Who is an Islamophobe ?

[KingMamba]

It was just symbolic - and the symbolism was towards the mindset - if you think everything's fine with the repression in Iran, then we two are at different opposing points of the spectrum of thinking what an evolved society should be and what a society should aspire to evolve into.

Yeah ok it was obvious what you meant when you posted earlier so you can quit the bs. Just because Iran is under a theocracy does not mean it is any worse than what it was in the 70s in fact most Iranian on this very forum even would say Iran has gotten much better even if they do not agree with the regime. Example being Iran is probably scientifically on par with Turkey and it is a theocracy not to mention all the sanctions it has faced over the decades.

If the Islamic texts don't preach violence then there is no reason for someone to misunderstand its injunctions and kill others.

What usually happens is that the people who want to use the texts for violence quote the parts that talk about fighting but leave out the verses prior to them that talk about if being attacked first or the ones following them that says if the other party wants peace you must automatically agree to peace.

 

[Redbull]

What usually happens is that the people who want to use the texts for violence quote the parts that talk about fighting but leave out the verses prior to them that talk about if being attacked first or the ones following them that says if the other party wants peace you must automatically agree to peace.

Ok, now what I'm suggesting is, if there was no Mufti, you would have read the verses in their entirety and understood the context.

 

[KingMamba]

Ok, now what I'm suggesting is, if there was no Mufti, you would have read the verses in their entirety and understood the context.

How about countries like Indonesia, Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Malaysia who have huge Muslim populations that do not speak Arabic they need somebody to teach them but once it is taught it is up to the individual to read the Qur'an by himself if he does not believe something the Mufti is saying. The problem is people in places like Afghanistan just take what they hear at face value and do not question the reasoning behind it.

Especially in this day and age you can find everything on the internet so their are no excuses for Muslims not reading the Qur'an for themselves.

 

[Redbull]

How about countries like Indonesia, Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Malaysia who have huge Muslim populations that do not speak Arabic they need somebody to teach them but once it is taught it is up to the individual to read the Qur'an by himself if he does not believe something the Mufti is saying. The problem is people in places like Afghanistan just take what they hear at face value and do not question the reasoning behind it.

Especially in this day and age you can find everything on the internet so their are no excuses for Muslims not reading the Qur'an for themselves.

All those countries can just read a translation of it, it is better than getting information blindly from a Mullah; also, very few people are going to learn classical Arabic just to read the Quran in its language of origin.

I just don't see why anyone would need these rats: Pray to God five times a day,fast in Ramadan and be a good human being. That's all you need to do.

 

[KingMamba]

All those countries can just read a translation of it, it is better than getting information blindly from a Mullah; also, very few people are going to learn classical Arabic just to read the Quran in its language of origin.

I just don't see why anyone would need these rats: Pray to God five times a day,fast in Ramadan and be a good human being. That's all you need to do.

Actually I read the Qur'an in classical Arabic it sounds beautiful you can just follow the translations as you read. Not all Muftis are bad like the mosque I usually go to is a Wahabbi cleric but hes chill maybe it is because he also has a college degree but I digress.

 

[Raja.Pakistani]

If the Islamic texts don't preach violence then there is no reason for someone to misunderstand its injunctions and kill others.

You did not get the point. Dude certain verses of Quran were revealed for specific event in past..you cannot take them literally without understanding the historical background and context in which they were revealed for example if you find some verses talk about wars in past and say muslim to fight with enemy and kill them..now it was revealed for Muslim who were fighting wth their enemy in wars when they were against each others and you can not take that verse and apply it today and go and kill innocent non muslim..ever heard about something called tafsir of quran?

you have not given me solution for 50 percent illiterate peoples who cannot read and write. how they should read and understand islam without the help of any expert ?

 

[Raja.Pakistani]

All those countries can just read a translation of it, it is better than getting information blindly from a Mullah;

50 percent in rural Pakistan cannot read and write. those who make these translation are also expert and scholars who have learned Arabic

 

[KS]

Dude certain verses of Quran were revealed for specific event in past..you cannot take them literally without understanding the historical background and context

So why persist with those certain verses when they clearly were meant for past events and past as in 1400 years ago with no relevance to today ? Why not remove them so as to remove the source of confusion ?

 

[Raja.Pakistani]

So why persist with those certain verses when they clearly were meant for past events and past as in 1400 years ago with no relevance to today ? Why not remove them so as to remove the source of confusion ?

your logic is weird because by that logic we should remove all history books and historical events which are not relevant to present for example all past incidents

 

[KingMamba]

your logic is weird because by that logic we should remove all history books and historical events which are not relevant to present for example all past incidents

No your logic that you gave is off. Go to your local imam and ask about those verses.

 

[KS]

your logic is weird because by that logic we should remove all history books and historical events which are not relevant to present for example all past incidents

The difference is 1.6 billion people dont follow the history books as the word of God and take it upon themselves to do whatever it says.

 

[Raja.Pakistani]

No your logic that you gave is off. Go to your local imam and ask about those verses.

???

sorry did not get it ..I think you misunderstood something

 

[Raja.Pakistani]

The difference is 1.6 billion people dont follow the history books as the word of God and take it upon themselves to do whatever it says.

well history create conflicts..see the history being taught in Pakistan and india and conflicts it created. You guys are still talking about mughuls and muslim invaders ..what i was saying that historical events have significance . you cannot completely remove history if someone misinterpret it

 

[KingMamba]

???

sorry did not get it ..I think you misunderstood something

Okay let me explain those verses talk about self defense, when the Muslims fought back in the day the order was to do so in self defense however if the enemy sues for peace to accept peace. Therefore since everything written in the Quran is for all times Muslims can only fight in self defense however if the enemy makes an offer for peace they must except it or any death that follows is haram.

 

[KS]

well history create conflicts..see the history being taught in Pakistan and india and conflicts it created. You guys are still talking about mughuls and muslim invaders ..what i was saying that historical events have significance . you cannot completely remove history if someone misinterpret it

Well then start calling Quran as a history book and not the Word of God every letter of which has to be followed by Muslims. That would remove the confusion as well.

You are not getting the point.