The typical perception argument.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
28-10-2014, 03:25 PM
The typical perception argument.
I've been recently in a few arguments against false liberals and muslims about the violent verses in the Quran. Many of their arguments appear to just start with calling me "ignorant" "prejudice" "islamophobic" and that I do not read the Quran like muslims do and that "kill the disbelievers" does not actually mean "kill the disbelievers" because it was written all that time ago and I am interpreting it wrong, as are extremists etc.

My argument is that it is the acclaimed omnipotent word of god and so context should not matter, and if it does, does that not apply to the non-violent verses too? Also, cherry picking JUST the good parts contradicts Islam as it is supposed to be taken as whole and as the word of god, and to be a Muslim is to strive to emulate Muhammad (who was a war-monger). So by cherry picking the good parts and sprinkling fairy dust on the turd, you are not really practicing Islam.

Am I being shortsighted here? Can any body help produce a clear argument to open my view OR something to back up my points? Thanks.

Saints live in flames; wise men, next to them.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-10-2014, 03:32 PM
RE: The typical perception argument.
Um, as far as I can tell any context for "kill the disbelievers" will still result in the death of disbelievers.

Interpretation is a problem with all holy books, hence religions using the same name can be so vastly different.

I would argue that there is no context or interpretation that can make killing disbelievers good.

My two cents.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-10-2014, 03:45 PM
RE: The typical perception argument.
My point exactly.. If you are going to argue that things in 2000 year old holy books are contextualized then what are the scriptures use in the present?

Also, in the passage that commands them to kill disbelievers, it is argued by "scholars" that it means only in self defence and is only permitted if the disbeliever is attempting to kill the muslim first. However, they fail to mention in the same command that it claims disbelief is WORSE THAN MURDER. So a muslim in this case would be permitted to murder any disbeliever at any time as it is offensive to the muslim for someone to disbelieve in their beliefs (this is even permitted in their holy months, when they are on their best behaviour, lol).

Saints live in flames; wise men, next to them.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-10-2014, 04:14 PM
RE: The typical perception argument.
(28-10-2014 03:45 PM)SunnyD1 Wrote:  Also, in the passage that commands them to kill disbelievers, it is argued by "scholars" that it means only in self defence and is only permitted if the disbeliever is attempting to kill the muslim first. However, they fail to mention in the same command that it claims disbelief is WORSE THAN MURDER. So a muslim in this case would be permitted to murder any disbeliever at any time as it is offensive to the muslim for someone to disbelieve in their beliefs (this is even permitted in their holy months, when they are on their best behaviour, lol).

I'd call bull crap on that argument just based solely on how unnecessary it'd be to tell people, "Yeah, um, if someone's trying to kill you, you can kill 'em". Especially two thousand years ago (or however old this religion is).

That, and it'd be utterly pointless to single out unbelievers in that command. It'd be like modern day laws specifically mentioning "If a cashier tries to kill you, you may kill them in self defense".

Popcorn I put more thought into fiction than theists put into reality.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes CleverUsername's post
29-10-2014, 12:18 PM
RE: The typical perception argument.
I would argue there is no valid interpretation for their holy text, their interpretation is just an opinion. Also, there's plenty of evidence that there are a substantial number of Muslims that interpret it exactly that way.

Gods derive their power from post-hoc rationalizations. -The Inquisition

Using the supernatural to explain events in your life is a failure of the intellect to comprehend the world around you. -The Inquisition
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-10-2014, 12:42 PM
RE: The typical perception argument.
kill the disbelievers means kill the disbelievers
stoning to death disobedient kids means stoning to death disobedient kids

its pretty black and white, I don't see how you can interpret that any differently in anyway..................... unless you are willfully intellectually dishonest which is always the case when these arguments crop up
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-10-2014, 12:47 PM (This post was last modified: 29-10-2014 01:18 PM by Ace.)
RE: The typical perception argument.
double post............ I hate it when that happens (if there's a mod then delete it pls)
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-10-2014, 12:49 PM (This post was last modified: 29-10-2014 01:07 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: The typical perception argument.
Ask them for the exact date that it changed from literal to non-literal and how at that time people were supposed to know that it changed.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-10-2014, 01:01 PM
RE: The typical perception argument.
(29-10-2014 12:47 PM)Ace Wrote:  kill the disbelievers means kill the disbelievers
stoning to death disobedient kids means stoning to death disobedient kids

its pretty black and white, I don't see how you can interpret that any differently in anyway..................... unless you are willfully intellectually dishonest which is always the case when these arguments crop up

Who are "disbelievers", though? Atheists only? All non-Muslims? Or even the wrong kind of Muslim (like Sunni vs. Shiite)? There is always room for interpretation. There are plenty of examples of Sunni and Shiite killing each other over their differences, and at the other extreme, Muslims being tolerant of Christians and Jews (because they are "people of the book") -- and probably using the Koran as justification for either extreme.

I will admit that "kill" is unambiguous. The rest of it, not so much.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-10-2014, 01:31 PM
RE: The typical perception argument.
The apologetic I hear lately from muslims on this (and in the media occasionally) is that the jihad verses were "back then" and for Muhammed and initial conquests. I call baloney. If they are going to be fundamental to their book, all muslims are in jihad until the worldwide umma or community is complete.

For radical (fundie) muslims who believe that Ishmael is chosen instead of Issac, the nation of Israel MUST be destroyed as an affront and a living witness that the Koran is invalid.

I'm told atheists on forums like TTA are bitter and angry. If you are not, your posts to me will be respectful, insightful and thoughtful. Prove me wrong by your adherence to decent behavior.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: