Talk Religion And Be Nice About It

[Monkey King]

@Codus:

So I know this post above is pretty old, but this actually leads to why the Muslim community is so fucked up. As the Quran says, Muhammad was just a man, not an omnipotent being. It's often spoken of how Muhammad was a fair and just man at the time he ruled, but he was far from being a politician. He had absolutely no experience in it, but with God's messages and guidance he did well enough to at least set up basic socio-political norms as well state treasury systems.

His inexperience can also be seen in his hadits about Itjihad (and no, Jihad and Itjihad are totally different things), where if one cannot find the answers to a certain societal problem in either the Quran or Hadits, one is allowed to make his own original decision based upon careful consideration of the two texts. It's basically a how to on learning on the fly. And that's pretty much how Muhammad dabbled in politics.

His former enemies on the other hand, was more experienced and what's worse, he only ruled for about 2-3 years. Muhammad didn't have the experience to foresee infighting in the future and this is how his former enemies took advantage of the political field and that is how everything got fucked up till today.

What thing is fucked up today that the Rashidun/Ummayyad Caliphs caused??

[Codus]

Put simply, after Muhammad passed away, there was a lot of infighting on who should take Muhammad's place as leader of the Ummah. The first two Caliphs were chosen without any arguments because they were the most respected of Muhammad's friends, the other three, not so much… They didn't have the kind of standing that the first two had whether it's their wisdom or strength. As such, it was easy for the clans to stir up infighting for the right to lead the people.

[Monkey King]

@Codus:

Put simply, after Muhammad passed away, there was a lot of infighting on who should take Muhammad's place as leader of the Ummah. The first two Caliphs were chosen without any arguments because they were the most respected of Muhammad's friends, the other three, not so much… They didn't have the kind of standing that the first two had whether it's their wisdom or strength. As such, it was easy for the clans to stir up infighting for the right to lead the people.

Yes I know all that. But you're implying a present tense to this. And even something specifically Muslim about it.
Jesus being divine on some level didn't remotely avoid infighting over leadership. Hell there was infighting and leadership squabbles over defining in what way he was divine.
Arab control spreading so easily in the Middle East/North Africa at the expense of the Romans had a ton to do with Christian infighting.

The Roman government (so the church based in Constantinople) was officially Dyophysite, which lined up with Greek speakers mostly. The majority of Christians in the Levant/Mesopotamia/Egypt were Monophysite, lining up with Aramaic and Coptic speakers mostly.

Dyophysite: Regarding Jesus as having two connected natures, human and divine.
Monophysite: Regarding Jesus as being predominately divine.

And the Roman government was persecuting the Monophysite communities, regarding them as heretics.
So in swoops the Arab/Muslim invaders, sweeping out the Roman armies. And frankly most of the locals (aside from the Greek locals) were a-ok with that.

[Femme]

What Monkey King said. I don't see how not agreeing that Jesus is the son of God leads to the Muslim community being "fucked up."

Edit: Also just a friendly reminder to glance at the thread title in case this discussion starts veering into rude language.

[Codus]

@Monkey:

Yes I know all that. But you're implying a present tense to this. And even something specifically Muslim about it.
Jesus being divine on some level didn't remotely avoid infighting over leadership. Hell there was infighting and leadership squabbles over defining in what way he was divine.
Arab control spreading so easily in the Middle East/North Africa at the expense of the Romans had a ton to do with Christian infighting.

The Roman government (so the church based in Constantinople) was officially Dyophysite, which lined up with Greek speakers mostly. The majority of Christians in the Levant/Mesopotamia/Egypt were Monophysite, lining up with Aramaic and Coptic speakers mostly.

Dyophysite: Regarding Jesus as having two connected natures, human and divine.
Monophysite: Regarding Jesus as being predominately divine.

And the Roman government was persecuting the Monophysite communities, regarding them as heretics.
So in swoops the Arab/Muslim invaders, sweeping out the Roman armies. And frankly most of the locals (aside from the Greek locals) were a-ok with that.

Ah, I apologize. I should've been clearer on that part. What I am referring to in Muslims is the community, not the religion. You're absolutely right that it doesn't have anything to do with the religion itself, the real problem is how the various clans in Muhammad's time politicized it after his passing. I don't recall Muhammad having ever introduced secularism in state matters. But if my fellow Muslim around here can direct me if it's true, by all means.

The argument dividing the Muslim community is whether their interpretation of the Quran and Hadits is correct. And that is where the various clans defined themselves by. Put simply, it's an ideological battle. But at the same time, it was simply a means of gaining political power.

@Femme:

What Monkey King said. I don't see how not agreeing that Jesus is the son of God leads to the Muslim community being "fucked up."

Edit: Also just a friendly reminder to glance at the thread title in case this discussion starts veering into rude language.

Well… When I say fucked up, I mean it in the most objective and nicest way possible. That, and I'm Muslim. Also, I don't understand why you brought Jesus into this?:wassat: I was only talking about Muhammad.

[Monkey King]

@Codus:

Ah, I apologize. I should've been clearer on that part. What I am referring to in Muslims is the community, not the religion. You're absolutely right that it doesn't have anything to do with the religion itself, the real problem is how the various clans in Muhammad's time politicized it after his passing. I don't recall Muhammad having ever introduced secularism in state matters. But if my fellow Muslim around here can direct me if it's true, by all means. .

In Muhammad's lifetime I don't think anyone had even conceived of creating a state out of what was started yet.
And even the first incursions outside Arabia have a distinct tone of a very Arab oriented community (in spite of the universalist messages of the religion). With the religion riding on top of it.
To the extent that I'm pretty sure some Christian Arab tribes actually got exempt from the Jizya tax. Due to being Arab.

The argument dividing the Muslim community is whether their interpretation of the Quran and Hadits is correct. And that is where the various clans defined themselves by. Put simply, it's an ideological battle. But at the same time, it was simply a means of gaining political power.

Essentially the same thing in Christianity. You had the ideological layer with the "Which books are canon, how should we ritualize stuff, what exactly was Jesus." laid on top of like four or so different places claiming a central importance to the religion (Rome, Constantinople/Istanbul, Antioch/Antakya, and Alexandria).

If you look into the already small Middle Eastern Christian minorities you find like three different strands everywhere.
You'll find churches that are loyal to Rome, churches loyal to Constantinople, and churches loyal to their own local strand.
Like obviously Antakya and Alexandria aren't the major Christian centers the other two are (especially Rome). But there's still dudes claiming the "crown" such as it is.
Lets look at Antakya!
How many people claiming to be the patriarch of Antakya?
A-onea! A-twoa! A-threea! A-foura! A-fivea!
Five! Five silly squabbling claims!

In order!
1. Greek Eastern Orthodox….loyal to Rome instead of Constantinople!
2. Assyrian Oriental Orthodox...loyal to Rome instead of alone!
3. Maronite Catholics....loyal to Rome!
4. Greek Eastern Orthodox....loyal to Constantinople, not Rome!
5. Assyrian Oriental Orthodox....loyal to itself!

[RoboBlue]

We basically have no reliable historical records of Jesus's life, so there isn't really any way to compare his plans for the church with Muhammed's.

@Monkey:

In Muhammad's lifetime I don't think anyone had even conceived of creating a state out of what was started yet.

What do you mean by state? He established laws and taxes for a group of people under his dominion.

[Femme]

@Codus:

Ah, I apologize. I should've been clearer on that part. What I am referring to in Muslims is the community, not the religion. You're absolutely right that it doesn't have anything to do with the religion itself, the real problem is how the various clans in Muhammad's time politicized it after his passing. I don't recall Muhammad having ever introduced secularism in state matters.

In legislature specifically, no, he never advocated secularism. He is accepted as a prophet who is guided by God, so the legal system was based entirely on what was revealed in the Quran, and the secondary level is his actions and words that went into detail about those laws. The khalifa was to lead in accordance with those sources.

The argument dividing the Muslim community is whether their interpretation of the Quran and Hadits is correct.

Between Sunnis and Shias, that's definitely the dividing factor, because the books of Hadith are completely different. As a Sunni I would say that at an ideological level, what divides sunnis is mostly culture's effect on the religion and not ideology, because the four madhahib (schools of thought) are all seen as correct in their approaches of jurisprudence. There's no absolute right or absolute wrong, only stronger evidence and weaker evidence. So you'll never see a maliki refusing to associate with a hanafi on basis of religion. They might have strong opinions on what the best opinion is on different matters but that's about it.

And that is where the various clans defined themselves by. Put simply, it's an ideological battle. But at the same time, it was simply a means of gaining political power.

What started the first division in Islam could be seen as a power struggle but I would say it was more ideological than political. The difference was that one party placed Ali and Muhammad's family as having being given the divine right to lead (shias, although that was defined much later on) while the other party says that this isn't the case, because firstly it is a notion that isn't seen as acceptable in the Quran or Hadith, and secondly in doing so it raises Ali and his family to a level of reverence that isn't acceptable in their interpretation of Islam (sunnis).

So yes, outwardly it is about politics, but inwardly it's about religious interpretation.

Well… When I say fucked up, I mean it in the most objective and nicest way possible. That, and I'm Muslim. Also, I don't understand why you brought Jesus into this?:wassat: I was only talking about Muhammad.

Because the whole point of my post that you quoted was about me not agreeing with Jesus being divine, and then you responded with:

So I know this post above is pretty old, but this actually leads to why the Muslim community is so fucked up.

–- Update From New Post Merge ---

@Codus:

Muhammad didn't have the experience to foresee infighting in the future and this is how his former enemies took advantage of the political field and that is how everything got fucked up till today.

Infighting and division was foreseen.

Narrated AbuHurayrah:
The Prophet (ﷺ) said: The Jews were split up into seventy-one or seventy-two sects; and the Christians were split up into seventy one or seventy-two sects; and my community will be split up into seventy-three sects.

Sunan Abi Dawud 4596

[Codus]

@Femme:

Infighting and division was foreseen.

I really need to read up on my dad's collection of hadits sometime…. But honestly, the irony here is rich. Looks like we've done a fine job of upholding Muhammad's hadits eh? sarcasm

[Femme]

@Codus:

I really need to read up on my dad's collection of hadits sometime…. But honestly, the irony here is rich. Looks like we've done a fine job of upholding Muhammad's hadits eh? sarcasm

The point is that the global Muslim community was not foretold to be in perfect unity onwards because that's just not how humanity works. There will be differences of opinion, there will be division, that's why the whole system of chain of narration was put in place, to preserve the authenticity of Islam.

There would be no need to do that if we were all perfectly united. Other narrations of this Hadith says "all will enter hell except one",[hide] It was narrated from Anas bin Malik that the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) said:
‘The Children of Israel split into seventy-one sects, and my nation will split into seventy-two, all of which will be in Hell apart from one, which is the main body.”

Sunan Ibn Majah 3993[/hide]so basically the muslim's task is to transcend the inevitable division, and do their best to be among that one.

[Codus]

@Femme:

The point is that the global Muslim community was not foretold to be in perfect unity onwards because that's just not how humanity works. There will be differences of opinion, there will be division, that's why the whole system of chain of narration was put in place, to preserve the authenticity of Islam.

There would be no need to do that if we were all perfectly united. Other narrations of this Hadith says "all will enter hell except one",[hide] It was narrated from Anas bin Malik that the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) said:
‘The Children of Israel split into seventy-one sects, and my nation will split into seventy-two, all of which will be in Hell apart from one, which is the main body.”

Sunan Ibn Majah 3993[/hide]so basically the muslim's task is to transcend the inevitable division, and do their best to be among that one.

Agreed. But sadly, we all know how things ended up. This is my personal opinion, but I think if I had to name exactly ONE flaw that Muhammad had, it was that he was too naive. He foresaw the infighting, but didn't seem to try and take concrete steps to prevent them from happening, aside from a warning. I think, that he trusted his people too much to believe they could face and reject any sort of infighting once he passed away.

[Femme]

@Codus:

Agreed. But sadly, we all know how things ended up. This is my personal opinion, but I think if I had to name exactly ONE flaw that Muhammad had, it was that he was too naive. He foresaw the infighting, but didn't seem to try and take concrete steps to prevent them from happening, aside from a warning. I think, that he trusted his people too much to believe they could face and reject any sort of infighting once he passed away.

The thing is that the Islamic opinion of Muhammad's task on earth as a prophet wasn't to create a utopia with perfect Muslim robots who do everything perfectly. His task in the Islamic opinion was to bring the Quran to mankind, reestablish islam (because note for other readers: Muslims believe all prophets, including Jesus were Muslim, however since jesus' time his commands to his people, I.e the bible, were corrupted) and then leave his followers with the laws and tools to navigate the rest of our time on earth. He was not inhuman, and he didn't expect us to not face problems within our ummah (Muslim community). However the Islamic opinion is that Islam was completed with him (Surah Al-Maida 5:3) so he did no more or less than what God determined was needed.

Heck, another foretelling of our inevitable division is the coming of the Mahdi before the Anti-Christ and Jesus in the last days, the Mahdi would be the return of a righteous and guided khalifa after a long period of tyranny and injustice:

Narrated AbuSa'id al-Khudri:
The Prophet (ﷺ) said: The Mahdi will be of my stock, and will have a broad forehead a prominent nose. He will fill the earth will equity and justice as it was filled with oppression and tyranny, and he will rule for seven years.

Sunan Abi Dawud

Ruling means an established Islamic society, which means the return of a proper Islamic state that goes beyond countries or borders like how it once was. The fact that we have no Islamic state now and the prophecy that one will be established in future means that we were prophesied to be divided before then. However the constant advice again and again by him and in the Quran was to "hold on to the Quran and Sunnah" no matter what happens, and so the belief is that we were given enough, and we are not missing anything.

[Monkey King]

@RoboBlue:

What do you mean by state? He established laws and taxes for a group of people under his dominion.

Establishing rules doesn't make one a statesman, or what is being given rules a state.
This was a heavily tribal society, before and after his time in the spotlight. Free of governments and mostly based around clan affiliation. Even in the cities, let alone the super intense form under the outright nomads.
Referring to them as "taxes" strikes as poor translation as well, and some translators go with "tribute" which much more accurately reflects the Arabian society.

[wolfwood]

So if i'm understanding things correctly Muhammed is deemed to have been the living ideal one should strive to emulate.

Yet it's emphasized that he is just a normal human being. Those two things seem contradictory to me.

Maybe one of our many AP scholars could explain to me how things add up from a religious viewpoint.

[Lord Gaimon]

It isn't emphasized that he is normal, just that he isn't god/related to god. But he's supposed to be the purest person ever because god removed all evil from his heart when he was a kid.

[wolfwood]

@Lord:

It isn't emphasized that he's is normal, just that he isn't god/related to god. But he's supposed to be the purest normal person ever because god removed all evil from his heart when he was a kid.

So he is in fact beyond human?

[Lord Gaimon]

@wolfwood:

So he is in fact beyond human?

Muslims don't consider him beyond human but the best human possible.

[wolfwood]

@Lord:

Muslims don't consider him beyond human but the best human possible.

But if god removed his human flaws when he created him, then he logically elevated him to beyond humanity no?

Oh well it is what it is i suppose, thank you for sharing that information with me.

[RoboBlue]

So… I'm going to ask a contentious question, but I feel like I really need an answer in order to better understand the Quran and how modern Muslims view it.

Why is the Tanakh (the Hebrew Bible that makes up the entirety of the Christian Old Testament) so heavily truncated? Pieces of the Torah are referenced in Surah 2, but they seem to be used primarily for criticism of Hebrew sins.

It gave me the impression that Muhammed was being intentionally disrespectful towards his predecessors, which really disturbed me.

[Lord Gaimon]

@RoboBlue:

So… I'm going to ask a contentious question, but I feel like I really need an answer in order to better understand the Quran and how modern Muslims view it.

Why is the Tanakh (the Hebrew Bible that makes up the entirety of the Christian Old Testament) so heavily truncated? Pieces of the Torah are referenced in Surah 2, but they seem to be used primarily for criticism of Hebrew sins.

It gave me the impression that Muhammed was being intentionally disrespectful towards his predecessors, which really disturbed me.

Jews were questioning Mohammed's prophethood and didn't want to help him against mecca.

[Monkey King]

@RoboBlue:

It gave me the impression that Muhammed was being intentionally disrespectful towards his predecessors, which really disturbed me.

Why is it disturbing that yet another "Prophet Program Update" based religion is dismissive of previous updates.

They all do this. Its kind of part of the "Oh yeah you had guys come by before, but check out the new model, way better, the old one is just lol."
Is this also disturbing to you?

–- Update From New Post Merge ---

Islam: Hello, I'm a Islam.
Christianity: And I'm a Christianity. And I'm GROSSSSS AND EAT PIGGGG.
Islam: Ok whatever, dude I'm just a totes cool hipster with just enough scruff and a casual hoodie. Peace out.
Christianity: I LOVE POOOORRRK.
Islam: skateboards away to a coffee shop listening to Arcade Fire
Christianity: OINK OINK.

[wolfwood]

Christianity really dodged a bullet on all the dietary laws.

I've been read up on Jewish cooking, and my god it's not even funny how convaluted it gets.

Even Islamic rules on cooking seem pretty chill compared to theirs.

[Lord Gaimon]

@Monkey:

Why is it disturbing that yet another "Prophet Program Update" based religion is dismissive of previous updates.

It's disturbing because islam calls jews cursed evil sub-humans.

[SmokerSan]

@Lord:

It's disturbing because islam calls jews cursed evil sub-humans.

Sub-humans? really? I have never heard of such a thing before, and I am a 42 year old Sunni muslim. As for cursed or not, every "holy" book treats the others as the lost/cursed/doomed… To some people, there is a big difference between a Jew and a Goy, and it is really not cool at all. As Monkey King said it many times, it comes with the whole package, bad ideas, bad people related to the said religion and so on… To hitler and his supporters today, jews, blacks, latins and muslims are also sub-human, what does it mean to you?
If they are sub-human as you said it, how come even the prophet had treaties with them. In the Andalous period and in a lot of other dynaties, jews were given the highest official and goverment positions? Sub-human? are you sure you are talking about Islam?

[Lord Gaimon]

@SmokerSan:

Sub-humans? really? I have never heard of such a thing before, and I am a 42 year old Sunni muslim. As for cursed or not, every "holy" book treats the others as the lost/cursed/doomed… To some people, there is a big difference between a Jew and a Goy, and it is really not cool at all. As Monkey King said it many times, it comes with the whole package, bad ideas, bad people related to the said religion and so on… To hitler and his supporters today, jews, blacks, latins and muslims are also sub-human, what does it mean to you?
If they are sub-human as you said it, how come even the prophet had treaties with them. In the Andalous period and in a lot of other dynaties, jews were given the highest official and goverment positions? Sub-human? are you sure you are talking about Islam?

Maybe sub-humans was an exageration but have you really never heard people say that jews are cursed by allah and shouldn't have a home or how allah turned them into monkeys and pigs or people using 'yahoodi' as an insult synonymes with immoral/evil?
And i don't think Mohammed acually beleived that jews were bad he just said that because they were his enemies at the time.
Also i don't believe that all muslims hate jews.I also know that there are different interpretation of islam, but the problem is that the jew-hating interpretation is very popular and is suppoerted by a lot of evidence and imams.

[hosemisnuba]

How is Muhammad an ideal human being exactly? Maybe I got my history mucked up, but didn't he lead war campaigns to force Islam on nonbelievers and what not? As an agnostic, the only religious prophet that seems ideal is Buddha, but that's just me.

[SmokerSan]

@Lord:

Maybe sub-humans was an exageration

Let me remind you what you said:

It's disturbing because islam calls jews cursed evil sub-humans.

You said islam calls them sub-humans. And in my life, I have never heard of any sub-human group in my religion.

@Lord:

but have you really never heard people say that jews are cursed by allah

That is true, and as I said it, in every "holy" book all people are doomed/cursed/going to hell except the ones who received that book. And in the case of islam, we consider the Quran as the word of God, so them being cursed, is not our judgment, but God's alone and we are not as simple human beings, allowed to apply or make that judgment. And they are not the only ones who God in Quran judged and/or cursed, a lot of other groups including muslims, but as a creator, it is his role, we are not here to make the same judgments and if somebody fails to make the difference between his own ass and God, then he is the problem.

@Lord:

people using 'yahoodi' as an insult synonymes with immoral/evil?

True, and it is some nasty, bad habit and I see it a lot here in my country. But this is not Islam, this is us.

@Lord:

And i don't think Mohammed acually beleived that jews were bad he just said that because they were his enemies at the time.

At least we know that, and that's the difference between Islam and now us muslims.

@Lord:

Also i don't believe that all muslims hate jews.

Of course not, and it is wrong if it is the case. You don't go on hating groups of people based on their religion, sexual orientation, color, wealth and so on. That is wrong. Point.
We are only humans meant to live with other humans, we are not here to make judgments, we are not gods.

@Lord:

I also know that there are different interpretation of islam, but the problem is that the jew-hating interpretation is very popular and is suppoerted by a lot of evidence and imams.

This is also because of the "Palestine/Israel" problem. But you seem to focus only on one side of the hate. I'll let you do some search on how much Muslims are now hated around the world. I'll let you do some search about how part of the Israeli people nurture the hate toward arabs/muslims. And these kind of sentiments are now pushed by politicians and leaders for their own agenda, which makes the things worse, but this is not exclusive to one specific human group.

@Lord:

…imams.

And where is it said that we must follow imams, let alone fools who call for hate. I don't know if it is a good or bad thing but Sunni branch has no obligation to follow anyone, there is no hierarchy.

And allow me to give this verse (49:13) from the Quran to remind you that we are meant to live with other humans and let the judging to the creator:

O mankind, indeed We have created you from male and female and made you peoples and tribes that you may know one another. Indeed, the most noble of you in the sight of Allah is the most righteous of you. Indeed, Allah is Knowing and Acquainted.

–- Update From New Post Merge ---

@hosemisnuba:

How is Muhammad an ideal human being exactly? Maybe I got my history mucked up, but didn't he lead war campaigns to force Islam on nonbelievers and what not? As an agnostic, the only religious prophet that seems ideal is Buddha, but that's just me.

Here is his description in the Quran 3:144

Muhammad is no more than a Messenger, and indeed (many) Messengers have passed away before him. If he dies or is killed, will you then turn back on your heels (as disbelievers)? And he who turns back on his heels, not the least harm will he do to Allah, and Allah will give reward to those who are grateful.

He is a messenger from many others. Being an ideal being not is every aspect of life, but in behavior, kindness, courage…

@hosemisnuba:

but didn't he lead war campaigns to force Islam on nonbelievers and what not?

More the opposite though. He was thrown out of his home along with his followers, they were persecuted, with many assassination attempts and after some years, some battles issued and ultimately lead to him winning.

–- Update From New Post Merge ---

@RoboBlue:

It gave me the impression that Muhammed was being intentionally disrespectful towards his predecessors, which really disturbed me.

Here is what the muslims are asked to believe 2:285 :

The Messenger (Muhammed) has believed in what was revealed to him from his Lord, as did the believers. They all have believed in God, and His angels, and His scriptures, and His messengers: "We make no distinction between any of His messengers." And they say, "We hear and we obey. Your forgiveness, our Lord. To you is the destiny."

What you are referring to are quran words about the people and followers not the predecessors and as I said, that judgment must be thought of as God's alone, muslims cannot make those judgments.

[Lord Gaimon]

@SmokerSan:

Let me remind you what you said:

You said islam calls them sub-humans. And in my life, I have never heard of any sub-human group in my religion.

You might not personnaly beleive that but it's a very easy conclusion to reach after reading the quran and hadith

That is true, and as I said it, in every "holy" book all people are doomed/cursed/going to hell except the ones who received that book.

But isn't islam supposed to be very tolerant and better than other relegions

And in the case of islam, we consider the Quran as the word of God, so them being cursed, is not our judgment, but God's alone

So you do agree that islam considers jews to be inferior to other groups of people.

And they are not the only ones who God in Quran judged and/or cursed a lot of other groups including muslims,

this really doesn't matter.

but as a creator, it is his role, we are not here to make the same judgments and if somebody fails to make the difference between his own ass and God, then he is the problem.

i think the ideology that affirms that judgment is also a problem

True, and it is some nasty, bad habit and I see it a lot here in my country. But this is not Islam, this is us.

If islam isn't the people that practice it and it's holy texts then what is it?

At least we know that, and that's the difference between Islam and now us muslims.

i don't know what you mean by this.

Of course not, and it is wrong if it is the case. You don't go on hating groups of people based on their religion, sexual orientation, color, wealth and so on. That is wrong. Point.
We are only humans meant to live with other humans, we are not here to make judgments, we are not gods.

unfortanetly many people don't share this opinion.

This is also because of the "Palestine/Israel" problem. But you seem to focus only on one side of the hate. I'll let you do some search on how much Muslims are now hated around the world. I'll let you do some search about how part of the Israeli people nurture the hate toward arabs/muslims. And these kind of sentiments are now pushed by politicians and leaders for their own agenda, which makes the things worse, but this is not exclusive to one specific human group.

Yes, but this really doesn't exuse the anti-semitism

And where is it said that we must follow imams, let alone fools who call for hate. I don't know if it is a good or bad thing but Sunni branch has no obligation to follow anyone, there is no hierarchy.

Yeah, but people do follow them and that's the only thing that matters.

let the judging to the creator

your verse doesn't imply this.

[Monkey King]

@Lord:

Maybe sub-humans was an exageration but have you really never heard people say that jews are cursed by allah and shouldn't have a home or how allah turned them into monkeys and pigs or people using 'yahoodi' as an insult synonymes with immoral/evil?

Is that in the book? Or is that recent Palestine related racism/hatred.

–- Update From New Post Merge ---

@Lord:

So you do agree that islam considers jews to be inferior to other groups of people.

You're doing that thing where ideological conflict of long ago is being associated with the extremely modern "scientific" racist anti-semitism.
This is true with early Christianity as well, which established far worse bad blood with Judaism, but it took awhile and transition into Europe for the form to begin to be racist in nature. The early Christian/Jewish conflict grew out of times when those early Christians were still figuring themselves as truly separate from Jews as a religion.
There's zero real reason to think in Arabia it was significantly different.

[RoboBlue]

@Monkey:

Why is it disturbing that yet another "Prophet Program Update" based religion is dismissive of previous updates.

They all do this. Its kind of part of the "Oh yeah you had guys come by before, but check out the new model, way better, the old one is just lol."

Christianity (in post-325AD form) didn't do that, at least not the way I'm describing. The Christian Bible contains basically all of the old Hebrew writings. The Quran does not, and I asked why.

@Lord:

It's disturbing because islam calls jews cursed evil sub-humans.

Eh… let's try to keep this as positive and polite as possible.

@SmokerSan:

What you are referring to are quran words about the people and followers not the predecessors and as I said, that judgment must be thought of as God's alone, muslims cannot make those judgments.

Thank you for responding. Unfortunately… that was the response I was expecting, and "God condemned the Hebrews, not Muhammed" isn't very reassuring.

In addition, I think it's safe to say that the editorial decision to almost completely exclude the writings of the Hebrew prophets from the Quran was made by humans.

@wolfwood:

Christianity really dodged a bullet on all the dietary laws.

I've been read up on Jewish cooking, and my god it's not even funny how convaluted it gets.

Even Islamic rules on cooking seem pretty chill compared to theirs.

It depends on the sect. I've had good Kosher meat, but the one time I had a Glatt Kosher steak it was burned to a crisp.

@Monkey:

You're doing that thing where ideological conflict of long ago is being associated with the extremely modern "scientific" racist anti-semitism.

I think he meant morally inferior.
The modern hatred some middle-eastern Muslims have for Jews is generally rooted in religion, not race.

[Monkey King]

@RoboBlue:

Christianity (in post-325AD form) didn't do that, at least not the way I'm describing.

Didn't do what…didn't take a dismissive if not outright damning attitude toward Judaism (previous model)?..... You are...sure this is what you mean to say? Do I have you right here? Because....uh... what?

And um..ignoring that can of dead worms, Christianity certainly continued doing this up to the present AD regarding internal sects.
Many Protestant sects are big fans of acting like Catholicism and Orthodoxy (and other Protestant sects) are rusted over corruptions that get it all wrong.

The Christian Bible contains basically all of the old Hebrew writings. The Quran does not, and I asked why.

Because the Quran is a collection of written down stories and sayings about and attributed to and from Muhammad. Not a compilation of writings attributed to different authors and collected together after arguments on canonicity and so on.
And also didn't start out as a direct sub-sect within Judaism like Christianity did.
Its not a very mysterious or even interesting thing, let alone "disturbing".

In addition, I think it's safe to say that the editorial decision to almost completely exclude the writings of the Hebrew prophets from the Quran was made by humans.

Yeah I thought so, you're applying some sort of a-historical modern anti-semitic lens to this that doesn't remotely fit, let alone make sense.
For starters, no. Islam has the same relationship to Judaism as Christianity, that the prophets and people and all that are highly respected foregoers that lead up to the one true prophetic figure (Jesus/Muhammed). You're making up some completely baseless paranoia about them being "left out" when virtually all of them are recognized and canonized.
Even in the deepest throes of anti-Semitic behavior Christianity and Islam don't change that feeling about the pre-last prophet prophets and all that jazz.
Because the rejection point theologically is "These people are people who ignored the message, and keep ignoring it, therefore suck!".
This is not a grand conspiracy against all things Jewish top to bottom from time immemorial.

Its like instead of picturing what would be largely identical looking at the time squabbling Abrahamic Clubs A, B, and C… you are superimposing Arab tribesmen circling their camels around a run down 1930's Shtetl.

This is like imagining a confrontation between the Romans and Gothic tribes, and thinking of wealthy German businessmen shaking down a poor Italian farmer for Euros. You're letting modern history get in the way of the contemporary context.

The modern hatred some middle-eastern Muslims have for Jews is generally rooted in religion, not race.

Its rooted in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. This is like insisting that Northern Ireland's sectarian hatred is really about theological differences and not about a colonial population's historical clashing with a native population. Or heck, that Trumps anti-Muslim wave is about theology, and not about events of the century so far.
You're definitely old enough to remember when no one in America gave even the slightest shit about Muslims one way or the other. Then 9-11 happened.

When peoples with different religions and sects get into a feud regardless of what the feud is over, those things will be attacked literally and verbally alike. That does not make it theological in nature.
Middle Eastern rednecks talking about "the Jews" is about as theological as Trump's American rednecks talking about Islam (or in the case of the Alt-Right, the Jews also).

[Green_vs_Red]

Is it me or is the 10th page of this thread broke?

Edit: Not anymore it seems.

[firelord111]

I wanted say things about islam and talk about shia and sunni but after a look on this thread
"Maybe later"
Only thing i can say the thing that is in quran about jews (atleast what i read) are things happend in history
Its foolish people who say that all jews are evil
I myself dont like jews because how they handle what happend to them in worldwar2 its very annoying whenever i hear or see a thing about it

[RoboBlue]

@Monkey:

Didn't do what…didn't take a dismissive if not outright damning attitude toward Judaism (previous model)?..... You are...sure this is what you mean to say? Do I have you right here? Because....uh... what?

No, you clearly don't have me right.

@Monkey:

Its not a very mysterious or even interesting thing, let alone "disturbing".

You're mocking me for saying "this passage bothered me" and asking for greater clarity.

@Monkey:

Yeah I thought so, you're applying some sort of a-historical modern anti-semitic lens to this that doesn't remotely fit, let alone make sense.

What?
@Monkey:

This is not a grand conspiracy against all things Jewish top to bottom from time immemorial.

Alright, seriously… the bigotry a few people share is not a "grand conspiracy against all things Jewish top to bottom from time immemorial."

@Monkey:

Its rooted in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Maybe so, but it's still hatred based on the religion of the persons being hated, rather than based on their race.

So to summarize, you basically accused me of being both anti-Jewish (or at least willfully ignorant of crimes against Jews) and overly defensive of Jews. What the fuck?
…And you wrote a half page rant in response to my five sentences.

…Alright, let's get back to polite theological discussion.

[Femme]

@wolfwood:

So if i'm understanding things correctly Muhammed is deemed to have been the living ideal one should strive to emulate.

Yet it's emphasized that he is just a normal human being. Those two things seem contradictory to me.

Maybe one of our many AP scholars could explain to me how things add up from a religious viewpoint.

Lord Gaimon pretty much got it, but it's also the same viewpoint for all prophets. The reason why more importance is given to Muhammad rather than, say, Moses, is because Muhammad is seen to be the prophet sent to humanity in our times, so what he brought applies to us, so we follow him. If we were born in Abraham's time, more importance would be given to him rather than, say, Noah.

@wolfwood:

But if god removed his human flaws when he created him, then he logically elevated him to beyond humanity no?

Oh well it is what it is i suppose, thank you for sharing that information with me.

Yes he and all prophets are elevated above us normal people, but they are still seen as completely human, and any form of worship directed towards them is rejected, due to the strictness of monotheism in Islam. So Muslims believe God chose the prophets and sent them to mankind, however He sent human beings so we can relate to them and learn from them because we are also human. There's a verse that mentions that God didn't send angels as messengers to mankind because angels are not like us, they do not have any inclination to disobey what God commands them to do, and they don't eat, drink, and sleep like humans do.

–- Update From New Post Merge ---

@hosemisnuba:

How is Muhammad an ideal human being exactly? Maybe I got my history mucked up, but didn't he lead war campaigns to force Islam on nonbelievers and what not? As an agnostic, the only religious prophet that seems ideal is Buddha, but that's just me.

So did Solomon. Different prophets had different positions among their people. Some where completely rejected, like Abraham and Noah, some had a few followers, like Moses and Jesus, and some were the leaders of nations, like Solomon and Muhammad. Battles were necessary because that was the time they were living in, their nations were constantly under attack and they were forced to both defend themselves and take the initiative in other instances. So some prophets had to take the role of ruler, prophet, social services, and also battle leaders.

What is important to remember, however, is that Muhammad carried out battles under strict rules of war. His army was much more restricted and controlled than the opposing pagan armies who challenged them.

[SmokerSan]

@RoboBlue:

Thank you for responding. Unfortunately… that was the response I was expecting, and "God condemned the Hebrews, not Muhammed" isn't very reassuring.

He didn't condemn the Hebrews, he condemned a lot of groups including Hebrews. I followed a lot of conferences and courses of some Rabbis, and they call us muslims (Ismael's descendants) "Gog and Magog" and we are also condemned. Some say that muslims are God's punishment for Christians, especially in Europe. It is true to the 3 religions to exclude, doom and condemn the others. But I always understood it as God's judgment, not humans to deal with.

@RoboBlue:

In addition, I think it's safe to say that the editorial decision to almost completely exclude the writings of the Hebrew prophets from the Quran was made by humans.

I think, you got the wrong idea about Quran. It includes all the previous prophets including the Hebrew of course. A lot of our understanding of Prophets lives are taken form the Hebrew tradition, because the Quran doesn't expand a lot on them.

@RoboBlue:

…was made by humans.

Modified by humans, not made.

@RoboBlue:

The modern hatred some middle-eastern Muslims have for Jews is generally rooted in religion, not race.

No, you're wrong. You are dismissing the peaceful cohabitation of Jews, Christians and Muslims in north Africa until today. Where Jews and Arabs have the same exact culture, music, cooking. The only special case is my country "Algeria", where things got bad when the Jews chose colonial France over Algeria during the liberation war. But this has nothing to do with religion, it is a political difference. As Monkey King mentioned, people seem to forget that until last century all 3 religious groups were living peacefully with each other in almost all Middle-east and north Africa. It is the Palestine/Israel conflict that made things toxic.

[wolfwood]

@SmokerSan:

Some say that muslims are God's punishment for Christians, especially in Europe.

Hadn't heard that one before. Usually it's more they (for all muslims are of a hive mind in these kind of stories) have decided to invade and force on us their foreign traditions, and the filthy liberals are letting it happen with their bleeding hearts and tolerance. Dunno if i've ever heard the religious angle, if anything it's more common to hear people whine about how when we've finally gotten rid of large scale, public, christianity and judaism and now here comes islam to rain on the non-religious parade. But then again i'm from the north, the Italians and southerners are probably playing up the other angle more.

[SmokerSan]

@wolfwood:

Hadn't heard that one before. Usually it's more they (for all muslims are of a hive mind in these kind of stories) have decided to invade and force on us their foreign traditions, and the filthy liberals are letting it happen with their bleeding hearts and tolerance. Dunno if i've ever heard the religious angle, if anything it's more common to hear people whine about how when we've finally gotten rid of large scale, public, christianity and judaism and now here comes islam to rain on the non-religious parade. But then again i'm from the north, the Italians and southerners are probably playing up the other angle more.

Yeah, It was in France. What they were actually saying is that God is avenging what happened to the Jews in Europe during WW II by using muslims who were also called "a plague" and that it was a fair punishment. A lot of people were shocked hearing these ideas. This an example only, I am not promoting neither the idea nor implying that all Rabbis think this. Crazy people are everywhere.

[RoboBlue]

@SmokerSan:

He didn't condemn the Hebrews, he condemned a lot of groups including Hebrews. I followed a lot of conferences and courses of some Rabbis, and they call us muslims (Ismael's descendants) "Gog and Magog" and we are also condemned. Some say that muslims are God's punishment for Christians, especially in Europe. It is true to the 3 religions to exclude, doom and condemn the others. But I always understood it as God's judgment, not humans to deal with.

Yeah, it's fair to say that every book I've read and identified as a "holy book" thus far has condemned people, and the Hebrews were far from the only people condemned by God in the Quran.

@SmokerSan:

I think, you got the wrong idea about Quran. It includes all the previous prophets including the Hebrew of course. A lot of our understanding of Prophets lives are taken form the Hebrew tradition, because the Quran doesn't expand a lot on them.

What I meant was that the old writings aren't literally included as a physical part of the book, the same way the Hebrew writings are included as an inseparable physical part of the Christian Bible.

@SmokerSan:

Modified by humans, not made.

That's the editorial decision I was referring to, yes.

@SmokerSan:

No, you're wrong. You are dismissing the peaceful cohabitation of Jews, Christians and Muslims in north Africa until today. Where Jews and Arabs have the same exact culture, music, cooking. The only special case is my country "Algeria", where things got bad when the Jews chose colonial France over Algeria during the liberation war. But this has nothing to do with religion, it is a political difference. As Monkey King mentioned, people seem to forget that until last century all 3 religious groups were living peacefully with each other in almost all Middle-east and north Africa. It is the Palestine/Israel conflict that made things toxic.

I'm not dismissing that at all. I'm only describing the fact that religion is the scapegoat used to justify that hatred in modern times.

@SmokerSan:

Yeah, It was in France. What they were actually saying is that God is avenging what happened to the Jews in Europe during WW II by using muslims who were also called "a plague" and that it was a fair punishment. A lot of people were shocked hearing these ideas. This an example only, I am not promoting neither the idea nor implying that all Rabbis think this. Crazy people are everywhere.

Yeah… that is an extremely dangerous idea, and honestly the first thing it reminds me of is western Europe's insane tolerance for Hitler's conquests.

No one should ever be endorsing the actions of a few madmen as some sort of karmic punishment. :/

[Hanz]

@Monkey:

Its rooted in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. This is like insisting that Northern Ireland's sectarian hatred is really about theological differences and not about a colonial population's historical clashing with a native population. Or heck, that Trumps anti-Muslim wave is about theology, and not about events of the century so far.
You're definitely old enough to remember when no one in America gave even the slightest shit about Muslims one way or the other. Then 9-11 happened.

When peoples with different religions and sects get into a feud regardless of what the feud is over, those things will be attacked literally and verbally alike. That does not make it theological in nature.
Middle Eastern rednecks talking about "the Jews" is about as theological as Trump's American rednecks talking about Islam (or in the case of the Alt-Right, the Jews also).

this.
arabs and muslims don't hate jews just for their religion. there might be a minority where they do, but the majority hate them because of israel's treatment of palestinians. in jordan specifically, almost half of the population are naturalized palestinians who got forced out of their homes in 60s. so you can see why they hate them.

[wolfwood]

So with that in mind it would make sense to assume that the anti-semitism is lesser the further away you live from Israel no?

Assuming it to be true, places like Indonesia should be virtually free of anti-semitism, while Jordan and Egypt is (relatively) ripe with it.

[Femme]

@RoboBlue:

So… I'm going to ask a contentious question, but I feel like I really need an answer in order to better understand the Quran and how modern Muslims view it.

Why is the Tanakh (the Hebrew Bible that makes up the entirety of the Christian Old Testament) so heavily truncated? Pieces of the Torah are referenced in Surah 2, but they seem to be used primarily for criticism of Hebrew sins.

It gave me the impression that Muhammed was being intentionally disrespectful towards his predecessors, which really disturbed me.

The Jews were not the only ones who's sins were referenced. There are tons and tons and tons of references to the actions of people who disobeyed their prophet and thus met consequences. What I'm getting at, is that it's not the people who are condemned in the Quran, it is their actions that are condemned.

Like half of the Quran is a reference of stories whose purpose is to teach lessons.
-Noah was sent to his people, he warned them for 950 years, but when the time of the flood came, only a few listened to him and the rest were destroyed.
-Moses was sent to his people, he warned them to leave idolatry, they disobeyed him after witnessing magnificent signs, they faced consequences for their actions

I can go on and on. The whole point is to make the reader contemplate about the warnings in the Quran or face consequences like the other prophets' people did.

[SmokerSan]

@wolfwood:

So with that in mind it would make sense to assume that the anti-semitism is lesser the further away you live from Israel no?

Assuming it to be true, places like Indonesia should be virtually free of anti-semitism, while Jordan and Egypt is (relatively) ripe with it.

It is really more complicated than that. I think anti-Semitism like any other form or racism and exclusion is based on non-rational ideas. Hate of Israel politics and the way they are treating Palestinians is not anti-Semitism, so it is not related to distance, religion and such. It is only related to how much you seem to care about the last form of Apartheid now on earth. Likewise, I am a Sunni muslim and the countries I hate the most are Sunni countries, Qatar and Saudi Arabia. They are the countries funding terrorism and giving the ideological background to it, as well as being the last places on earth when you talk about freedom especially for women. I think people like Netanyahou and far right leaders in general are trying to remove the distinction between anti-Semitism and being critical of Israel politics.

[Lord Gaimon]

@Monkey:

Is that in the book? Or is that recent Palestine related racism/hatred.

I think it's both, Palestine just made the hate worse and more relevant.

–- Update From New Post Merge ---

You're doing that thing where ideological conflict of long ago is being associated with the extremely modern "scientific" racist anti-semitism.
This is true with early Christianity as well, which established far worse bad blood with Judaism, but it took awhile and transition into Europe for the form to begin to be racist in nature. The early Christian/Jewish conflict grew out of times when those early Christians were still figuring themselves as truly separate from Jews as a religion.
There's zero real reason to think in Arabia it was significantly different.

I meant morally inferior. "scientific" racism doesn't really exist in islam.
Like if a jew converted to islam or even christianity he will no longer be considered bad.

[firelord111]

I get why arabs hate jews but i dont get why gulf arabs hate iranians thats one of the reasons that shia became strong in iran

[Lord Gaimon]

@Monkey:

Middle Eastern rednecks talking about "the Jews" is about as theological as Trump's American rednecks talking about Islam (or in the case of the Alt-Right, the Jews also).

it's not just rednecks every muslim i know belives in some jewish conspiracy even my relatively liberal family in my relatively liberal city

[wolfwood]

@SmokerSan:

It is really more complicated than that. I think anti-Semitism like any other form or racism and exclusion is based on non-rational ideas. Hate of Israel politics and the way they are treating Palestinians is not anti-Semitism, so it is not related to distance, religion and such. It is only related to how much you seem to care about the last form of Apartheid now on earth. Likewise, I am a Sunni muslim and the countries I hate the most are Sunni countries, Qatar and Saudi Arabia. They are the countries funding terrorism and giving the ideological background to it, as well as being the last places on earth when you talk about freedom especially for women. I think people like Netanyahou and far right leaders in general are trying to remove the distinction between anti-Semitism and being critical of Israel politics.

Those two things do cross-over alot. For instance people who's basic points are valid, but it's coated in a layer of hateful rhetoric that distinguishes it from a simple criticism of state policy, and instead veers of into diatribes about inherent qualities. For instance people who are pro-palestine but would oppose any attempts at dialogue, negotiations or compromise because "Jews can't be trusted", the opposite of course being in play as well

[firelord111]

I wanna ask sunis here that how they think about khalifs i always wanted to know how sunnis think of khalifs and imams
As an iranian shia i was told they were people who stole the khalifs place from imam ali and omavi and abbasi khalifs kept killing imams until imam mahdi

[Femme]

@firelord111:

I wanna ask sunis here that how they think about khalifs i always wanted to know how sunnis think of khalifs and imams
As an iranian shia i was told they were people who stole the khalifs place from imam ali and omavi and abbasi khalifs kept killing imams until imam mahdi

Wish I could give you a detailed answer but I don't really know anything about the shia imams following Ali, Hassan, and Hussein. I just learned that those three were the cousin and grandsons of the prophet and they are respected as much as any other companion of the prophet, honoured as his family, and that's it. Although in every prayer at the tashahud section when you're sitting down there's a section where you pray for peace and blessings on Muhammad's family.

[SmokerSan]

@wolfwood:

Those two things do cross-over alot. For instance people who's basic points are valid, but it's coated in a layer of hateful rhetoric that distinguishes it from a simple criticism of state policy, and instead veers of into diatribes about inherent qualities. For instance people who are pro-palestine but would oppose any attempts at dialogue, negotiations or compromise because "Jews can't be trusted", the opposite of course being in play as well

Of course, "Jews can't be trusted" is anti-Semitism.