it.
    I completely agree.

    Also, those punishments you suggested, do not happen anymore. You need to also consider the time. It was normal back in the days.
    You have to decide whether the Quran is perfect, unchangeable, timeless and universal - or if it is historically and culturally relative.
    It cannot be both.

    The Quran also mentions that punishments need to depend on the society at that time. No one uses swords anymore during wars, so cutting hands will not be effective. It's kind of common sense.
    Swords are still used to enact Islamic punishments. Because that is what the Quran and sunnah prescribe!

    I said war and corruption.
    But what does "war and corruption" mean? As I explained in an earlier post, you cannot physically 'wage war' on Allah, so it must refer to spiritual conflict. And "fasad" is a very vague term. Even scholars differ in its meaning, but the most widely used and respected of all classical scholars says that it includes spreading disbelief and disobeying god's law.

    Same as the Quran, those punishments are what was seen as normal on those times, but times have changed.
    So, the Quran is not perfect, timeless and universal. Parts of it only apply to past societies.
    But surely this goes against one of the fundamental tenets of Islam - that the Quran is the perfect, infallible, immutable word of god, the perfect guide for all humanity. If what you are saying is true, then the Quran is not perfect. Therefore, it cannot be from god. Therefore Islam is false.
    QED.

    Fornication - There are no verses in the Quran regarding stoning to death as a punishment. The Quran does not distinguish the difference between fornication or adultery (zina), only unlawful sex.
    Stoning is prescribed in sahih hadith.
    The Quran only prescribes flogging with 100 lashes - which is still pretty violent and barbaric in my book.
    Or do you claim that this part of the Quran no longer applies as well?
    You do realise that most Muslims consider your approach to be an act of kufr?

    Theft - cutting of hands is only used as a last punishment, 'a punishment by way of example (Arabic: Nakalan) from God'. Other verses in the Quran that include the word 'Nakalan' are only used for serious transgressions and crimes, when there are no other resorts. Example, on Pharaoh who slaughtered children.
    So again, you agree that it contains permission to commit violence, but only inder certain conditions. I agree. That is what I have always maintained.

    Apostasy - There are no verses in the Quran mentioning punishment for apostasy is the death.
    "And say: (It is) the truth from your Lord. Then whosoever will, let him believe, and whosoever will, let him disbelieve..."
    No, but there are in the sunnah. Remember that the Quran commands Muslims to "Obey Allah and his Messenger".
    Do you pray 5 times a day? If you do, you cannot dismiss the instructions contained in the sunnah. Earlier, you explained the conditions for using amputation as a punishment. This is from the sunnah, not the Quran. Now, stop being dishonest.

    Beating of women - 'But those [wives] from whom you fear arrogance - [first] advise them; [then if they persist], forsake them in bed; and [finally], strike them'.
    The Arabic word for strike is 'idrib'. Idrib can be defined as 'strike or turn away'. Whenever the word 'idrib' is used in the Quran, it always mentions what object to use and what part of the body to use it on. Therefore, the definition of 'Idrib' in this verse is 'shun, turn away from' as there are no objects specified. There's also another verse supporting this 'and do not retain them for injury/hurt'. We know Idrib means turn away because there is another verse where the word 'n(dhrib) was used as ignore you (turn away).
    There are four major flaws with this argument.
    1. The only place that 'idrib' is used in the same form as 4:34 in the Quran is 8:12, where it describes striking enemies in battle.
    2. The many references in the sunnah that describe how severe the beating should be, what injuries to avoid and not to strike the face.
    3. Every classical scholar and the vast majority of modern scholars agree that it means physically hit.
    4. It makes no sense in context. Step two already involes "turning away", so why repeat it as a final resort? As you have earlier stated, the Quran should be read in the context of societal norms in 7th century Arabia, and in that context, beating a disobedient wife makes perfect sense.

    The verse you refer to is 2:231, which covers the treatment of divorced wives. That passage means that husbands shouldn't refuse to release a divorced wife. It does not mean that you must not beat them if they are disobedient...
    "(and do not retain them for injury) Ibn `Abbas, Mujahid, Masruq, Al-Hasan, Qatadah, Ad-Dahhak, Ar-Rabi` and Muqatil bin Hayyan said that a man used to divorce his wife, and when her `Iddah came near its end, he would take her back to harm her and to stop her from marrying someone else. He then divorced her and she would begin her `Iddah and when her `Iddah term neared its end, he would take her back again, so that the term of `Iddah would be prolonged for her. After that, Allah prohibited this practice. " - Ibn Kathir

    The Quran isn't for anyone to interpret. You can't just read a verse and claim you understand the Quran. Especially if you do not speak Arabic.
    Apparently not. Which is why I rely on the most widely used and most respected and authoritative of all the tafsir, Ibn Kathir. Every interpretation I provide is his, not mine.

    Which scholar do you rely on for your interpretationn and understanding?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    QE2
    No, the Quran does not contain violence, but does contain punishments. As I said the Quran is used as law, it'll be pointless if the Quran didn't have punishments for crimes. If that's how you want to define punishments, then that's your choice.

    I did no mention the use of swords as a punishments, I said 'No one uses swords anymore during wars', so cutting of hands and feet during war can not be done.

    The Quran is universal, but that does not mean you can use literally every verse. Some verses are not meant to be used by us, but they are stories meant for the prophets.
    About waging war on Allah -Quran 5:33 = 'The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His messenger and strive to make mischief in the land is only this....'Now, as I said above this one of the prophets stories. If you look at the verse before that = Quran 5:32 'For this reason did We prescribe to the children of Israel that whoever slays a soul, unless it be for manslaughter or for mischief in the land, it is as though he slew all men; and whoever keeps it alive, it is as though he kept alive all men; and certainly Our messengers came to them with clear arguments, but even after that many of them certainly act extravagantly in the land'.
    Quran 5:33 was meant to the children of Israel who were causing transgression. Also, the verse after that states 'Except those who repent before you have them in your power; so know that Allah is Forgiving, Merciful'. So, even if you did commit those sins, but after decide to repent, you are forgiven.

    Again, those punishments were normal that time, as in both non-Muslims and Muslims use to participate in those punishments. Example, Pharaoh said 'Have you become believers before I have given you permission?....' 'I will cut off your hands and feet from alternate sides, then I will crucify you all'.

    'You do realise that most Muslims consider your approach to be an act of kufr?' - I do not care what other Muslims think of me, I am not worshiping Muslims.

    Also, I did not mention the sunna because that is not what I am talking about. I am talking about the Quran and whether it contains violent verses or not.
    Even though the Quran does mention 100 lashes you need 4 witnesses, and if they falsely accuse, then 80 lashes.

    Again, how can it be violent if it's a punishment?
    'If you commit murder, you will be arrested and put in jail for life' - is this violence?

    'Earlier, you explained the conditions for using amputation as a punishment. This is from the sunnah, not the Quran. Now, stop being dishonest'.
    When?

    Part two does not say 'turn away', it says 'do not share a bed with them', basically not have sexual intercourse. If that doesn't work then turn away from them.'Idriboo' (beat) comes from the Arabic root word 'dharaba'. Dharaba has many meaning in Arabic, and many are used in the Quran not to mean beat.

    Example, - 'And say to the female believers to cast down their be holdings, and preserve their private parts, and not display their adornment except such as is outward, and let them fix (Literally: strike) closely their veils', the word used in this verse for 'let them fix' is 'yadribna' which again means strike, but is not used as 'beating'.

    Example - 'O you who have believed, when you go forth [to fight] in the cause of Allah , investigate; and do not say to one who gives you..'. The word 'you go forth' is 'darabtum' in Arabic, which in another definition literally mean beat.

    'The only place that 'idrib' is used in the same form as 4:34 in the Quran is 8:12, where it describes striking enemies in battle'.
    Wrong - 'Then how [will it be] when the angels take them in death, striking their faces and their backs?'. You also proved my point, as the word 'strike' is only used as 'beat' when it mentions on which part of the body to beat/strike.

    'Every classical scholar and the vast majority of modern scholars agree that it means physically hit' - 'admonish them (first), (Next), refuse to share their beds, (And last) beat them (lightly)'. Those scholars often saying 'beat them but very lightly', what is lightly? It does not say lightly in the Quran.

    Also, the prophet (pbuh) has always said do not strike the face,
    - that Ibn 'Umar disliked the branding of animals on the face. Ibn 'Umar said, "The Prophet forbade beating (animals) on the face.
    - the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “If any one of you has a fight with his brother, let him avoid the face.”

    Quran 2:231 - I am aware that it is meant for divorced women, I am trying to show you that the Quran does mention, that you should not beat women.

    Also yes, you are right, the Quran does say "Obey Allah and his Messenger' but it does not say obey what so and so and so and so and so heard from the prophet. There are many hadiths that are being made up, especially by non-Muslims and by people such as ISIS to justify their actions. The Quran is the only true book from Allah, the Quran is the same as it was during the prophet's time.

    Thanks, I'll take a look at Ibn Kathir. Also, I do not rely on any scholars, but these interpretations are not mine.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    No but it's entirely fair to blame their religion.
    Online

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mona-S)
    QE2
    No, the Quran does not contain violence, but does contain punishments.
    Which are violent. Some of them barbaric.
    And we need to look at what "crimes" the punishments are for. Like engaging in consensual, adult sex. Or refusing to submit to Islam.

    So, in short, the Quran contains instructions to violently punish people for things that are not worthy of punishment.

    I did no mention the use of swords as a punishments, I said 'No one uses swords anymore during wars', so cutting of hands and feet during war can not be done.
    You are not making any sense.
    1. The sutting off of hands and feet is used as a punishment for certain "crimes", nothing to do with war.
    2. Plenty of soldiers use large knives, machetes, etc. Even western armies still issue their troops with bayonets.

    The Quran is universal, but that does not mean you can use literally every verse. Some verses are not meant to be used by us, but they are stories meant for the prophets.
    I love this sort of apologetics...
    "Of course the Quran is timeless and universal, but it doesn't apply to everyone anymore".
    Brilliant!

    About waging war on Allah -Quran 5:33 = 'The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His messenger and strive to make mischief in the land is only this....'Now, as I said above this one of the prophets stories. If you look at the verse before that = Quran 5:32 'For this reason did We prescribe to the children of Israel that whoever slays a soul, unless it be for manslaughter or for mischief in the land, it is as though he slew all men; and whoever keeps it alive, it is as though he kept alive all men; and certainly Our messengers came to them with clear arguments, but even after that many of them certainly act extravagantly in the land'.
    Quran 5:33 was meant to the children of Israel who were causing transgression. Also, the verse after that states 'Except those who repent before you have them in your power; so know that Allah is Forgiving, Merciful'. So, even if you did commit those sins, but after decide to repent, you are forgiven.

    Again, those punishments were normal that time, as in both non-Muslims and Muslims use to participate in those punishments. Example, Pharaoh said 'Have you become believers before I have given you permission?....' 'I will cut off your hands and feet from alternate sides, then I will crucify you all'.
    Again, you are not actually saying anything here. I know what the verses say. They say that those guilty of fasad may be killed. Look up "fasad".

    'You do realise that most Muslims consider your approach to be an act of kufr?' - I do not care what other Muslims think of me, I am not worshiping Muslims.
    Just ponting out that it a Muslim who rejects any part of the Quran is an apostate.

    Also, I did not mention the sunna because that is not what I am talking about. I am talking about the Quran and whether it contains violent verses or not.
    We both agree that the Quran contains violent verses. That cannot be denied.
    However, you are using the sunnah to rationalise those verses and argue that they only apply to certain people in certain situations. Without the sunnah, all you have is the simple statements in the Quran to kill, flog, beat, etc.

    Even though the Quran does mention 100 lashes you need 4 witnesses, and if they falsely accuse, then 80 lashes.
    So again, you agree that the Quran contains unacceptable violence.
    It is clear that you are uncomfortable with it because you are making excuses for it and attempting to mitigate it.

    Again, how can it be violent if it's a punishment?
    Erm, because killing, crucifying and chopping off hands and feet are all violent acts. You really are not making sense here.
    'If you commit murder, you will be arrested and put in jail for life' - is this violence?
    Erm... no! Obviously not.
    Just as a fine is not violent.
    But being shot or beheaded is.
    It really isn't that difficult to understand!

    'Earlier, you explained the conditions for using amputation as a punishment. This is from the sunnah, not the Quran. Now, stop being dishonest'.
    When?
    There is nothing in the Quran that states that amputation is a last resort. And regardless, Unless you are a Quranist, it is dishonest to reject arguments derived from the sunnah.

    [quote]x[quote] I understand that many modern Muslims are desperate to mitigate the more unacceptable verses, it is only natural. But to claim that "waidribu" in 4:34 means "turm away from" makes no sense in any kind of context and has no scriptural consistency.

    'The only place that 'idrib' is used in the same form as 4:34 in the Quran is 8:12, where it describes striking enemies in battle'.
    Wrong - 'Then how [will it be] when the angels take them in death, striking their faces and their backs?'. You also proved my point, as the word 'strike' is only used as 'beat' when it mentions on which part of the body to beat/strike.
    That verse uses a slightly different form. However, it still has a clear meaning of physical violence.

    'Every classical scholar and the vast majority of modern scholars agree that it means physically hit' - 'admonish them (first), (Next), refuse to share their beds, (And last) beat them (lightly)'. Those scholars often saying 'beat them but very lightly', what is lightly? It does not say lightly in the Quran.
    No they don't. It is only a few modern revisionists who say "lightly", and they are attempting to portray Islam in a better light. The sunnah clearly states only that the beating should not be too severe.

    Also, the prophet (pbuh) has always said do not strike the face,
    - that Ibn 'Umar disliked the branding of animals on the face. Ibn 'Umar said, "The Prophet forbade beating (animals) on the face.
    - the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “If any one of you has a fight with his brother, let him avoid the face.”
    Oh, so it's ok to use the sunnah now? :rolleyes:
    And yes, Muhammad said to avoid hitting the face. So the various hadith say that you should not hit your wife in the face.
    Muhammad also said "Do not beat your wife as you would your slave".

    Quran 2:231 - I am aware that it is meant for divorced women, I am trying to show you that the Quran does mention, that you should not beat women.
    Erm, no. That verse was not about beating.

    The Quran is the only true book from Allah, the Quran is the same as it was during the prophet's time.
    But you have said that parts of it no longer apply because things were different then.
    You haven't really thought this through, have you?

    Thanks, I'll take a look at Ibn Kathir. Also, I do not rely on any scholars, but these interpretations are not mine.
    If they are not yours, whose are they?
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by QE2)
    No they don't. It is only a few modern revisionists who say "lightly", and they are attempting to portray Islam in a better light.

    But you have said that parts of it no longer apply because things were different then.

    You haven't really thought this through, have you?
    What is the point of blindly memorising the Quran, "preserving" the words and the pronunciation and the correct tongue rolling, if the meaning of those words are going to be changed anyway, through modernist revisions and reinterpretations?

    Here's a recent post by you


    (Original post by QE2)
    But that is exactly what some apologists do. No one challenged the authenticity until it is used as an example of unacceptable ideology or behaviour.

    Have you never wondered why there are so many sahih hadith that suddenly become weak as soon as it is shown to support a sceptic's argument? Does it not puzzle you that, for centuries, scholars have been happy to include known lies about Muhammad in the most revered and authentic collections - or that the finest of scholars would include them in the first place, if they are so obviously untrustworthy?

    The only hurt butts belong to the ones coming up with the ridiculous excuses for why we shouldn't take authentic Islamic scripture seriously. And half the time, modern scholars can't even agree on what is weak or not - like the hadith about Aisha's age.
    The ones who are comfortable with Muhammad having sex with her when she was nine do not question the authenticity of those hadith.
    Modernist Muslims who appreciate how unacceptable that is today need to find some way to deny his actions, so they claim those hadith are weak.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Ohhh, this post was a disappointment. I actually enjoyed having this discussion with you, you seemed to prove what you were saying with valid points but this post was just a bunch of opinions.
    Since you don't seem to remember what your previous posts were, let me quote them for you, I thought I didn't need to.

    (Original post by QE2)
    You are not making any sense.
    1. The sutting off of hands and feet is used as a punishment for certain "crimes", nothing to do with war.
    2. Plenty of soldiers use large knives, machetes, etc. Even western armies still issue their troops with bayonets.
    My reply 'I did no mention the use of swords as a punishments, I said 'No one uses swords anymore during wars'. - The reason why I mentioned this is because of Quran verse 5:33, where swords were used during wars. 'Indeed, the penalty for those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger and strive upon earth [to cause] corruption is none but that they be killed or crucified or that their hands and feet be cut off from opposite sides'. So, your first point is wrong.
    Your second point, swords are not knives. People in the past use to fight in wars using swords not guns, therefore, you can not cut hand and feet during the war of our time, as most people now use bombs etc.

    (Original post by QE2)
    Again, you are not actually saying anything here. I know what the verses say. They say that those guilty of fasad may be killed. Look up "fasad".
    No, it does not say that. Quran 5:33 is talking about verse 32. Verse 32 talks about children of Israel who were causing corruption in earth after they have been warned. Therefore, verse 33 is talking about verse 32.
    The Arabic definition of fasad: corruption, depravity, deterioration, rottenness. So verse 32, children of Israel were causing 'fasad' after being told not to, so Quran 5:33 appears aimed at them.
    I have no idea what you're talking about, but i hope you understand, that you can not look at one verse and make conclusions, look at verses before and after.

    (Original post by QE2)
    Just ponting out that it a Muslim who rejects any part of the Quran is an apostate.
    I did not reject any part of the Quran, so I would appreciate it, if you stopped using personal offenses against me, made from your own judgment.

    (Original post by QE2)
    We both agree that the Quran contains violent verses. That cannot be denied.
    So again, you agree that the Quran contains unacceptable violence.
    It is clear that you are uncomfortable with it because you are making excuses for it and attempting to mitigate it.
    I do not agree, and I do not feel uncomfortable. Again, using your own judgment.

    Also, how is me giving you explanation somehow making me feel uncomfortable. I've been giving you explanations from the start of this discussion. You always seem to make conclusions based on your opinions.
    The one feeling uncomfortable is you, if you don't have anything to say about the verse, then don't say anything. You don't need to tell me that am feeling uncomfortable. I do not see how your point is related to this verse.

    (Original post by QE2)
    There is nothing in the Quran that states that amputation is a last resort. And regardless, Unless you are a Quranist, it is dishonest to reject arguments derived from the sunnah.
    'Earlier, you explained the conditions for using amputation as a punishment. This is from the sunnah, not the Quran. Now, stop being dishonest'
    I do not appreciate being called dishonest. Here is the Quran verse for theft 'As for the thief, both male and female, cut off their hands. It is the reward of their own deeds, an exemplary punishment from Allah. Exemplary punishment is 'nakalan in Arabic.
    Quran 79:21 'But Pharaoh denied and disobeyed'.
    Quran 79:25 'So Allah seized him in exemplary punishment for the last and the first [transgression].'
    That's the reason why I used Pharaoh, in my post. He did not just steal. He committed many sins, such as, slaughtering children.
    As you can see cutting off hands is used as an exemplary punishments. Exemplary punishment on another verse was used as a last punishment for someone who was very rich and very powerful, not a poor person who stole some bread, which I think is the point you were trying to make.

    [QUOTE=QE2;66327432]
    [quote]x
    I understand that many modern Muslims are desperate to mitigate the more unacceptable verses, it is only natural. But to claim that "waidribu" in 4:34 means "turm away from" makes no sense in any kind of context and has no scriptural consistency.
    That verse uses a slightly different form. However, it still has a clear meaning of physical violence.

    No they don't. It is only a few modern revisionists who say "lightly", and they are attempting to portray Islam in a better light. The sunnah clearly states only that the beating should not be too severe.
    You do not seem to understand. Yes, you are right, the previous verse I gave is talking about physical violence. It uses the word strike, however the verse also mentions where to strike. Other verses that use the word 'strike' as 'beating' either mention where or how to physically beat.
    However verses, that use the word 'strike' but do not mean to beat, do not mention where or how to beat therefore, the word 'strike' is not used as beat, but defined as something else. Since, our verse does not have where or how to bear, then, like other verses, that don't mean beat, this does not mean beat.

    I understand you do not want to accept, however;You claim that scholar first interpreted that verse as to 'beat'.Then you claim that modern scholars claim that verse as to 'lightly beat'.Also, almost all scholars say lightly beat with a 'miswak' (teeth cleaning twig) or something similar to a toothbrush, this is not mentioned anywhere.

    (Original post by QE2)
    Oh, so it's ok to use the sunnah now? :rolleyes:
    And yes, Muhammad said to avoid hitting the face. So the various hadith say that you should not hit your wife in the face.
    Muhammad also said "Do not beat your wife as you would your slave".

    Erm, no. That verse was not about beating.
    'The many references in the sunnah that describe how severe the beating should be, what injuries to avoid and not to strike the face' - I wasn't using the sunnah for my benefit. You mentioned that the sunnah says where and how to beat, which I know you meant, 'do not beat the face'. I was showing that the sunnah has always said 'do not beat the face' but scholars use this to interpret that verse for women, eventhough it mentions animals and brothers.

    Also, the verse - 'and do not keep them, intending harm, to transgress [against them]'. Another interpretation 'but do not take them back to injure them, (or) to take undue advantage' - Therefore, the Quran does mention you should not beat women.
    Interesting how you accept the story behind this verse, but not the verse about the children of Israel. To you this makes sense but somehow the other does not.

    (Original post by QE2)
    But you have said that parts of it no longer apply because things were different then.
    You haven't really thought this through, have you?
    If they are not yours, whose are they?
    I said 'The Quran is the only true book from Allah, the Quran is the same as it was during the prophet's time', I also said 'There are many hadiths that are being made up, especially by non-Muslims and by people such as ISIS to justify their actions'. So the Quran compared to the Hadith is the total truth.
    Also, a book can be universal, that does not mean, that every word, every verse, every paragraph, every page, every chapter is universal.
    Universal - a thing having universal effect. That thing is the book Quran, not the verse Quran. Even if only a single chapter from the whole Quran was universal, then that still means the book is universal, as it contains a chapter which can have a universal effect.

    Sorry, I meant translation not interpretation. Of course I did not translate these verses. I do look at many interpretation and compare them to the verses if they do match up. That's why I do not reference hadith, as I am not sure if they are authentic or not.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    not all of them No. Only the ones that plan, execute, train for and fund these attacks. And all those that support their ideology and agenda, both implicitly and explicitly. and indeed all those that apologise for these groups attacks.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    They are the problem not us. Islam needs to modernise, westernise or get the **** out. Since none of that is happening excpect to see more dead little girls in the street unfortunately, politicians and society as a whole is too cowardly to confront this problem head on. These attacks will go on and Europeans will remain passive as muslim population increases, western civilization is ****ed.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    No.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Brussels sprouts
    Useful resources
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.