People also go around and say "Islam is a very peaceful religion, you have just missunderstood the religion. Muslims will laugh at you because of your ignorance". I am fully aware of how the Quran is a plagarism and how offensive it is to women, science and basically humanity. But what I lack is enough details and exact quotes from the Quran that can strengthen my argument. I read a lot of Dawkins and Hitchens, but unfortunately, their criticize is more focused on Christianity and Judaism, than Islam itself.
Can someone provide some valuable information from the Quran that shows how atrocious it really is. Give me some tips of writers that has analyzed the religion so I can become more educated about the scriptures.
If you have your own viewpoints on Islam do not hesitate to express them.
Also, I would like the context that they are written in.
If the Verse really is focused on the Schism, it is still as disturbing and atrocious. Muhammad, a man of alleged peace, preaches out to his followers that it is right to slaughter your opposition. "Such is the reward of disbelievers." This only proves the point, Muhammad was a vicious and violent man who murdered disbelievers in Allah, and anyone who stood in their way. They are fighting for the right to pray, they are being seggregated for their beliefs. This goes to show how alienating religion truly is and what harm it can cause over deeply held ugly delusions.
Almost all verses of Quran (maybe not the most essential parts of the religion) are related to the events of the time in which they were descended (out ouf Muh.'s imagination).
Whoever says that those verses don't apply to Muslim life because they were situational then must say that Quran is not a guide to humanity, and is simply a prose storybook about 7th century Arabia...
In Quran the latter verses (chronogically, not in current Quranic order) are said to replace the previous ones. Most Muslims do the exact opposite and show peaceful verses from the time when Muhammed & believers lived as a minority in Mecca.
Actually that transition is quite nice to show to Muslims.
First it is "Leave each other be" - peace (surah 109. is actually an early sura)
Then "Fight with those who fight you" - retaliation (I cannot remember exact verses but there are quite a number of those)
Then "Fight them till they bow" - world dominion (9:29)
edit: I almost forgot!
If one claims that in Quran latter verses do not override earlier ones, they will not be able to tell whether wine is haram or not :)
Because an earlier verse claims wine is both good & bad 2:219, and does not forbid it....
Similarly, just because earlier verses did not order them to wage war, it doesn't change that the latter verses DO.
But I must say, this is not a good way to argue with Muslims to convert them ... This will inevitably turn into a contest with Christianity (regardless of your not being one), and how Muslims were oppressed and are oppressed and oppressed and oppressed...... It will take 20 seconds for them to forget the argument was about their own belief.
When a Muslim faces this, it feels like an accusation to them and psychological defense mechanisms rise to the challenge against reality.
I find going against the essence of their beliefs much more useful.
In no way am I defending the Qur'an. But a command to kill those people (the Meccans) with whom one is at war prior to 632 should hardly be read as a command to kill Western Christians or Jews in 2012. The OT recounts complete destruction of one's enemies, including the slaughter of infants and the taking of women as slaves, but no Christian leaders advocate this policy of total war today.
Christians, too, seem to feel persecuted by the slightest criticism of their beliefs, so there is very little rational discussion, but what can we expect from adherents to irrational belief systems? Organized religions profess exact knowledge of the desires of supernatural beings and have quite often shown themselves more than willing to destroy human life so as to avoid offending said supernatural beings. It's crazy.
Question: If later verses in the Qur'an supersede earlier ones, how does one determine any sort of order for the suras? They are currently, with the exception of Sura 1, arranged in descending order by length. It makes absolutely no sense to assume that a particular sura is theologically correct by virtue of being shorter. A chronological arrangement would be more logical; a later revelation might reasonably override an earlier one. Have Islamic scholars determined a chronological order? Where can if be found?
Talked with a person that said "I don't know why Islam would come in the way of Science, when Islam was "at its best" science flourished in the Muslim nations and Human Rights were something that Muslims gave to non Muslims when Europeans acted like Barbarians in their own countries. Spain is a good example of how you treated non Muslims".
What is your response to a statement like this? How can you argue with a mind that clearly thinks that Islam is still like this? (if Islam ever really was like this.)
Hello, Ex-Muslim here :)
Well, I simply accept that Islamic world in the middle ages was relatively superior to Catholics of the so called "Christian Dark Ages". As time went by Christians started questioning their beliefs and the advanced as a culture
It should be noted that "Islam at its best" was tolerant to people like Omar Khayyam !!
That is not Islam at its best, that simply Middle Eastern world at its best, and thanks to Islam they lost that soon enough....
"Islam at its best" was Imam Al-Gazali claiming that Avicenna (an important Muslim scientist that contributed to medicine) was a heretic because he was doing philosophy (Avicenna was not even against Islam) and no one caring about it.
"Islam at its worsening" is when people start to listening the likes of Al-Gazali...
"Islam at its worsening" is when people like Omar Khayyam who criticise religion are no longer allowed to be...
Islam at its worst = Islam itself as it was meant to be :)
The reason that the Islamic world was better at that time was because they were going to through a "renaissance" of their own - while they were still Muslims, (just like the people of renaissance Italy were Christians) that speaks nothing about Islam. I think tow events are similar because they both involve city-state setting (lack of an unopposable central authority) and good trade income.
It did not last very long with the Islamic world though...
Islam was never toward advancement but in a certain peroid of history Catholics were racing their intolerance with Islam and winning ....
atheists never submit. to any god!
The Qur'an is not nearly as long as the Bible, and I was able to read it in its entirety. There are parts which are horribly unjust, which justify all of the describtive terms used in the OP. I see these accusations come from Christians more often than nontheists. However, I do not see how the Muslim holy book is one bit worse than the Bible. For every repulsive piece you can comb out of the Qur'an, you can find one equally or more severely unjust in the Bible.
When I read the works of Muslim apologists and scholars like Reza Aslan who defend Islam against accusations of promoting violence, they tend not to re-interpret the verses to appear civil as the Christians do, but instead show the Bible to be just as disgusting so they may claim, correctly, that Islam is judged by a double-standard. They think it hypocritical that people, mostly westerns, pick apart the Muslim holy book while ignoring their own sacred texts.
It appears this aspect of Middle-Eastern and Muslim culture is to be blamed for violence among Muslims, just as much as the text itself. The problem with Islam is not that its texts are exceptionally violent, but that many Muslims have not learned to ignore their sacred texts as many Christians have.
I agree with your post fully, but I do not believe that Muslims learning to ignore their texts is going to be a stable solution....
Islam is not Christianity- and that is not about the texts, but in the historical development... Like the relation of siblings even if they are genetically very similar, just because one of them came later they end up being entirely different people.
Christianity was never forced to content with Islam back during the reforms as Islam is contending with Christianity. Christians -with their own dynamics- changed religion, so they had no trouble accepting change.
Today in the Muslim world an important percent of change is being mediated by these "dialouge between religions" thing, and many Muslims see that as an atrocity - because to them it is Christians who never stop bashing their beliefs, and now it is Christians who ask them to ignore some of their texts.
Even one of the moderate Muslims of Turkey (Yaşar Nuri Öztürk) who is against fundamentalists, is not happy with changing education of religion because Christians want them to.
So long as Islam is "standing against oppression & double standard" (in their eyes) Muslims will not care how atrocious or ridiculous it is....
Ideally, anti-Islamic propaganda should be perfectly secular, and not Christian/Western.. I don't see why some seculars are blind to this and actually support Christians against Islam. Against non-religious criticism (preferably ex-Muslims) Muslims will defend their texts comparing them against up-to-date human morality and not the old testament expansion pack....
Since that ideal is out of the table, I don't have any hopes that Muslims will grow more benign. As of now, they grow more extremist by the day (Turkey is a big exception to this; the reasons behind that would be too long to explain now, sufficient to say that I believe those reasons are not reliable, so Turkey is not going to be a solid fortress for moderate Islam in the long run either)
This difference about Muslims standing in the world only adds to the general moderate religion criticisms by Dawkins and others...
These are the reasons why I don't think we should try to re-enact Western secular development in Muslims countries, or expect it to develop that way.
A lot of Muslim scholars historically are convinced that the Quran is far better in its promotion of gender equality that either the Christian Bible or Western society generally, especially as it was before the sexual revolution. Granted, one can also use the Quran to promote misogyny. I don't dispute that. I am writing a paper right now on Arab (mostly Egyptian) feminism at the turn of the 20th century, and all the pro-feminist (they did not use that term, of course) writing is based at least in part on an idea of Quranic equality of the sexes. The hard-line, oppressive, insular point of view is primarily a reaction to western imperialist efforts to westernize the Middle East. The veil is a prime example. No one gave it much though until Western powers tried to ban it. There's a book called Invented Tradition (I forgot the authors) that describe how the Scottish kilt was an 18th century invention and was never seen as traditional Scottish clothing until the English tried to ban it.
I'm sure we'll have quotes for you, but just read the koran. It's in the library. I'm sure it's on the internet.
they eat each other just like the fundy xitans fail times what? .. centuries I'm sure..
2012 not 212 hello