Armed Conflict, Violence, and the Quran
-
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 -
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. smileRegards,
oneway
Not at all. It just defeats the purpose though doesn't it? If you believed in the bible as the word of god without a doubt and with verification, and (just hypothetically) the bible said don't follow quran... would you use quran to verify or authenticate the bible? ? -
Peace
I think the way we each judge truth is intimately tied to our system of belief, not just the beliefs themselves.
It should be the other way round, truth leading beliefs, but as idolfree says, no need of belief when we have verified truth, they are opposite, truth = we know; we don't know = we believe.
-
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. smileRegards,
oneway
Not at all. It just defeats the purpose though doesn't it? If you believed in the bible as the word of god without a doubt and with verification, and (just hypothetically) the bible said don't follow quran... would you use quran to verify or authenticate the bible? ?They key to your hypothetical is "with verification". It becomes very difficult to isolate each avenue of debate from core faith, because what one of us sees as verification, the other may not. I'm arguing that the way we all define what counts as acceptable verification is colored by our respective systems of belief.
Regards,
oneway