Is the Quran Hate Speech by modern standards?

Post Reply New Topic

In the Quran it describes in graphic detail how unbelievers (or nonbelievers) are to be treated.

I would argue that people have been convicted for saying less and in fact, many people that have be arrested for incitement or carried out act of terrorism have cited and can cite parts of the Quran that justify it.

www.thereligionofpeace.com/pages/quran/violence.aspx

Cites 109 verses referring to calling Muslims to war against nonbelievers. Including so very graphic and vitriolic stuff. Also justified is subterfuge and deception to unbelievers.

This is not about bad people, Muslims like anyone can be good or bad. This is about bad ideology and an unwillingness to question it.

If I'm wrong then, how about broadcast the Quran in its entirety and let people make up their own minds.

Some argue that only "experts" can interpret the Quran. This is a fallacy becuase anyone can become a imam or mufti.

In fact many educated people have come to the same conclusion. Turan Dursun one of my favourate skeptics was assassinated for his views on the faith and he was mufti for many years.

You can read about him here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turan_Dursun

In the Old Testament there similar violence and inhumanity. I would say in the Old Tesmement there is more devine retribution, first born children, 7 plagues, etc. However there is no denying it very violent book and not a good moral guide by any stretch. It could be used for terrorist purposes.

Mohamed on the other hand set up rules of engagement and how to conduct yourself and a practitioner of the faith.

I would say the Quran provides a credible interpretation which is used by Wahhabist/Salafists, the only stipulation of if they commit vile acts is argument over the conditions for war, which at the end of the day can be made on subjective whim. So long as they are reconciled they are at war they can use the doctrine to justify the acts.

The fact that there are other interpretations doesn't make the Wahhabist/Salafists interpretation less credible. It si all down to the content. That is the crux, the may be more liberal and moderate interpretation, but so long as the less moderate interpretation can me made using the same doctrine then you can really claim it can't be interpreted that way.

So yes the Old Testament could be used as the basis for extremist action it is just that the Quran make it whole lot easier and credible as as rules of man.

Both the Qur'an and the Bible preach hate, division and intolerance as well as inequality of women and gays.

Both books, if read literally, should all be burned the way Christianity tried to burn all the holy books of the older traditions when they had their many Inquisitions.

Regards
DL

I'm going to have to read the Koran again some time. The Bible is great to read.

Yes. It's worse than Mein Kampf.

If it is than the bible also would be, it has some pretty violent/sick stuff to...

The Quran is a modified copy of the Torah / Old Testament.

Islam is the continuity of an old NonTrinitarian faith (and Anti-Trinitarian!).

NonTrinitarian Christian and Messianic Jewish sects were spread across Arabia and Middle East.

Jesus' definition (God or man?) was always been a controversial topic among the Jews and Early Christians, hence Judaism was strictly monotheistic, therefore three major "categories " branched out of the Jewish faith: 1-Those who refused Jesus completely and remained monotheistic Jews, 2- Faiths which believes in Jesus as son of God = Christians, and 3- Jewish faiths which believed in Jesus but as non divine (As prophet or messiah, but not as son of God, similarly to Islam).

What also distinguishes the third group from the 2nd: The 3rd group retained the practices and the rules of the Torah (Jewish law) in their daily lives, whereas the Christian faith has abolished most of it (as practices).

Islam came from the womb of the third group, and Sharia is also a modified version of Jewish law.

I don't know a thing about the Torah but AFAIK the Old Testament explicitly condemn gays to death and the Quran highly condemns homosexuality but it is the hadiths that explicitly condemns them to death. It seems that they would fall under hate speech if those books were to be written today or if those hadiths were to be spoken in public. Depends on which hate speech laws you're talking about, but generally inciting violence or riots tends to be understood as hate speech and in that case I'm pretty sure those verses or hadiths would be considered hate speech.

It seems like a pretty big categorical error to put hate speech and religion in the same bucket. I get that you're really referencing this in light of the ways people have liked to apply this to other religions or try to, perhaps as well how hypocritical many have been in their application of it. At the bottom line though - hate is probably better described as tribalism for its own sake as well as people cynically using group differences for their own gain. Religion exerting the same thing might be better described as a tragic system of delusion that ensnares people's independence, demands conformity, and if its theocratic enough it eats away at people's critical thinking faculties because they can barely survive their lives without letting it rot a bit so that the cognitive dissonance dies down.

The purpose for unpacking that really goes like this - both need different kinds of public awareness and treatment. Similarly when people slush it all together it seems like they end up with a poor understanding of the working mechanics of either. When the public's largely ignorant or lost on a topic it's tough to make much headway.