Muslim Group Admits the Koran Promotes Hatred and Bigotry

[Steven]

The following verses promote divisiveness and religious hatred, bigotry and discrimination. They must be either removed from the Koran or declared outdated and invalid, and marked as such.

I salute the honesty of them.


There are over 140 of them.

http://www.reformislam.org/verses.php

[andak01]

Who died and made them Allah? There isn't a single interpretation for those verses, and I feel that you can remove extremism through interpretation, not erasure. Anyway, their blog isn't really a blog, so I can't get a view of what actual reactions to them have been. The articles they have posted there looks about 75% like your site Steven.

It is possible to be against Sharia government without ripping the Quran. Most of the basis for any political structure comes from the Sunna and not the Quran.

[Steven]

Who died and made them Allah? There isn't a single interpretation for those verses, and I feel that you can remove extremism through interpretation, not erasure. Anyway, their blog isn't really a blog, so I can't get a view of what actual reactions to them have been. The articles they have posted there looks about 75% like your site Steven.

Thanks for falling into it again. Save the interpretation lame excuse already. Unlike you they stand for truth and freedom. They are even against your foot baths. They might be able to help while all you do is make things worse.

[scattergood]

Who died and made them Allah? There isn't a single interpretation for those verses, and I feel that you can remove extremism through interpretation, not erasure. Anyway, their blog isn't really a blog, so I can't get a view of what actual reactions to them have been. The articles they have posted there looks about 75% like your site Steven.

It is possible to be against Sharia government without ripping the Quran. Most of the basis for any political structure comes from the Sunna and not the Quran.

Please provide an interpretation from one of the four major, accepted Sunni schools of jurisprudence for each of the the following that can be seen in a pluralistic, tolerant way:

2.161: Surely those who disbelieve and die while they are disbelievers, these it is on whom is the curse of Allah and the angels and men all;
• 2.162: Abiding in it; their chastisement shall not be lightened nor shall they be given respite.
• 2.178: O you who believe! retaliation is prescribed for you in the matter of the slain, the free for the free, and the slave for the slave, and the female for the female, but if any remission is made to any one by his (aggrieved) brother, then prosecution (for the bloodwit) should be made according to usage, and payment should be made to him in a good manner; this is an alleviation from your Lord and a mercy; so whoever exceeds the limit after this he shall have a painful chastisement.
• 2.191: And kill them wherever you find them, and drive them out from whence they drove you out, and persecution is severer than slaughter, and do not fight with them at the Sacred Mosque until they fight with you in it, but if they do fight you, then slay them; such is the recompense of the unbelievers.
• 2.193: And fight with them until there is no persecution, and religion should be only for Allah, but if they desist, then there should be no hostility except against the oppressors.
• 2.216: Fighting is enjoined on you, and his an object of dislike to you; and it may be that you dislike a thing while it is good for you, and it may be that you love a thing while it is evil for you, and Allah knows, while you do not know.
• 2.217: They ask you concerning the sacred month about fighting in it. Say: Fighting in it is a grave matter, and hindering (men) from Allah's way and denying Him, and (hindering men from) the Sacred Mosque and turning its people out of it, are still graver with Allah, and persecution is graver than slaughter; and they will not cease fighting with you until they turn you back from your religion, if they can; and whoever of you turns back from his religion, then he dies while an unbeliever these it is whose works shall go for nothing in this world and the hereafter, and they are the inmates of the fire; therein they shall abide.
• 2.221: And do not marry the idolatresses until they believe, and certainly a believing maid is better than an idolatress woman, even though she should please you; and do not give (believing women) in marriage to idolaters until they believe, and certainly a believing servant is better than an idolater, even though he should please you; these invite to the fire, and Allah invites to the garden and to forgiveness by His will, and makes clear His communications to men, that they may be mindful.
• 2.222: And they ask you about menstruation. Say: It is a discomfort; therefore keep aloof from the women during the menstrual discharge and do not go near them until they have become clean; then when they have cleansed themselves, go in to them as Allah has commanded you; surely Allah loves those who turn much (to Him), and He loves those who purify themselves.
• 2.223: Your wives are a tilth for you, so go into your tilth when you like, and do good beforehand for yourselves, and be careful (of your duty) to Allah, and know that you will meet Him, and give good news to the believers.
• 2.228: And the divorced women should keep themselves in waiting for three courses; and it is not lawful for them that they should conceal what Allah has created in their wombs, if they believe in Allah and the last day; and their husbands have a better right to take them back in the meanwhile if they wish for reconciliation; and they have rights similar to those against them in a just manner, and the men are a degree above them, and Allah is Mighty, Wise.
• 2.229: Divorce may be (pronounced) twice, then keep (them) in good fellowship or let (them) go with kindness; and it is not lawful for you to take any part of what you have given them, unless both fear that they cannot keep within the limits of Allah; then if you fear that they cannot keep within the limits of Allah, there is no blame on them for what she gives up to become free thereby. These are the limits of Allah, so do not exceed them and whoever exceeds the limits of Allah these it is that are the unjust.

[Steven]

I showed this thread to Muslims Against Sharia and they sent me this.




According to Islamic fundamentalists, the Koran is a LITERAL word of Allah, and therefore, is not open to interpretation.
If by "interpretation", he means "translation", every single translation of violent verses like 2.191 or 9.5 carry the same meaning: kill or subjugate the infidels.


I asked him about the "defensive war".

This was his response.

It is. However the mere fact that non-Muslim refuse to submit to Islam is offensive to Islamists. Therefore slaying infidels for refusing to submit to Islam is an act of defensive warfare.

Like I have been saying if we do not accept Islam, they go on the defensive. A Muslim woman from Dubai told me last night, that if we do not accept Islam that we are oppressing Islam and that is also grounds for war. The bottom line is accept Islam or else.

I have a lot of respect for this man.

[ShimonG]

............. the Koran is a LITERAL word of Allah, and therefore, is not open to interpretation.
If by "interpretation", he means "translation",.............

THIS MAY BE THE SINGLE MOST SIGNIFICANT POST MADE YET ON THIS FORUM TO EXPOSE THE EVIL AND INTOLERANCE IN ISLAM.

islamic taqqiya claim that there are several INTERPRETATIONS. That is factually incorrect, as one cannot claim in the same breath that this intolerant hateful book is also LITERALLY the words uttered/dictated by allah.

And islamic taqqiya can translate till the pigs fly, but they cannot explain away the evil, intolerance and depravity contained in islamic texts and mohammad's actions and allahs words.

GOOD JOB, STEVE.

[Steven]

THIS MAY BE THE SINGLE MOST SIGNIFICANT POST MADE YET ON THIS FORUM TO EXPOSE THE EVIL AND INTOLERANCE IN ISLAM.

islamic taqqiya claim that there are several INTERPRETATIONS. That is factually incorrect, as one cannot claim in the same breath that this intolerant hateful book is also LITERALLY the words uttered/dictated by allah.

And islamic taqqiya can translate till the pigs fly, but they cannot explain away the evil, intolerance and depravity contained in islamic texts and mohammad's actions and allahs words.

GOOD JOB, STEVE.

Thanks buddy.

[andak01]

I showed this thread to Muslims Against Sharia and they sent me this.

According to Islamic fundamentalists, the Koran is a LITERAL word of Allah, and therefore, is not open to interpretation.
If by "interpretation", he means "translation", every single translation of violent verses like 2.191 or 9.5 carry the same meaning: kill or subjugate the infidels.

I asked him about the "defensive war".

This was his response.

It is. However the mere fact that non-Muslim refuse to submit to Islam is offensive to Islamists. Therefore slaying infidels for refusing to submit to Islam is an act of defensive warfare.

Like I have been saying if we do not accept Islam, they go on the defensive. A Muslim woman from Dubai told me last night, that if we do not accept Islam that we are oppressing Islam and that is also grounds for war. The bottom line is accept Islam or else.

I have a lot of respect for this man.

But admittedly you don't know the nature of that person. Are they even Muslims? I don't know. Second, I have to take your word for it that you even had this exchange. Last of all, we all know that there have been extremists preaching an intolerant doctrine who are as dangerous to me as they are to you. Your assumption is that there can never be and never has been another interpretation.

[andak01]

Please provide an interpretation from one of the four major, accepted Sunni schools of jurisprudence for each of the the following that can be seen in a pluralistic, tolerant way:

Oh, you mean use the law used to create a theocratic government to prove that a theocratic army doesn't work according to theocratic grounds? I've got one for you. Use cannonical law to prove that there shouldn't be a pope! Better yet, show me where the Torah says it's wrong to wipe out any tribe that gets in the way of supremacy over the promised land!

Christians have secularism because a secular military and economic force overtook the papacy over a bloody period of centuries. Jews have secularism because they have seen its benefit for them as opposed to centuries of living with a Christian religion of state that purged them, exiled them and in general abused them.

[scattergood]

Oh, you mean use the law used to create a theocratic government to prove that a theocratic army doesn't work according to theocratic grounds? I've got one for you. Use cannonical law to prove that there shouldn't be a pope! Better yet, show me where the Torah says it's wrong to wipe out any tribe that gets in the way of supremacy over the promised land!

Christians have secularism because a secular military and economic force overtook the papacy over a bloody period of centuries. Jews have secularism because they have seen its benefit for them as opposed to centuries of living with a Christian religion of state that purged them, exiled them and in general abused them.

No Andak, I mean use one of the 4 major and accepted schools of interpretation and understanding of the Islamic texts. You have made the assertion that, and I quote you word for word, "there isn't a single interpretation for those verses, and I feel that you can remove extremism through interpretation, not erasure." I have agreed that there isn't a SINGLE interpretation, but am asking for you to show us in any of the major accepted interpretations that alleged extremism doesn't hold sway. The simple fact is that you cannot. So if you want to have a nice version of Islam that is tolerant, permissive, and pluralistic that's great, go make it up and get the 1b+ other Muslims to agree to your new interpretation and ditch the 4 accepted, traditional, and historical interpretations.

You are right, there was a reformation within the Church which at times was bloody and violent, the 30 Years war for example, and at other times not, Vatican II. But all you are saying is that Islam is in need of such a reformation, on that we agree. So stop wasting your time and ours by having to refute your stupidity, and go get that reformation off the ground in any of the OIC countries!

[varian]

...
According to Islamic fundamentalists, the Koran is a LITERAL word of Allah, and therefore, is not open to interpretation. ...

These are man's words not allahs. No god would claim that the Qur'an was their literal word. The difference between how allah speaks about the Jews in the Qur'an and how HaShem speaks to the Jews in the Torah/Tanach is palpable. One doesn't have to read too far in the Qur'an to know that HaShem was not its author. The author of the Qur'an is definitely "another god." Now if Muslims want to claim that Muhammad is the only prophet for that god, and the Qur'an is that god's revelation, I have no problem accepting that claim. However if Muslims claim that the same G-D that sent His prophets to Israel is allah, then they have a real problem, because the Qur'an is a far inferior a work than the Torah/Tanach; and that's only on a literary scale. For those who compare them on a religious basis, then the gap gets even broader. Muhammad had limited understanding of Hebrew writings and HaShem's dealings with the Jews. He told some of the stories wrong, and didn't seem to have any idea of the spiritual sense of the events that he was trying to relate. Compared to any of the recognized Jewish sages, Muhammad was a neophyte at best. I have already discussed some of the real errors in the Qur'an in other posts. These are real errors, not cherry-picked tirades. Don't take my word for it, just read the Qur'an and find out for yourselves. It won't take long!!!

[redcake]

But admittedly you don't know the nature of that person. Are they even Muslims? I don't know.

What's the difference? The point about not accepting Islam being an offense to Islam is something I've said, and many others here have said and you were unable to really address it. Should you suddenly have an answer because a Muslim finally said it? Probably not.

You are right, in theory, an interpretation could save the day. The fact is, at the moment for several communities in a couple regions, it's not.

[Steven]

But admittedly you don't know the nature of that person. Are they even Muslims? I don't know. Second, I have to take your word for it that you even had this exchange. Last of all, we all know that there have been extremists preaching an intolerant doctrine who are as dangerous to me as they are to you. Your assumption is that there can never be and never has been another interpretation.

1.Yes I do know the nature of the person.
2.Yes they are Muslims.
3.I have told you numerous times, I do not care what you believe.
4.The rest of us see what is happening out there, so save the spin.

[andak01]

No Andak, I mean use one of the 4 major and accepted schools of interpretation and understanding of the Islamic texts. You have made the assertion that, and I quote you word for word, "there isn't a single interpretation for those verses, and I feel that you can remove extremism through interpretation, not erasure."

I believe that, because that's how it was done during the secular reformation. In fact there is still to this day a small minority of extremists that would love to run the government by the New Testament.

I have agreed that there isn't a SINGLE interpretation, but am asking for you to show us in any of the major accepted interpretations that alleged extremism doesn't hold sway.

And I'm pointing out that all four medhabs were involved in the creation of the Shariah state just as both Catholics and Protestants used their beliefs to form theocratic states from the Papacy to the Pilgrims. They goaded their armies with the supremacy of their religion just as the Spanish did when they conquered South America. They at times forced people to convert also just as the Spanish did. Those things and that intolerance are a feature of theocracy and nothing unique to Islam. And to be honest, I'd have the same luck disproving that aspect to the head of a Shariah state as I would to convince the Pope to allow a Jew into the Swiss Guard.

You are right, there was a reformation within the Church which at times was bloody and violent, the 30 Years war for example, and at other times not, Vatican II. But all you are saying is that Islam is in need of such a reformation, on that we agree.

That isn't all I'm saying, but glad you see we do agree on some things. I'm saying that the tools for that reformation are already available. We don't have to flush the Sunna or burn the Quran to reduce the level of violence in the Muslim world anymore than it was necessary to do away with the Pope or edit the New Testament. The secular revolution was a success in the Christian world because there was immediate benefit for those who initiated it. But Muslims don't want to initiate a secular revolution only to be the slaves of the West and see their religion destroyed.

[Steven]

I believe that, because that's how it was done during the secular reformation. In fact there is still to this day a small minority of extremists that would love to run the government by the New Testament.

So what? Islam is the threat.

And I'm pointing out that all four medhabs were involved in the creation of the Shariah state just as both Catholics and Protestants used their beliefs to form theocratic states from the Papacy to the Pilgrims. They goaded their armies with the supremacy of their religion just as the Spanish did when they conquered South America. They at times forced people to convert also just as the Spanish did. Those things and that intolerance are a feature of theocracy and nothing unique to Islam. And to be honest, I'd have the same luck disproving that aspect to the head of a Shariah state as I would to convince the Pope to allow a Jew into the Swiss Guard.



That isn't all I'm saying, but glad you see we do agree on some things. I'm saying that the tools for that reformation are already available. We don't have to flush the Sunna or burn the Quran to reduce the level of violence in the Muslim world anymore than it was necessary to do away with the Pope or edit the New Testament.

One more time, Chritianity is not the problem. So when do you stop spending your entire life here and go start this "reformation"? You will not because you have ONE goal here and that is to get people to back off on Islam. Your game is very clear.