Armed Conflict, Violence, and the Quran
-
Peace upon all,
Regarding 'Daraba' in 434, this verb shares the same meanings when making a literal translation en english; it can be translated as to strike as in "to walk out, as in to go on strike The bus drivers are striking until the owners give them more vacation time. The bus drivers are walking out (or) going on strike until the owners give them more vacation time.", and it can also have the meaning of to hit as in the "Hit the road Jack" song, to quit, but the first one is more suitable in my view.
Idra'b in arabic is to be on strike.
--
-
As can be seen, God spoke to these people directly, these are just some little samples. On this you will agree of course, you want proof of revelation being given, not just some orders of conversation.
Ok, but the book of Genesis and generally the first five books of the Bible are attributed to Moses. Moses spoke to God too, but that does not mean the first five books of the Bible were directly revealed to Moses by God.
I'm not talking about who wrote this down, if you read again carefully, i only use this to point out, that God spoke directly to these people, i don't use this as written down revelation, only to show there is recording of direct contact between God and humans.
Ok. I never suggested that there was not direct contact between God and humans in the Bible. So I guess we're in "violent agreement" here. smile
If you look at Isaiah, he saw his words in a vision, he saw images but also direct words he spoke in the name of God.
Isa 11 The vision2377 of Isaiah3470 the son1121 of Amoz,531 which834 he saw2372 concerning5921 Judah3063 and Jerusalem3389 in the days3117 of Uzziah,5818 Jotham,3147 Ahaz,271 and Hezekiah,3169 kings4428 of Judah.3063
Isa 12 Hear,8085 O heavens,8064 and give ear,238 O earth776 for3588 the LORD3068 hath spoken,1696 I have nourished1431 and brought up7311 children,1121 and they1992 have rebelled6586 against me.
Isa 13 The ox7794 knoweth3045 his owner,7069 and the ass2543 his master's1167 crib18 but Israel3478 doth not3808 know,3045 my people5971 doth not3808 consider.995
Isa 14 Ah1945 sinful2398 nation,1471 a people5971 laden3515 with iniquity,5771 a seed2233 of evildoers,7489 children1121 that are corrupters7843 they have forsaken5800 (853) the LORD,3068 they have provoked5006 (853) the Holy One6918 of Israel3478 unto anger, they are gone away2114 backward.268...............This goes on throughout the book about Isaiah. Also in Jeremiah.
Jer 71 The word1697 that834 came1961 to413 Jeremiah3414 from4480, 854 the LORD,3068 saying,559
Jer 72 Stand5975 in the gate8179 of the LORD's3068 house,1004 and proclaim7121 there8033 (853) this2088 word,1697 and say,559 Hear8085 the word1697 of the LORD,3068 all3605 ye of Judah,3063 that enter935 in at these428 gates8179 to worship7812 the LORD.3068
Jer 73 Thus3541 saith559 the LORD3068 of hosts,6635 the God430 of Israel,3478 Amend3190 your ways1870 and your doings,4611 and I will cause you to dwell7931 in this2088 place.4725
Jer 74 Trust982 ye not408 in413 lying8267 words,1697 saying,559 The temple1964 of the LORD,3068 The temple1964 of the LORD,3068 The temple1964 of the LORD,3068 are these.1992It was directly revealed to them. We can compare this perfectly with the commandments given to Mohammed
- Say "O men, I am verily the apostle of God to you all. His whose kingdom extends over the heavens and the earth. There is no god but He, the giver of life and death. So believe in God and the messenger, the gentile Prophet, sent by Him, who believes in God and His messages. Obey him; you may haply be guided aright."
Ezekiel also gets the same commandment, starting with say..
Eze 301 The word1697 of the LORD3068 came1961 again unto413 me, saying,559
Eze 302 Son1121 of man,120 prophesy5012 and say,559 Thus3541 saith559 the Lord136 GOD;3069 Howl3213 ye, Woe1929 worth the day!3117
Eze 303 For3588 the day3117 is near,7138 even the day3117 of the LORD3068 is near,7138 a cloudy6051 day;3117 it shall be1961 the time6256 of the heathen.1471Hos 11 The word1697 of the LORD3068 that834 came1961 unto413 Hosea,1954 the son1121 of Beeri,882 in the days3117 of Uzziah,5818 Jotham,3147 Ahaz,271 and Hezekiah,3169 kings4428 of Judah,3063 and in the days3117 of Jeroboam3379 the son1121 of Joash,3101 king4428 of Israel.3478
Hos 12 The beginning8462 of the word1696 of the LORD3068 by Hosea.1954 And the LORD3068 said559 to413 Hosea,1954 Go,1980 take39Amo 915 And I will plant5193 them upon5921 their land,127 and they shall no3808 more5750 be pulled up5428 out of4480, 5921 their land127 which834 I have given5414 them, saith559 the LORD3068 thy God.430
Looks like direct revelations to me, and just like with Mohammed, it was or written down or passed oraly till it was written down.
Not by my reckoning The books authored by the OT prophets in the Bible include the words those prophets recorded as being from God, but they are included in a broader narrative authored by the prophets themselves, not by God directly, so you can't say, for example, that the book of Hosea is a direct revelation from God in the same way that Muslims believe that about the Quran, where God is speaking in the first person through Mohammed.
Not by God directly? The word say this to the people is clear enough commandment to me.
And I will plant
Sounds like first person to me.....
Sure it does, unless you read it in context and include Amos 91 through Amos 915
"I saw the Lord standing by the altar, and he said ..." (Amos 91)
So in the beginning of Amos 91 it is Amos talking and then he quotes what he heard from God, which shows the book of Amos itself is not a direct revelation from God.
And in many cases the precise authorship of OT prophetic books is in dispute, with some chapters believed to have been written directly by the prophet in question and others by his aids or companions.
This is exactly with the case with Mohammed, he himself and his companions wrote it down directly. I don't see the difference. Only yes, the Quran was not mixed later on with the history about the Revelation, they kept seperated those hearsay reports from the Quran. Some Books in the Bible are clearly direct Revelations and mixed history about that prophet. But still what are you trying to say? Because you're only giving the exact conclusions that can be made about Mohammed and the Quran.
And about writing it down
Rev 11 The Revelation602 of Jesus2424 Christ,5547 which3739 God2316 gave1325 unto him,846 to show1166 unto his848 servants1401 things which3739 must1163 shortly1722, 5034 come to pass;1096 and2532 he sent649 and signified4591 it by1223 his848 angel32 unto his848 servant1401 John2491
Rev 12 Who3739 bare record3140 of the3588 word3056 of God,2316 and2532 of the3588 testimony3141 of Jesus2424 Christ,5547 and5037 of all things that3745 he saw.1492by the messenger himself
will,2309 let him take2983 the3588 water5204 of life2222 freely.1432
Rev 2218 For1063 I testify4828 unto every man3956 that heareth191 the3588 words3056 of the3588 prophecy4394 of this5127 book,975 If1437 any man5100 shall add2007 unto4314 these things,5023 God2316 shall add2007 unto1909 him846 the3588 plagues4127 that are written1125 in1722 this5129 book975
Rev 2219 And2532 if1437 any man5100 shall take away851 from575 the3588 words3056 of the book976 of this5026 prophecy,4394 God2316 shall take away851 his846 part3313 out of575 the book976 of life,2222 and2532 out of1537 the3588 holy40 city,4172 and2532 from the things which are written1125 in1722 this5129 book.975So yes, direct revelation to messengers, ordered by God to reveal it to their people, exactly as Mohammed. Written the revelation down, just as John did with his revelation, just like Mohammed did.
I already mentioned the book of Revelation as an exception to the "not directly revealed" rule, so we are not in disagreement on the origin of that book.
I hoped so.....otherwise the discussion would be pointless to proceed.
But what is the exact difference between this Book and the others you mention above? Except that it was written down in total by the same author?I understand what you're saying, but hopefully you see that books written by prophets about their experiences and what God told them are not the same as the actual book itself and every word in it being directly revealed by God to the prophet, as is claimed for the Quran.
Experiences? Books as Isaiah, Hosea, Joel, Micah, Amos, Obadiah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Malachi all tell direct words from God, or were shown things they had to say to their people by God. These are no 'experiences', but direct visions, revelations meant for the people. And were do you get your information from? That God told them not the same as was written down? That is not what i read. Now you make a lot of your own conclusions. And they do speak direct words from God, or give examples of what they have seen. This you can also read in the Quran.
How can you be so sure there is a difference? Because the Bible and the Quran contradict this concept.
Peace
I think we're getting into a very hair splitting debate here that isn't necessarily on topic. Muslims believe the Quran is the literal word of God. Christians believe the Bible is the inspired word of God (at least Christians like me). Therein lies the difference along with the other points I've been presenting in this discussion.
I'm not arguing and never have argued that there are no words in the Bible that the authors relay as being revealed to them directly from God. That's certainly true in the case of the OT prophets when they say "Here is what God said..." or describe a vision, and so on.
My point is that even those books by the prophets, as in the example of Amos 91 above, and moreso in the case of the non-prophetic books of the OT, the books of the Bible are not themselves the literal word of God. They contain quotes attributed directly to God, but the books themselves in their entirety are not the literal word of God.
So when I read Amos 9, for example, my understanding is that I'm reading what Amos says that God said. When a Muslim reads the Quran, my understanding is that they take it to be literally what God Himself directly said.
Regards,
oneway -
Peace be with you oneway,
When we disagree on the correct methods to be used for finding the correct interpretation the discussion ceases to be about the main topic and is then only about which study procedures are the right ones and why. The "why" has much to do with faith Quran only vs Quran + history vs Quran + hadith, etc.
Just out of curiousity, do you have any reference(s) for the "history" you speak of?
Also, it seems you insist that we should include traditional hadith for us to make a "reasonable" argument, even though we reject it in the first place and you knew this from the offset. Does this mean that your arguments are stumped if we discount hadith? Or was there something I missed?
Thanks )
I'm not saying someone who rejects hadith is unreasonable, just that people who think information from history, e.g. regarding the life of Mohammed, as well as from hadiths, can also make reasonable interpretations informed by that extra-Quranic material.
The point in this part of the discussion is simply that our respective beliefs largely govern which means of seeking truth feels correct to us. I think you have to include the historical context when seeking the correct interpretation. That doesn't mean I think "Quran only" arguments are unreasonable, they just aren't persuasive to me.
An unreasonable argument would be one that lacks rationality or is self contradicting or employs solely ad hominem arguments, and so on. I'm not saying any of the arguments here have those kinds of problems, just that they are not persuasive to me because I'm approaching the questions from a different angle. And the "different angles" we bring to the discussion derive from our respective beliefs, and you can't argue against belief.
Thanks,
oneway -
Yes, i believe it is the direct word, but there a lot of verses that are meant in a symbolic fashion, just like Jesus's example on cuttin the eye out, so i don't see your problem here, and this is not getting of topic, we are making comparisons in interpretation and concepts. And your interpretation as being that are the prophets words, not directly God's words, is your conception, made up without proof, and contradicting a bit with what those texts say. But remember, we also approach verses symbolic like you. These are Gods words, brought in human language, so it is always our brain that gives the definitions of the words. We are thaught what certain words mean, as for example, the emotion and power in words can differ in society and cultures. Like in Holland, rain is not experienced as a happy thing, but in dry countries people dance in the streets when it rains. So a dutch person will approach the definition of rain differently then those other people. This is exactly with most things we experience, and also with holy books. Like you said, i approach it in this fashion, however you approach it, thinking it the direct word, applied words, symbolic and so on, it is always understood by a human, and by thus is always transmitted into human understanding and words in your mind.
So it is in the end, your background and charachter that will determine how you will read something, how you will interpretate words. So you can bring on verses and verses. We all read them differently. When i read the Gospels, i read about a prophet, you have your own understanding. We both have to respect each others view. So can keep saying you read violence, we read selfdefense. You read domestic violence, we read depart. It is your state of mind that will determine your choice of understanding. We approach the Quran as a liberal and good Book, you approach it as a violent and evil Book. We read the truth, you read lies.
Now is the question, who has the most clear mind? Who is right? How i think coincides with all other revelations, science, theology, philosophy, logic and history. Is this also the case with you? How do you approach it all?Peace
-
How i think coincides with all other revelations, science, theology, philosophy, logic and history. Is this also the case with you? How do you approach it all?
Peace
Like you, I think my view is consistent with other revelations, science, etc. I don't think I'm just bringing an antagonistic state of mind to the discussion and hopefully my posts reflect more thoughtfulness than that.
I think the way we each judge truth is intimately tied to our system of belief, not just the beliefs themselves.
Peace. Out. smile
oneway.
-
So your believe coincides with the Veda's, Bhagada-vita, Zend-Avesta, Oral beliefs and all Jewish Scriptures?
Peace
-
Peace all,
A word on this violence issue within the Quran.
It is violence to restore peace.
It is my God given right, my birth right, to believe in whatever I want to believe in and be treated as an equal to any man or woman.
However, should someone else suppose themselves to be superior to me and infringe on my rights, is that not an act of violence?????
Who are they to make me a second class citizen? Are they God?
This supposition (that they are higher/better than me) is an unbalance.
Now I will fight, should my rights be infirnged, however fighting doesn't necessarily mean put up your dukes.
This debate/discussion here is a FIGHT, it is a battle of the wits.
Why do people always see evil? What is the use of pessimism?
Yes survival of the fittest does exist in our world, yes this can lead to conflicts. But it is man's ego that leads it to conflict. I forget the verse number but the mountains refused God's gift, man was the only one full of himself to take that gift.
Let me give an example, Shaolin monks. they train their whole life, they are killing machines, they have the knowledge and the ability to kill in an instant. But yet do they spread corruption through the world??? If attacked will they defend??????
Now here's the funny thing, shaolin's claim they will not attack if they are threatened, however your primal brain kicks in, and on natural instinct alone you WILL fight.
Did you read that oneway????
Your NATURAL INSTINCT will lead you to violence, if threatened.
-
So your believe coincides with the Veda's, Bhagada-vita, Zend-Avesta, Oral beliefs and all Jewish Scriptures?
Peace
No, I didn't mean "other revelations" in that sense. I just meant other revelations within the context of Christianity those to Moses, the prophets, etc. I assumed you meant "other revelations" in that sense as well, but also including Mohammed, but not things outside of Abrahamic faiths.
The last word is yours.
Regards,
oneway -
can the moderators please add red faced emoticon ?
No red faces here, friends. smile
I obviously agree that fighting is sometimes necessary and even just.
All I said was that the Quran endorses violence. You've confirmed that for me. Thanks!
The question of whether the "Koranic rules of fighting" you extracted from that one verse apply to all verses in the Quran that deal with violence is fodder for another debate. I think many of them leave lots of room for interpretation that many Muslims clearly aren't interpreting the way you are.
Cheers,
oneway.Anyone who's read the Qur'aan even once will know that the concept of fighting a war in Islam is only defensive, never an offensive one. I cannot, by any stretch of imagination, figure out how that can be referred to as 'endorsing violence' .. unless one is simply hellbent upon picking up an arguement for the sake of it.
-
peace,
No need for last words. So by your definition, the rest of humanity was kept in the dark? No revelations? Go read my article on God's image,
http//www.free-minds.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=5371&start=25
And the pure monotheism has always been there from the start, it can be found in all faiths, oral or scriptural. It never was a trinity, and it still isn't, not in the Bible or other scriptures. But now we are indeed going off topic a bit. What i'm saying is, that true monotheism is the only acceptable term from a theological and scientific point of view. But the thing is, like i said, it is about how you approach a book, my question to you is; being on this forum, did it change a bit how you think on the Quran? Although you'll probably stick to your conviction, at least you've seen people approach the Quran from a total different view. But there is no concistency in your convictions on the Quran and the Bible. You pick what you want, doesn't matter if we prove you right or wrong, you just say; as a christian i see it as....
A lot of people think polytheism was before monotheism, but this is false, the earliest concept of man was
"The early man had little knowledge how nature worked and why, except what he himself could experience, out of this the feeling of mystery must have emerged. The feeling there is a true reality behind this life. This is how the concept of divinity, of the transcendent, a universal Good, bigger that the human and nature, a source of nurture, a ruler on destiny. This concept of power, of a Creator, in the sense of that is everything, a power of the higher and this reality must have come about. In our language it resembles the Transcendent and Immanent. If this can be seen as 1 God, as most researchers think, can not be proven of course. But it is certainly true, that in our days, with the cultures who don't use writing, and resembles early man in a lot of ways, like the use of oral tradition. That with these cultures, it is a common believe that there is only one highest god, one creator, and next to this god, they have to deal with lower spiritual beings as totems, cultural heroes, ancestors and local gods. But this god, sticks out with head and shoulders above all of these lower powers. For most it is a vague, and and incomprehensible power. That in their eyes doesn't intervene in daily life. So this is why they use their idols to ask help. When cultures grew, this aminism developed into polytheism. But in the background, this highest god always remained, although it was ignored. This faith, or rather understanding developed back in to monotheism as it is to be found in the scriptual faiths of today. So after a long route the highest power always prevailed. The concept of religion, has to be traced back in the faith of a holy power that goes beyond this universe, and supports it. It could be that this wasn't given no form, and stayed a vague term of providence, as a creating and recreating force, working in food, sex, fertility, birth, death and the changing of seasons. When this view, that this force exists, found it's own life in different aspects and functions, this developed into spirits, ghosts and idols, with each its own tasks.
It reappearing throughout the whole history of mankind. The remerging of faith in every fase of cultures and religions since prehistoric times, gives a clear indication that it is something that is a spontaneous part of man itself. It is an expression of a feeling and thinking man is born with, not so much an outcome of observation and knowledge of the universe and nature. Without a doubt did this developed into the monotheisms of today, in the God as only creator and sustainer of all things. Far from that polytheism developed into monotheism, does the evidence show that the concept and knowledge of the universe, while it grew developed different gods and powers over time, while the highest being turned into a vague figure, that didn't intervene, and was hidden in the mists of animism and polytheism and the absolutism of Hinduism and in the far east. In this sense, monotheism is the oldest concept." Gerben J.F. Bouritius Lector in the fenomology of religions and faiths of the Theological Faculty in TilburgPure monotheism.....
Peace
-
peace,
No need for last words.
Peace
why? ahh! got it, truth hurts ....
-
peace,
No need for last words.
Peace
truth hurts .... ??
-
I have already showed enough. So indeed no need for last words...........
"It seems that most people on earth, rather follow and tell lies, follow ignorance and just baseless information, this is from science to religion to how they handle their daily lives. It seems they are scared of the truth, because it brings responsibillity, with lies they can keep doing what they want....."
Psychologist after research on why people lie or believes lies.
Peace
-
A word on this violence issue within the Quran.
It is violence to restore peace.
exactly . do u still see any problem in it , Oneway ? problem other than the contradiction with the "turn the other cheek" teachings in the Bible ?
peace.
Peace saladin,
The broader handling of violence in the Quran includes permission for revenge (within bounds and with forgiveness preferred, but it is permitted nonetheless). Revenge is punitive and retaliatory, not purely defensive.
I've been trying to keep Christian-specific notions separate here, but as mentioned in the discussion with arnoldyasin, I'm not sure its really possible to do that. Ultimately this is a discussion about whether something covered in the Quran is right or wrong and our respective notions of right and wrong are inseparable from our respective faiths.
For example, the Quran permits bounded revenge, Christ's teachings in the Bible do not. Arguing which view is correct just turns into the much broader discussion of Christianity vs Islam, which isn't useful.
Thus, I think it would be better if my approach to this forum going forward focused primarily on finding common ground and learning from others here rather than debating particular points of Islam that I find troubling. (Though maybe I'll still debate politics from time to time in the other topic areas here smile)
Regards,
oneway -
Peace Oneway,
Getting revenge on a mass murderer or someone who abuses childeren sexually, or ............ is the base for creating JUSTICE and social order. This is the minimum border. BUT IT HAS TO BE JUST. JUSTICE IS THE MINIMUM.
If the individul or society can evolve to the point to forgive, it approaches the deeper territories of THE KINGDOM OF GOD. FORGIVENESS IS THE UNLIMITED MAXIMUM.
The one who Keeps tracking, will find.
peace,
-
I'm not saying someone who rejects hadith is unreasonable, just that people who think information from history, e.g. regarding the life of Mohammed, as well as from hadiths, can also make reasonable interpretations informed by that extra-Quranic material.
The point in this part of the discussion is simply that our respective beliefs largely govern which means of seeking truth feels correct to us. I think you have to include the historical context when seeking the correct interpretation. That doesn't mean I think "Quran only" arguments are unreasonable, they just aren't persuasive to me.
An unreasonable argument would be one that lacks rationality or is self contradicting or employs solely ad hominem arguments, and so on. I'm not saying any of the arguments here have those kinds of problems, just that they are not persuasive to me because I'm approaching the questions from a different angle. And the "different angles" we bring to the discussion derive from our respective beliefs, and you can't argue against belief.
Thanks,
oneway
Thank you for the reply oneway, and differentiating between unreasonable and persuasive. That definitely clears up some stuff. Now what if I told you quran discourages the use of other hadith? Would that obvious contradiction change anything?Peace be with you
-
Peace Oneway,
Getting revenge on a mass murderer or someone who abuses childeren sexually, or ............ is the base for creating JUSTICE and social order. This is the minimum border. BUT IT HAS TO BE JUST. JUSTICE IS THE MINIMUM.
If the individul or society can evolve to the point to forgive, it approaches the deeper territories of THE KINGDOM OF GOD. FORGIVENESS IS THE UNLIMITED MAXIMUM.
The one who Keeps tracking, will find.
peace,
Thanks, alpha97,
I think revenge is more of an individual, rather than societal, notion. In the large there is certainly justice in society punishing criminals, but the question of personal revenge, regardless of the offense, is more in line with what I was talking about.
Good points nonetheless.
Thanks,
oneway -
I'm not saying someone who rejects hadith is unreasonable, just that people who think information from history, e.g. regarding the life of Mohammed, as well as from hadiths, can also make reasonable interpretations informed by that extra-Quranic material.
The point in this part of the discussion is simply that our respective beliefs largely govern which means of seeking truth feels correct to us. I think you have to include the historical context when seeking the correct interpretation. That doesn't mean I think "Quran only" arguments are unreasonable, they just aren't persuasive to me.
An unreasonable argument would be one that lacks rationality or is self contradicting or employs solely ad hominem arguments, and so on. I'm not saying any of the arguments here have those kinds of problems, just that they are not persuasive to me because I'm approaching the questions from a different angle. And the "different angles" we bring to the discussion derive from our respective beliefs, and you can't argue against belief.
Thanks,
oneway
Thank you for the reply oneway, and differentiating between unreasonable and persuasive. That definitely clears up some stuff. Now what if I told you quran discourages the use of other hadith? Would that obvious contradiction change anything?Peace be with you
Its only an obvious contradiction if you accept the Quran a priori. smile
Regards,
oneway