Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Eldorado

Islamophobia in the Conservative Party

170 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

odas
2 hours ago, RavenHawk said:

Christians believe that Jesus is the Son of GOD (Trinity), that he became flesh, and that he died on the cross for our sins and was resurrected so that we might have eternal life.  Islam outright denies these core attributes.  There are other comparisons but these are the most important.  The Biblical Jesus would not be second fiddle to the Mahdi.  Isa is a different entity.

 

I know the difference. Now, we have to claims. None can be proven right or wrong in regards to Jesus divinity. It is a mattet of believe, not a matter of historical facts. We actually have three claims, the Jewish one. And if we go outside the three religion we have no mention or evidence of that Jesus ever existed. Again, believes are believes and facts are facts, right? You are trying to use facts in regards to Islam why not use facts when it comes to Christianity?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
odas
13 hours ago, RoofGardener said:

Hi there Odas. Well, this is what I've found so far. 

Well, everything I'm about to say comes from Google. (I'm not a Koranic scholar, and I don't speak Arabic, let alone ancient Arabic). 
when I googled "smite their necks", I came across THIS website - http://corpus.quran.com/.

There are TWO verses that discuss neck smiting: Chapter 4 of verse 47, (47:4), and chapter 12 of verse 8 (8:12). 

I'm going to start with the latter: 8:12, as it is the simplest. The text goes... 

[Remember] when your Lord inspired to the angels, "I am with you, so strengthen those who have believed. I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieved, so strike [them] upon the necks and strike from them every fingertip."

http://corpus.quran.com/translation.jsp?chapter=8&verse=12

That seems a bit vague, so I looked at the preceding (and succeeding) verses. Take a gander for yourself, but they seem to constitute a manual of arms, of how to behave in battle. But not a specific battle, or a specific enemy (other than 'disbelievers').. it is ANY battle against disbelievers, or so I interpret it. Note that the title of chapter 8 is... "The Spoils of War". 

Then we have 47:4, which is MUCH more interesting. http://corpus.quran.com/translation.jsp?chapter=47&verse=4

"So when you meet those who disbelieve [in battle], strike [their] necks until, when you have inflicted slaughter upon them, then secure their bonds, and either [confer] favor afterwards or ransom [them] until the war lays down its burdens. That [is the command]. And if Allah had willed, He could have taken vengeance upon them [Himself], but [He ordered armed struggle] to test some of you by means of others. And those who are killed in the cause of Allah - never will He waste their deeds."

Another translation is "Therefore, when ye meet the Unbelievers (in fight), smite at their necks; At length, when ye have thoroughly subdued them, bind a bond firmly (on them): thereafter (is the time for) either generosity or ransom: ......"

And another; "So, when you meet (in fight Jihad in Allah's Cause), those who disbelieve smite at their necks till when you have killed and wounded many of them, then bind a bond firmly (on them, i.e. take them as captives)."

Now, two things arise from this. If you are in a battle, then neck-smiting is certainly the order of the day. You can argue about the legitimacy of the battle until the camels come home, but you can't argue about neck smiting !

Except... except.. notice how the references to the battle are in brackets ? Why is that ? 
Well, because... if you look at the morphology of the original arabic text, the word battle, or jihad, or conflict, DOES NOT EXIST.
http://corpus.quran.com/wordbyword.jsp?chapter=47&verse=4#(47:4:1)

 They have been added by the translators. The original arabic text never refers to a battle, it merely refers to unbelievers, and the desirability of smiting their necks. Interesting huh ? I wouldn't mind betting that any English translation of the Koran you can buy has this "battle" inserted, even though it does NOT exist in the original arabic text. Is this a deliberate attempt to "whitewash" the Koran to make it more palatable to Western sensibilities ? Neck-smiting in battle is understandable; random neck-smiting of unbelievers would NOT be.

In terms of applicability; the preceding and succeeding chapters do not talk about smiting, but just generally about worshipping Allah. There is nothing in the text that puts context or limitations on the neck-smiting, other than it must be done to unbelievers. 

Conclusion ? The Neck Smiting verses refer to killing of unbelievers 'wherever they may be found', and is NOT limited to a particular time or location. 
 

47: 4 is a Medinian surah revelation. Again, it clearly states "when you meet in battle". Not inserted but a veified part of the verse. Why some translations have it inserted in brackets i do not know.

While 8:12 referes to Badr, 47:4 I can not find the connection to a specific battle and you are right it does not really limit itself to time and location.To be fair, in any war, fought by any group, for any reason, soldiers are there to kill by any means, bullet, bazooka, bomb or in close fight 1500 years ago with the sword and the neck has been proven to be a weak area.

Now, may I add that "unbelievers" are polythestic religions and it does not refere to Christians, Jews, and Samaritans. I appologise to pagans but I did not write the Quran.

Thank you Roofgardener. I appreciate the conversation and I have learned that some war suras do not refere to a specific battle as I have claimed before.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RabidMongoose
On ‎08‎/‎03‎/‎2019 at 1:11 PM, Eldorado said:

"George Osborne has attacked the Conservatives' "problem" with Islamophobia and urged the party to do more to tackle it.

The former chancellor-turned-editor of the Evening Standard newspaper called on journalists to "shine a light" on some Tory members' and elected officials' prejudice towards Muslims.

He told Sky News that both Islamophobia in the Conservatives and antisemitism in the Labour Party "shouldn't be happening at all"."

Full report at Minster FM:https://www.minsterfm.com/news/national/2823636/ex-chancellor-george-osborne-tells-conservatives-to-fix-islamophobia-problem/

At Sky News: https://news.sky.com/story/ex-chancellor-george-osborne-tells-conservatives-to-fix-islamophobia-problem-11658555

Neither should MPs be subverting the British Peoples democratic views when it comes to immigration.

This is the cause of most of the resentment towards foreigners being portrayed as racism. 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hetrodoxly
9 hours ago, odas said:

Exactely the same happened with Christianity, being a bible part or not. And it happened while Islam was not even established.

Where and when.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hetrodoxly
2 hours ago, odas said:

I know the difference. Now, we have to claims. None can be proven right or wrong in regards to Jesus divinity. It is a mattet of believe, not a matter of historical facts. We actually have three claims, the Jewish one. And if we go outside the three religion we have no mention or evidence of that Jesus ever existed. Again, believes are believes and facts are facts, right? You are trying to use facts in regards to Islam why not use facts when it comes to Christianity?

There's lot's of none Christian references to prove Jesus existed, there are no none Muslim referances to prove Mohammed existed.

Revelation 22:13

"I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end."

Aramaic Bible in Plain English
Yeshua said to him, “I AM THE LIVING GOD, The Way and The Truth and The Life; no man comes to my Father but by me alone.”

John 1:1, 14 (RSV) In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. . . . [14] And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, full of grace and truth; we have beheld his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
odas
1 hour ago, hetrodoxly said:

There's lot's of none Christian references to prove Jesus existed, there are no none Muslim referances to prove Mohammed existed.

Revelation 22:13

"I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end."

Aramaic Bible in Plain English
Yeshua said to him, “I AM THE LIVING GOD, The Way and The Truth and The Life; no man comes to my Father but by me alone.”

John 1:1, 14 (RSV) In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. . . . [14] And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, full of grace and truth; we have beheld his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father.

Wait, what? Those are historical facts?

Ouuukaaayy then.

 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hetrodoxly
8 hours ago, odas said:

Wait, what? Those are historical facts?

Ouuukaaayy then.

 

You need to read it again.

 

8 hours ago, odas said:

There's lot's of none Christian references to prove Jesus existed, there are no none Muslim referances to prove Mohammed existed. note the full stop.

Tacitus, Roman.

Pliny the younger, Roman.

Josephus, Jewish.

Babylonian Talmud.

Lucian, Greek.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RoofGardener
16 hours ago, odas said:

47: 4 is a Medinian surah revelation. Again, it clearly states "when you meet in battle". Not inserted but a veified part of the verse. Why some translations have it inserted in brackets i do not know.

Odas, the term 'battle' doesn't exist in the original Arabic version of the Koran. Nor any word relating to conflict. Indeed, no words at all. There are no words inbetween "So when you meet those who disbelieve" and "strike their necks". Nor is there anything later in the verse that might modify the first sentence. 

The use of brackets in a translated text usually indicates that the words have been inserted by the translator, usually to improve context, or to eliminate differences in grammatical laws between the two languages. (for example, inserting personal pronouns). Notice in the link I sent you how three of the translations use this technique, but each uses different words. "battle", "in fight", "in Jihad for Allah". Again, this suggests that the translators are 'filling in', and one has to ask what their justification is for this. My suspicion is that they are editorialising; inserting novel phrases into the translation in order to ... ahem... "assist"  the reader in their understanding of what the verses actually mean. 

On a similar note, it is interesting that the translation written by John Arberry -  one of the few non-muslims to have translated the koran - makes no mention of battle. He translates as "....When you meet the unbelievers, smite their necks.."

These are just two verses that include the phrase "smite their necks". There are AMPLE more versus in the Koran glorifying, or encouraging, slaughter of unbelievers. I blundered across THIS little jem yesterday.. : 

".... [Theirs is] like the custom of the people of Pharaoh and of those before them. They denied the signs of their Lord, so We destroyed them for their sins, and We drowned the people of Pharaoh. And all [of them] were wrongdoers..."

(8:54) 

Obviously, this is a refference to Moses. However, the point seems clear: it is permissible - indeed desirable - to kill unbelievers. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RavenHawk
Posted (edited)
20 hours ago, odas said:

I know the difference. Now, we have to claims. None can be proven right or wrong in regards to Jesus divinity. It is a mattet of believe, not a matter of historical facts. We actually have three claims, the Jewish one. And if we go outside the three religion we have no mention or evidence of that Jesus ever existed. Again, believes are believes and facts are facts, right? You are trying to use facts in regards to Islam why not use facts when it comes to Christianity?

I think we do a disservice to facts, beliefs, and the truth by trying to make them opposites of each other.  People want empirical proof of the supernatural in the natural world and that just doesn’t exist.  I can show the same dissonance in the natural world.  Empirical evidence requires direct observation or measurement.  What happens when that is not possible?  For example (and I just happen to have one handy), if we were back in history a few centuries and I tried to tell you that matter was made up of something called atoms, you’d think I was full of it.  There was no means to measure atoms or even to see them.  I would have no empirical proof at that time.  Does this mean that atoms are not real and they remain unreal until they are discovered?

 

We cannot see the supernatural in the natural world.  But we can see how the supernatural effects things in the natural world.  I can show this mathematically.  I’ve used this example before so if you’ve seen it, bear with me.  Have you read “Flatland” by AE Abbott?  It is a story of a person from the 3D world that travels to the 2D world and describes the events that follow.  To start off, let’s look at the direction “up” in both worlds.  To someone in 2D world, “up” would be either in the X- or Y- axis.  In the 3D world, “up” is along the Z-axis.  The 2D world has no reference to understand the Z-axis.  People in the 2D world are polygons or lines.  To an untrained eye, people in 2D world would all appear like a line, but with polygons, one can discern the shape via “depth” perception.  So when a 3D person steps into the 2D world what happens?  If the person was to pass through the plane, it would look like the cross sections of an MRI.  To the 2D person, the 3D person would appear as a strange oscillating polygon.  Clear so far?

 

In the 2D world a long line would be a nearly unsurmountable obstacle.  One could only go around one end or the other.  The 3D person could just step over.  But how would that look to someone in the 2D world?  As the 3D person steps over the line (out of the plane), they would completely disappear from view and then reappear on the other side.  The 2D people would claim that a miracle occurred.  Did a miracle occur or just something that the 2D people cannot perceive or prove?  Mathematics has defined up to 11 dimensions.  More have been theorized.  How would a person from 11D world appear in the 3D world?  How would 3D people perceive “up” from the 11D perspective?  GOD lives out beyond the highest dimension. 

 

How then will any of us be able to empirically prove GOD?  This is what Gravity is.  It is a force from an extra-dimensional realm.  We can’t see gravity because it is just beyond our perception.  Although, we easily see how it affects our natural world.  Gravity just may be a cocoon that binds this universe and encompasses all 11 dimensions?  It permeates all 11 and effects everything within it.  This is what miracles are.  They are the manifestation of actions in this realm by the supernatural.  Now one many not consider the local effects of Gravity as a miracle but if we look at it through the Anthropic Principle, it just might be?  When GOD transcends these dimensions, we witness a miracle.  One was GOD becoming flesh.

 

Edited by RavenHawk
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RavenHawk
1 hour ago, RoofGardener said:

 the point seems clear: it is permissible - indeed desirable - to kill unbelievers. 

There is also no limit to age or gender, however, enslaving women and children as spoils could be profitable.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
odas
1 hour ago, RoofGardener said:

Odas, the term 'battle' doesn't exist in the original Arabic version of the Koran. Nor any word relating to conflict. Indeed, no words at all. There are no words inbetween "So when you meet those who disbelieve" and "strike their necks". Nor is there anything later in the verse that might modify the first sentence. 

The use of brackets in a translated text usually indicates that the words have been inserted by the translator, usually to improve context, or to eliminate differences in grammatical laws between the two languages. (for example, inserting personal pronouns). Notice in the link I sent you how three of the translations use this technique, but each uses different words. "battle", "in fight", "in Jihad for Allah". Again, this suggests that the translators are 'filling in', and one has to ask what their justification is for this. My suspicion is that they are editorialising; inserting novel phrases into the translation in order to ... ahem... "assist"  the reader in their understanding of what the verses actually mean. 

On a similar note, it is interesting that the translation written by John Arberry -  one of the few non-muslims to have translated the koran - makes no mention of battle. He translates as "....When you meet the unbelievers, smite their necks.."

These are just two verses that include the phrase "smite their necks". There are AMPLE more versus in the Koran glorifying, or encouraging, slaughter of unbelievers. I blundered across THIS little jem yesterday.. : 

".... [Theirs is] like the custom of the people of Pharaoh and of those before them. They denied the signs of their Lord, so We destroyed them for their sins, and We drowned the people of Pharaoh. And all [of them] were wrongdoers..."

(8:54) 

Obviously, this is a refference to Moses. However, the point seems clear: it is permissible - indeed desirable - to kill unbelievers. 

I was looking up different translations of the Koran. The term " battle" apears in some without brackets, in some with, in some the term is " in fight" and in some the term does not exist at all.

I admitt this is very confusing. The bosnian translation that I have uses the term battle without brackets.

In an explanation by bosnian translators, one notes that is nearly impossible to translate the Koran word for ford correctly to other languages due to the nature of the arabic language. 

I speak three languages and I know the difficulty of translating word for word and still keep the context.

This is actually interesting and I will have to do some more research to see what the original verse says. My best bet would be to ask an arab I guess.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
odas

I use the translation of the late Besim Korkut, a bosnian Imam, who was the first one to translate the Koran from the original arabic language to Bosnian. 

Before him we had translations but none of them were translated from arabic but from existing translations in other languages like Turkish, French and English.

While there are some minor flaws in the Korkut translation it is regarded as the most accurate translation from the arabic so far.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Setton
On 14/03/2019 at 2:23 AM, RavenHawk said:

It’s not about whataboutism.  It’s not about the numbers.  It’s about the doctrine.  Yes, there were atrocities committed in the name of GOD, but it was never established by the doctrine.  It is usually initiated by human hands.  This kind of behavior is institutionalized in Islam.  Where does Jesus say to kill all the unbelievers wherever you find them?  Doesn’t he say, he who is without sin, cast the first stone?

That is from he 9th Surah. What those with a prejudice against Islam tend to be ignorant of is that the Quran didn't pop into existence spontaneously. It was revealed to Muhammad gradually. 

The newer Surah replace the older ones.

The disagreement is over the order. Basically, everyone agrees that this is a very early verse revealed in the years when Islam was young and vulnerable. It was then replaced by contradictory verses.

The only people who disagree with this are pretty much you and ISIS. Congratulations. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RavenHawk
1 hour ago, Setton said:

That is from he 9th Surah. What those with a prejudice against Islam tend to be ignorant of is that the Quran didn't pop into existence spontaneously. It was revealed to Muhammad gradually. 

Yeah, about 23 years but what does that have to do with prejudice?

 

The newer Surah replace the older ones.

It’s call Abrogation

 

The disagreement is over the order. Basically, everyone agrees that this is a very early verse revealed in the years when Islam was young and vulnerable. It was then replaced by contradictory verses.

Every source I’ve seen agree that it was revealed at 113th (between 630 and 632) and there is some debate that 114 should be placed earlier, which puts At-Tawba as pretty much the last Medinan Surah.

 

The only people who disagree with this are pretty much you and ISIS. Congratulations. 

I think you should reevaluate your sources.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Setton
1 minute ago, RavenHawk said:

I think you should reevaluate your sources.

Well mine is a professor of Islamic studies who advises the UK government on these matters. 

What's yours? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RavenHawk
3 minutes ago, Setton said:

Well mine is a professor of Islamic studies who advises the UK government on these matters. 

What's yours? 

Then I think that the UK needs to find a new advisor.  I’ll just make it easy.  Start with googling “chronological order of surahs” and then just start ticking off every entry.  Then do the same with “when was surah tawba revealed”.  And then come back and tell us the results.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hetrodoxly
13 minutes ago, Setton said:

Well mine is a professor of Islamic studies who advises the UK government on these matters. if it's used to change 

What's yours? 

He dosen't know what he's talking about or he's practising Taqiyya, Naskh (abrogation) is only used to clear up contradiction, if it's used to change the detail or outcome of a battle it's admitting the first revelation was a lie.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wickian

I'm not ashamed to say I want nothing to do with Islam and would rather it never spread into my life or general area of living.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Setton
Posted (edited)
7 hours ago, hetrodoxly said:

He dosen't know what he's talking about or he's practising Taqiyya, 

Right. I'm sure Henry is practising Taqiyya.... 

And i don't really have time to do deeper research myself so I think I'll leave it there but I think I might just take his assessment over that of two random people on the internet. 

Edited by Setton
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RoofGardener
16 hours ago, Setton said:

That is from he 9th Surah. What those with a prejudice against Islam tend to be ignorant of is that the Quran didn't pop into existence spontaneously. It was revealed to Muhammad gradually. 

The newer Surah replace the older ones.

The disagreement is over the order. Basically, everyone agrees that this is a very early verse revealed in the years when Islam was young and vulnerable. It was then replaced by contradictory verses.

The only people who disagree with this are pretty much you and ISIS. Congratulations. 

Actually, it DID pop into existence spontaneously ! At least in its written form. 

It was compiled by the third Caliph, Uthman ibn Affan. He then caused all other written copies, fragments, and alternative versions of verses to be destroyed. It would be interesting to know WHAT was in those alternate versions and fragments. In essence, the third Caliph sub-edited Mohamed's actual words. He effectively created Islam as we know it today

Setton, the problem with your thesis is that the current written Koran, and all of its authorised translations, are considered the word of Mohamed, the supreme example. There is no consistent list of which surah are abrogated. There are no versions with the abrogated verses removed. You take it or leave it. 

And that is BEFORE we get onto the tangled web of the Hadiths, which are ALSO considered Scripture. Or not. As the case may be. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hetrodoxly
1 hour ago, RoofGardener said:

Actually, it DID pop into existence spontaneously ! At least in its written form. 

It was compiled by the third Caliph, Uthman ibn Affan. He then caused all other written copies, fragments, and alternative versions of verses to be destroyed. It would be interesting to know WHAT was in those alternate versions and fragments. In essence, the third Caliph sub-edited Mohamed's actual words. He effectively created Islam as we know it today

Setton, the problem with your thesis is that the current written Koran, and all of its authorised translations, are considered the word of Mohamed, the supreme example. There is no consistent list of which surah are abrogated. There are no versions with the abrogated verses removed. You take it or leave it. 

And that is BEFORE we get onto the tangled web of the Hadiths, which are ALSO considered Scripture. Or not. As the case may be. 

None of Uthmans Qurans are still in existence so we don't even know what was in them, most of the Islamic world use the Hafs Quran and that wasn't canonized until 1923 (Cairo Quran) there are more than 20 variations of the Quran being used in the world.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Setton
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, RoofGardener said:

Actually, it DID pop into existence spontaneously ! At least in its written form. 

It was compiled by the third Caliph, Uthman ibn Affan. He then caused all other written copies, fragments, and alternative versions of verses to be destroyed. It would be interesting to know WHAT was in those alternate versions and fragments. In essence, the third Caliph sub-edited Mohamed's actual words. He effectively created Islam as we know it today

Setton, the problem with your thesis is that the current written Koran, and all of its authorised translations, are considered the word of Mohamed, the supreme example. There is no consistent list of which surah are abrogated. There are no versions with the abrogated verses removed. You take it or leave it. 

And that is BEFORE we get onto the tangled web of the Hadiths, which are ALSO considered Scripture. Or not. As the case may be. 

Absolutely there is no consistent list. That's how certain groups are able to justify their actions. But there are areas where the overwhelming majority agree. Even Al qaeda oppose unnecessary killing of children for example. 

And Hadiths are scripture but cannot overrule surra. 

And i can't take credit for any of this argument. As above it's not my thesis. 

Edited by Setton

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RoofGardener
28 minutes ago, hetrodoxly said:

None of Uthmans Qurans are still in existence so we don't even know what was in them, most of the Islamic world use the Hafs Quran and that wasn't canonized until 1923 (Cairo Quran) there are more than 20 variations of the Quran being used in the world.

Seriously ? :o 

I had no idea. That's... very interesting. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RoofGardener
Posted (edited)
25 minutes ago, Setton said:

Absolutely there is no consistent list. That's how certain groups are able to justify their actions. But there are areas where the overwhelming majority agree. Even Al qaeda oppose unnecessary killing of children for example. 

And Hadiths are scripture but cannot overrule surra. 

And i can't take credit for any of this argument. As above it's not my thesis. 

I think the problem there is the definition of "unnecessary". The attack on the twin towers probably killed children. Al Quada would have known this - or at least anticipated this - in advance. 

It's like that famous Surah.... 5:33. 

..The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger, and strive with might and main for mischief through the land is: execution, or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides, or exile from the land: that is their disgrace in this world, and a heavy punishment is theirs in the Hereafter

What constitutes "mischief in the land" ? Murder ? Robbery ? Aubergine cultivation ? disagreement ? revolt ? Being Christian ? Being a nonbeliever ? Making rude comments about muslim demands ? It's a TERRIBLY convenient phrase for forming a theofascist totalitarian state, isn't it ? 

Edited by RoofGardener
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.