A Muslim's Perspective on Nick Gisburne's Quotes
Nick Gisburne posted a video on YouTube disparaging the Quran as a cruel book. His video got him banned and sparked intense debate and opinion on the Internet. You can find the video here. The video is a slide of "paraphrased" quotes "supposedly" taking from the Quran. Nick claims these are quotes from the Quran. I claim Nick is clever. Nick took many quotes out of context, misquoted several and distorted some. I have little reason to believe this is accidental. It seems his intention was to show the Quran, Islam and Muslims in bad light. I am a Muslim. I feel obliged to weigh in on the issue.
In the interest of time, I'm going to focus on two of the several quotes Nick claimed are direct quotes for the Quran. I'm going to show you how Nick took these quotes out of context and distorted the message of a book over a billion individuals consider sacred.
Nick's Quote:
Quran 2: 96:
Here's the context Nick conveniently omitted:
As you can see, the verse was part of story about a group of Jews (who were persecuted as slaves for a Pharaoh in Egypt) who via God's intervention Moses freed from oppression. Moses brought these people to the promised land on the condition that they practice Judaism and worship the One True God. When some Jews arrived at the promised land and were now in safe sanctuary, they resorted to their old ways of idol-worship, polytheism and general wickedness. The verse shows God's displeasure with these individuals for their ingratitude and disobedience.
Anyone unaware of this or the context it is found in will assume the Quran, Islam and all Muslims hate Jews and think they are going to Hell. Nick's quotes wants you to believe so. Even I am quoting out of context because the story is much larger and deeper than my hasty summation. I encourage anyone to read the verses before and after the lines I have quoted to gain some perspective. You can find the whole chapter here.
Lets look at another Quote:
Nick's Quote:
Quran 4:89:
Lets add some context:
The whole chapter can be found here.
So what's the story? A group of people claiming to be Muslims as well as some non-Muslim tribes had a pact with the Prophet to defend against enemy invasions whenever they occurred. On one such occasion, these people defected to the side of the enemy and helped the enemy in their aggression. This caused great division and loss within the Muslim community at the time. This verse was revealed shortly thereafter.
Anybody who read Nick's quote and did not understand the context in which it was drawn, the historical perspective surrounding the revelation of the verse as well as the overall theme of the message (my interpretation: stay away from hypocrites and liars; choose your allies wisely), would conclude Muslims should not befriend non-Muslims and should kill all non-Muslims.
As a Muslim, this disturbs me. It disturbs me because people like Osama bin Laden and his cohorts use these same tactics to rally people around the world to commit acts of terror for their political goals. Nick Gisburne is using this same technique for his own political motives.
You will find many stories in the Quran were various people, (Muslims, Christians, Jews and Pagans) have been tagged "disbelievers", better interpreted as "Hypocrite" in most contexts I can remember. For a Muslim a "disbeliever" is not necessarily a non-Muslim. And a believer is not necessarily a Muslim. It's not black and white. What is these days? A believer in Islam is anybody who speaks the truth and acts with extremely high, selfless, moral and ethical standards. Naturally this includes all good Muslims. But a believer in Islam could also be an Atheist, a Christian, a Jew, or anybody. A disbeliever in Islam is what many of us consider to be a selfish, wicked and tyrannical individual. Hypocrites and liars are especially labeled disbelievers in Islam. And I can tell you that there are many people who call themselves Muslims that are hypocrites and liars.
When Muslims quote a verse in the Quran, it is conventional for the quoter to provide details of the events surrounding the quote in question. And it is traditional for the quoter to compliment the quote with lessons from the Hadith (sayings or teachings of the Prophet that give indepth analysis of the interpretation of the verses of the Quran). The reason for this is to keep things in perspective and reduce the interpretative variances that may occur from person to person. It also lends credibility to quoter. It says, "This dude knows what he's talking about".
Nick Gisburne has no Knowledge of this. Evidently, he did no research. Yet he felt the need to portray the Quran, Islam and Muslims in bad light via his quotes. If free speech is about making inaccurate, irresponsible, reckless, dangerous and false statements to further hidden agendas, then censorship ain't that bad after all.
I'll be equally disgusted if a Muslim tried to portray Atheists, Christians, Jews or whoever in negative light without even a basic understanding of their belief system or sincere premises to backup such allegations.
I leave you to draw your own conclusions. Mine is that I'm not sympathetic that Nick Gisburne got banned. He had an agenda. One that I feel was not honest, truthful or fair. This has nothing to do with Free Speech or censorship. I support Free Speech but only when it is responsible, factual and honest. Nick Gisburne is not practicing free speech, he's abusing it.
In the interest of time, I'm going to focus on two of the several quotes Nick claimed are direct quotes for the Quran. I'm going to show you how Nick took these quotes out of context and distorted the message of a book over a billion individuals consider sacred.
Nick's Quote:
Jews are the greediest of all humankind. They'd like to live 1000 years. But they are going to Hell 2:96Quran 2: 96:
96. Thou wilt indeed find them, of all people, most greedy of life,-even more than the idolaters: Each one of them wishes He could be given a life of a thousand years: But the grant of such life will not save him from (due) punishment. For Allah sees well all that they do.Here's the context Nick conveniently omitted:
92. There came to you Moses with clear (Signs); yet ye worshipped the calf (Even) after that, and ye did behave wrongfully.
93. And remember We took your covenant and We raised above you (the towering height) of Mount (Sinai): (Saying): "Hold firmly to what We have given you, and hearken (to the Law)": They said:" We hear, and we disobey:" And they had to drink into their hearts (of the taint) of the calf because of their Faithlessness. Say: "Vile indeed are the behests of your Faith if ye have any faith!"
94. Say: "If the last Home, with Allah, be for you specially, and not for anyone else, then seek ye for death, if ye are sincere."
95. But they will never seek for death, on account of the (sins) which their hands have sent on before them. and Allah is well-acquainted with the wrong-doers.
96. Thou wilt indeed find them, of all people, most greedy of life,-even more than the idolaters: Each one of them wishes He could be given a life of a thousand years: But the grant of such life will not save him from (due) punishment. For Allah sees well all that they do.
As you can see, the verse was part of story about a group of Jews (who were persecuted as slaves for a Pharaoh in Egypt) who via God's intervention Moses freed from oppression. Moses brought these people to the promised land on the condition that they practice Judaism and worship the One True God. When some Jews arrived at the promised land and were now in safe sanctuary, they resorted to their old ways of idol-worship, polytheism and general wickedness. The verse shows God's displeasure with these individuals for their ingratitude and disobedience.
Anyone unaware of this or the context it is found in will assume the Quran, Islam and all Muslims hate Jews and think they are going to Hell. Nick's quotes wants you to believe so. Even I am quoting out of context because the story is much larger and deeper than my hasty summation. I encourage anyone to read the verses before and after the lines I have quoted to gain some perspective. You can find the whole chapter here.
Lets look at another Quote:
Nick's Quote:
"Have no unbelieving friends. Kill the unbelievers wherever you find them. 4:89"Quran 4:89:
"89. They but wish that ye should reject Faith, as they do, and thus be on the same footing (as they): But take not friends from their ranks until they flee in the way of Allah (From what is forbidden). But if they turn renegades, seize them and slay them wherever ye find them; and (in any case) take no friends or helpers from their ranks;-"Lets add some context:
79. Whatever good, (O man!) happens to thee, is from Allah. but whatever evil happens to thee, is from thy (own) soul. and We have sent thee as an apostle to (instruct) mankind. And enough is Allah for a witness.
80. He who obeys the Messenger, obeys Allah. But if any turn away, We have not sent thee to watch over their (evil deeds).
81. They have "Obedience" on their lips; but when they leave thee, a section of them Meditate all night on things very different from what thou tellest them. But Allah records their nightly (plots): So keep clear of them, and put thy trust in Allah, and enough is Allah as a disposer of affairs.
82. Do they not consider the Qur'an (with care)? Had it been from other Than Allah, they would surely have found therein Much discrepancy.
83. When there comes to them some matter touching (Public) safety or fear, they divulge it. If they had only referred it to the Messenger, or to those charged with authority among them, the proper investigators would have Tested it from them (direct). Were it not for the Grace and Mercy of Allah unto you, all but a few of you would have fallen into the clutches of Satan.
84. Then fight in Allah.s cause - Thou art held responsible only for thyself - and rouse the believers. It may be that Allah will restrain the fury of the Unbelievers; for Allah is the strongest in might and in punishment.
85. Whoever recommends and helps a good cause becomes a partner therein: And whoever recommends and helps an evil cause, shares in its burden: And Allah hath power over all things.
86. When a (courteous) greeting is offered you, meet it with a greeting still more courteous, or (at least) of equal courtesy. Allah takes careful account of all things.
87. Allah. There is no god but He: of a surety He will gather you together against the Day of Judgment, about which there is no doubt. And whose word can be truer than Allah.s?
88. Why should ye be divided into two parties about the Hypocrites? Allah hath upset them for their (evil) deeds. Would ye guide those whom Allah hath thrown out of the Way? For those whom Allah hath thrown out of the Way, never shalt thou find the Way.
89. They but wish that ye should reject Faith, as they do, and thus be on the same footing (as they): But take not friends from their ranks until they flee in the way of Allah (From what is forbidden). But if they turn renegades, seize them and slay them wherever ye find them; and (in any case) take no friends or helpers from their ranks;-
90. Except those who join a group between whom and you there is a treaty (of peace), or those who approach you with hearts restraining them from fighting you as well as fighting their own people. If Allah had pleased, He could have given them power over you, and they would have fought you: Therefore if they withdraw from you but fight you not, and (instead) send you (Guarantees of) peace, then Allah Hath opened no way for you (to war against them).The whole chapter can be found here.
So what's the story? A group of people claiming to be Muslims as well as some non-Muslim tribes had a pact with the Prophet to defend against enemy invasions whenever they occurred. On one such occasion, these people defected to the side of the enemy and helped the enemy in their aggression. This caused great division and loss within the Muslim community at the time. This verse was revealed shortly thereafter.
Anybody who read Nick's quote and did not understand the context in which it was drawn, the historical perspective surrounding the revelation of the verse as well as the overall theme of the message (my interpretation: stay away from hypocrites and liars; choose your allies wisely), would conclude Muslims should not befriend non-Muslims and should kill all non-Muslims.
As a Muslim, this disturbs me. It disturbs me because people like Osama bin Laden and his cohorts use these same tactics to rally people around the world to commit acts of terror for their political goals. Nick Gisburne is using this same technique for his own political motives.
You will find many stories in the Quran were various people, (Muslims, Christians, Jews and Pagans) have been tagged "disbelievers", better interpreted as "Hypocrite" in most contexts I can remember. For a Muslim a "disbeliever" is not necessarily a non-Muslim. And a believer is not necessarily a Muslim. It's not black and white. What is these days? A believer in Islam is anybody who speaks the truth and acts with extremely high, selfless, moral and ethical standards. Naturally this includes all good Muslims. But a believer in Islam could also be an Atheist, a Christian, a Jew, or anybody. A disbeliever in Islam is what many of us consider to be a selfish, wicked and tyrannical individual. Hypocrites and liars are especially labeled disbelievers in Islam. And I can tell you that there are many people who call themselves Muslims that are hypocrites and liars.
When Muslims quote a verse in the Quran, it is conventional for the quoter to provide details of the events surrounding the quote in question. And it is traditional for the quoter to compliment the quote with lessons from the Hadith (sayings or teachings of the Prophet that give indepth analysis of the interpretation of the verses of the Quran). The reason for this is to keep things in perspective and reduce the interpretative variances that may occur from person to person. It also lends credibility to quoter. It says, "This dude knows what he's talking about".
Nick Gisburne has no Knowledge of this. Evidently, he did no research. Yet he felt the need to portray the Quran, Islam and Muslims in bad light via his quotes. If free speech is about making inaccurate, irresponsible, reckless, dangerous and false statements to further hidden agendas, then censorship ain't that bad after all.
I'll be equally disgusted if a Muslim tried to portray Atheists, Christians, Jews or whoever in negative light without even a basic understanding of their belief system or sincere premises to backup such allegations.
I leave you to draw your own conclusions. Mine is that I'm not sympathetic that Nick Gisburne got banned. He had an agenda. One that I feel was not honest, truthful or fair. This has nothing to do with Free Speech or censorship. I support Free Speech but only when it is responsible, factual and honest. Nick Gisburne is not practicing free speech, he's abusing it.
posted by Mystilleef at
7:40 AM
45 Comments:
Regardless of the content of the video, it was wrong for it to be taken down - Preserving free speech is far more important than avoiding offending delusional religionists.
Leaving the video up allows people to judge for themselves, taking it down grants it power, just as the banning of "Mein Kampf" or the bible or koran preserves their poisonous messages.
FAITH IS THE ONLY SIN.
The charge that Muslims think Christians and Jews will go to Hell amazes me; what do the Christians and Jews think will happen to Muslims? There are embarassing and uncomfortable things found in all scripture, from a modern and tolerant standpoint; though I'll grant, having reviewed my own Quran, that Nick's passages were grossly out-of-context.
But I think what's more disgusting is that his intention seems to be to deprecate a whole swath of humanity because of what a book says; regardless of what the Quran says, Muslims are just as capable of being kind and friendly, or cruel and merciless, as anyone else; moreover, I don't buy it when pastors cast damnation on certain people because of what the Bible says, so why the hell should I buy this from Nick?
It seems there are a lot of people who are really primed for the message, however. But I will still grant the first poster's comment as valid; keep it up, and flood Youtube with a bunch of people ridiculing him.
"But a believer in Islam could also be an Atheist"
Are you high??? Just as in about every other monotheistic religion, disbelief in god is the ultimate sin in islam.
muslims were once ahead of the rest of the world in sciences and in standard of living because they used to be free thinkers and not care that much about their religion. now this orthodoxy has put them in the back seat.
instead of brooding on the scriptures, support knowledge and sciences, and not superstition.
get back to your roots, the modern muslim is behaving like the medieval christian.
The charge that Muslims think Christians and Jews will go to Hell amazes me; what do the Christians and Jews think will happen to Muslims?
Well, my particulary Christian faith says that God will judge everyone fairly. There's absolutely no reason why a good, well-meaning Muslim can't go to heaven.
What I'd like to kow is why my Muslim friend believes that God forbids her to be the supervisor of a male. The degree of mysogyny in this religion is probably its single most disturbing aspect.
Muslims were once ahead of the rest of the world in sciences and in standard of living because they used to be free thinkers and not care that much about their religion.
Ha! Is that a joke? The were ahead because they conquered parts of two of the most developed civilisations at that time: the Hindu and the Byzantines. What survived of those civilisations inside the Islamic State they are now calling the Islamic Golden Age. If was that Islamic, can someone tell why the Golden Age finishes when there are no more Zoroastrians, Christians and Hindus in large numbers, and Muslims became the great majority?
But a believer in Islam could also be an Atheist, a Christian, a Jew, or anybody.
Can you please rewrite what you were trying to say here, without raping the language?:
"I support Free Speech but only when it is responsible, factual and honest."
Then you're no supporter of free speech. You're a supporter of particular acts of speech with which you happen to agree, which is not even close to the same thing.
This post has been removed by the author.
This post has been removed by the author.
Cody said: "without raping the language"
Which language? There's more than one, ya know.
Islam is a term borrowed from Arabic into English, and in its new home it gets used to mean the belief that Mohammad is the ultimate authority on a monotheistic God.
I think the author's intent was to shed light on the term's meaning in original, non-English sources.
In that context, I'm told it means "submission". Given that, the author is quite right to say that people of any creed can choose to be arrogant, or choose to bend to the greater good.
To throw my hat into the ring on the free speech issue, I think that bigots and other misguided folks should be allowed to make fools of themselves as publicly as possible. Because the video went on YouTube, I now know more about Islam than I did before, and I'm better equipped to refute any bigots I meet who use the same misquotes in their arguments.
Well-informed people can't be fooled forever.
And which mosque do you teach this reasonable form from? How many of you are there?
How many of the "lets-slant-this-against-Jewish-pigs" folks are out there shouting the misquotes from the minarets?
Nick is right
Which language? There's more than one, ya know.
Do pardon my confusion, but I was under the impression that the language in which the words were written was the language which the author intended us to read.
And your clarification of the matter solves nothing. You can't define "Islam" to mean "everything good that people choose to do" while at the same time saying anyone who's arrogant or what have you isn't a believer in "Islam".
You know what, I'm just going to define "atheist" as anyone who believes in something which is true. You believe 2 + 2 = 4? Congratulations, you're an atheist!
Isn't it fun when words have no set meaning?
Hi, I'm a repoter with National Public Radio and I'm doing a story about the issues brought up by YouTube taking down Nick Gisburne's video. I'd love to speak with you about your objections to his video. I you are interested, please email me at LSydell@npr.org and let me know how I might reach you.
Best,
Laura Sydell
As an atheist i must say Nick is getting alot of unfair treatment in this blog by people who have not seen many of his videos i would guess.
He was not trying to attack Arabs but only attack the faith. As many atheist like me say "don't hate the person, hate the beliefs". Nick would agree with this also if i may be so bold as to speak for him. You can talk about messages in context all you want but at the end of the day it says what it says (and there were over 100 quotes on that video) so you are going to tell me ALL of them are out of context?
I will speak to one of the quotes which a muslim apologist tried to put in "context". Basicly he argues that the quote is either justified or less offensive cause the Jews prayed to a false god. This makes it ok for them to burn in hell for all eternity?
Also notice something. He put up a video which was in exactly the same form with the Bible and it was not flagged. This shows how bias the whole situation is. Nick was trying to get people to question their faith but appearently asking them to read the book and ask "should i hold to this so intently if parts don't make logical sense" is not ok.
Atheist are not after one religion we try to make people question all of them. look at it this way. The Bible at times preachs peace and at times preachs war (like basicly any other holy book including the Quran). many of the good people who read the Bible say "look it teaches us good things" but they ignore the bad things. When someone follows the advice of who to kill which is also in the bible all you hear is "this is not a true christian or muslim".
The fact we try to get across is that they (going by what the book says in parts) where justified in their actions. Suicide bombing is just fine according to parts of the Quran. Just because almost all follow the parts which hurt no one and ignore parts which are now accepted for the immoral does not mean people who don't are necessarily wrong in their interpretation.
I know i am going to get screamed at for this but i ask you to atleast do some research and look into the matter yourself soon. You may be surprised by what you read.
In Nick Gisburne's defense, the passages that he quoted were taken directly from the Skeptic's Annotated Quran (SAQ). He did not write them, merely copied them. There is also a Skeptic's Annotated Bible (SAB). Both are on the Web. The SAQ attempts to remove the flowerly language and get down to the basic gist of each passage.
Loved this post. Very interesting to read a Muslim with this perspective... A lot different than what we here on the news.
Look man. It doesn't matter if you put the extra context in with those verses. The verses STILL say people will be killed, and that people should be killed. The whole PROBLEM with the verses is that your condemning people to death. To kill ANYONE no matter HOW good they are to you, to kill them no matter what good they do for the world. Those verses STATE that if you do not believe you will die, either by the hands of people who are allah's believers, or by allah himself. Do you know what that means? It doesn't matter how good someone is. If they don't believe it's off with our heads. That's not right. why condemn us to death cause we don't believe in god? or ANY god for that matter? why do unbelievers always suffer? We ARENT all bad people, but your koran DOES say that ALL unbelievers must die. IT does not specify who, not who is good or who is truly bad. Just that they don't believe. Do you not think that is unfair to all the 'good' unbelievers out there?
The Qu'ran doesn't advocate killing ANYONE, like you deceitfully claim. It advocates self defense against tyrants, oppressors and wicked individuals.
And people who commit heinous crimes should be rightfully condemned to death. What's wrong with that?
"The Qu'ran doesn't advocate killing ANYONE, like you deceitfully claim. It advocates self defense against tyrants, oppressors and wicked individuals.
And people who commit heinous crimes should be rightfully condemned to death. What's wrong with that?"
Um.. your ignoring the point. In fact these are only a couple of the pieces of text from the Qu'ran. Ok. Now listen carefully to what i have to say. There ARE parts of the Qu'ran that talk about sending unbelievers to hell? ALl I'm asking do you disagree? And if you disagree, back it up with evidence and proof. There are parts of the Qu'ran that say unbelievers will suffer some punishment. Am I rght, or am I right? So what are you trying to defend? Those unbelievers may be just as good people as any of you. Why do they have to die? I never said ANYTHING about decietful people. I was talking about unbeliever, your avoiding my quesiton. Let me restate my question. I never said the wicked didn't deserve punishment, in the Qu'ran it says in many areas that unbelievers will suffer a punishment, do you DENY this? And back up WHY you do with proof. And, secondly, Why do those unbelievers DESERVE that punishment if they're good people and not bad ones?
And since we're on the topic... why don't you DEFINE what an oppressor is... I'm pretty sure that means an unbeliever as well. Even if he leaves you alone, even if he never profuses against you, he is an unbeliever of Allah. And according to qu'ran he should be punished. You guys are ignoring the bad stuff and cherry picking the good stuff. You guys are NO better then Christians who do the EXACT same thing. Read your book, take a deeper glance!
Please allow me to give an example using the same excerpts the author of this site did.
6. As to those who reject Faith, it is the same to them whether thou warn them or do not warn them; they will not believe.
7. Allah hath set a seal on their hearts and on their hearing, and on their eyes is a veil; great is the penalty they (incur).
It doesn't say anything about liars, deceitful people, or tyrants. It also does not say that people who are good will not suffer. Just those that do not have faith (belief in your god) will suffer the penalty. Please. Explain.
There's a good paragraph or so in the blog discussing who the Qu'ran labels as unbelievers.
In those particular verses, the unbelievers were people trying exterminate the Muslim community and prophet at the time, they were the pagan Arabs.
In general, unbelievers are wicked, conscienceless, immoral and unjust hypocrites. I already mentioned all this in the blog. But, not surprisingly, you deliberately choose to ignore it.
You, like Nick, speak as if you are authorities in Islam and the Qu'ran. But it is obvious you are both ignorant of the interpretation of the verses of the Qu'ran. But that won't stop you or him from parading yourselves as Islamic experts and spewing misinformation and ignorance all over the Internet.
Quoting verses of the Qu'ran out of context and posting them on the Internet does not demonstrate your understanding of the quotes, the Qu'ran or Islam.
In fact, henceforth if you are going to discuss anything regarding the verses of the Qu'ran with me, you'd have to give me the historical context and events surrounding the revelation of the verses you quote. You'd also have to back up those quotes with traditions of the Prophet. That way, I know you're not bullshitting and wasting my time.
If at this stage you haven't yet figured out the people the Qu'ran tags as unbelievers, or that in Islam a believer can be a non-Muslim, then it is time to stop posting and embarrassing yourself.
Cite it yourself. Show me WHICH part your talking about so I don't misinterpret it. SHOW ME what part your talking about that labels what an unbeliever is. PLEASE. And stop calling me ignorant if your job is to EDUCATE people stop belittling me and insulting me. I'm trying to help others figure out the truth and if your job is to help others figure out the job your doing a HORRIBLE task at spouting on about how wrong we are and how ignorant we are, and labeling us as liars when we're simply trying to understand. Your being mean, and your being crude. Now I'm asking kindly. Please show me where it labels what an unbeliever is.
84. Then fight in Allah.s cause - Thou art held responsible only for thyself - and rouse the believers. It may be that Allah will restrain the fury of the Unbelievers; for Allah is the strongest in might and in punishment.
85. Whoever recommends and helps a good cause becomes a partner therein: And whoever recommends and helps an evil cause, shares in its burden: And Allah hath power over all things.
86. When a (courteous) greeting is offered you, meet it with a greeting still more courteous, or (at least) of equal courtesy. Allah takes careful account of all things.
Here, for the sake of fairness, let me post these. I can clearly see here that at the top it says 'Whoever recommends and helps a good cause becomes a partner therein' this is obviously a reference to an unbeliever who is a good person, and will not deserve punishment, am I right? No out of context stuff. Just good stuff.
First of all, I don't have any obligation to educate you. If you want to live in ignorance that's your business.
Second of all, read the blog, I'm not going to repeat myself.
If there's anything about the Qu'ran or Islam, or the blog you don't understand, ask in a respectful manner and tone and I'll share what I know in a respectful manner and tone too.
What I would not tolerate is a bigot coming to my blog, who is clearly ignorant of the religion, trying to school me on it while being insulting. You are not acting like someone who wants to be enlightened. In fact, it seems your only objective is the look for trouble.
Dude. I'm seriously NOT trying to be rude. You are. I asked to be educated, it's your religions duty, it asks you to educate those who wish to be educated. All your saying is you don't want to have this debate. Ok. Allow me to sum this up in one question. Answer this and I'll be glad to leave you alone. I didn't call you a liar or a bigot or uneducated. Your calling me all those things so I would ask kindly that you refrain from it.
An unbeliever is someone who doesn't follow the faith. A believer is someone who follows the faith and worships... but a believer is also a person who is an unbeliever in allah but does good things?
I ALREADY ANSWERED THE FREAKING QUESTION IN THE BLOG!
Allow me the "quote" myself.
"You will find many stories in the Quran were various people, (Muslims, Christians, Jews and Pagans) have been tagged "disbelievers", better interpreted as "Hypocrite" in most contexts I can remember. For a Muslim a "disbeliever" is not necessarily a non-Muslim. And a believer is not necessarily a Muslim. It's not black and white. What is these days? A believer in Islam is anybody who speaks the truth and acts with extremely high, selfless, moral and ethical standards. Naturally this includes all good Muslims. But a believer in Islam could also be an Atheist, a Christian, a Jew, or anybody. A disbeliever in Islam is what many of us consider to be a selfish, wicked and tyrannical individual. Hypocrites and liars are especially labeled disbelievers in Islam. And I can tell you that there are many people who call themselves Muslims that are hypocrites and liars."
How did you conveniently miss that? Do you see why I'm frustrated?
I already stated the concept of belief in Islam is largely tied to actions not faith. I even stated many people called themselves Muslims but their actions demonstrate otherwise. This is all in the blog!
Ok dude. Calm down! It's all alright. No need to get all upset with the caps and stuff. Yes I read that part man. I'm cool with that. That part I got. I did understand that part. I was asking for evidence from the Qu'ran that says something along the lines of that, that 'people who do good works will essentially find their way into heaven' basically. Is there a part of the Qu'ran that says people who do good things will recieve good things? That's all. I'm sorry if I frustrated you. I'm not here to offend you honestly. Now I understand that that is your interpretation of what a believer is from the words of the Qu'ran.
And I'm sorry. I am trying to get a good understanding and you claim you know what your talking about and other people would probably like to know too. If you are able to convey yourself well I think it will be good for you. Also I won't have to be scared of any of the 'bad things' that might get taken out of context. It's a win win situation. As a man of my word. I will leave you be now... but it would be wonderful to see you make another reply. I'm interested in knowing what the Qu'ran says, not your own words of what it means. To see a piece of the Qu'ran that explicitly states what I mentioned before. That's all. No hard feelings honestly. In any case... I asked my question so I'll leave, I'm a man of my word like that. I wouldn't want to create any bad blood, I'm not a bad guy, just one who's trying to make sense of a religion where things ARE indeed easily removed from context.
> Is there a part of the
> Qu'ran that says people
> who do good things will
> recieve good things?
>
Yes, all of the Qu'ran says that. Pick up any random chapter and read it.
In Islam, whether or not you enter heaven is based on your deeds (actions), not solely on belief. In other words, the benchmark for judging faith in Islam is based on an individual's actions.
The Qu'ran is more of a warning, or a rule book. To understand the verses of the Qu'ran you have to understand the teaching and traditions of the Prophet and also the historical context surrounding the revelations of the verses of the Qu'ran.
I'll give an example. The Qu'ran says Muslims should pray 5 times a day. But you wouldn't find anywhere in the Qu'ran the details steps in how to perform these prayers. To figure that out you'd have to read the hadith, the teachings and sayings of the Prophets.
If the Qu'ran is the rule book, then the hadith is the philosophy of Islam. And this is where you'll find how to pray, how to lead your life, or what the definition of an unbeliever or hypocrite is.
I refrain from making quotes of the Qu'ran because they are meaningless if they are not backed with the events surrounding the revelations of verses or the historical context. It's like picking up a book on Anatomy and randomly making quotes from it. They won't make sense to anyone who doesn't have a strong background in Biology or other medical fields.
For example, in the Quotes in my blogs, the "unbelievers" were a particular group of people. Neither you nor Nick knew that. You just assumed the verses were directed at you. And therein lies the danger taking quotes out of context and interpreting the verses of the Qu'ran without a basic understanding of the philosophy of the religion or how to interpret the Qu'ran.
But since you are hell bent on quotes, here are few of them. And since your tone in the last comment is much better, I invite you to ask anything you wish on the topic. I'll explain to the best of my knowledge.
Cheers
Chapter 2
2:148 And to each is a direction that he will take, so you shall race towards good deeds. Wherever you may be, God will bring you all together. God is capable of all things.
2:178 O you who believe, equivalence has been decreed for you in the case of murder; the free for the free, and the slave for the slave, and the female for the female. Whoever is forgiven anything by his brother, then it is to be followed with good deeds and kindness towards him; that is an alleviation from your Lord, and a mercy. Whoever transgresses after that, he will have a painful retribution.
Chapter 11
11:114 And you shall hold the connection during the two edges of the day, and the near part of the night. The good deeds take away the bad. This is a reminder to those who remember.
Chapter 18
18:46 Wealth and buildings are the beauty of this life. But the good deeds that remain behind are better with your Lord for a reward, and better for hope.
Chapter 28
28:84 Whoever brings forth a good deed, he will receive a better reward than it. And whoever brings forth a sin then the retribution for their sins will be to the extent of their deeds.
Chapter 35
35:10 Whosoever is seeking pride, then know that to God belongs all Pride. To Him ascend the good words, and they are exalted by the good deeds. And as for those who scheme evil, they will have a painful retribution, and their scheming will fail.
Alright. Alright. I can follow you. Allow me to apologize on behalf of many people who probably make similar interpretations who would take a greater consideration to this if only more like yourself could step up and explain it. This is stuff I can understand you know? I have viewed everything you've written. Hopefully others will see it too and have a better idea, which is what we both are hoping for. A big problem with the interpretations of others comes from things like the bible, which is swarming with verses that condone hate and violence whether it's in context or not. It's not a very well written book as I think you might agree should you know it. People get scared when they see this stuff and it's reasonable, especially when there is no one to put it into context. The reason I'm so hell bent on finding the right quotes is to show people that there is some truth to what you explained. Good people who perform good deeds, receive good things. I think knowing that people will have a better time accepting it for what it really is.
People are known to pick at what frightens them the most. The mass media is a good example of fear mongering for their ratings or our government for abusing politics and fear tactics. It plucks at our heart strings. It seems to me that the Qu'ran gives unbeliever and believer double meanings. At least in the eyes of others anyway it would 'appear' they have double meanings. Most people seem to find that a believer is someone who must worship a deity. So to a christian this probably isn't well understood. The same can be said about the term unbeliever. Someone who does not worship a given deity. But the terms believer and unbeliever thus appear to have double meanings, when we're in fact talking about people who 'believe in being good' and those who 'don't believe in being good'. Many people don't share these double meanings. They're good meanings though. I personally have always believed that if there were a god he'd do just that on grade them on the level and nature of deeds, and not specifically in worship. I mean without a god here it's hard to believe he's there. So it has always seemed blasphemous to send anyone to hell who doesn't believe in him. The way you describe the Qu'ran just now makes a lot of sense. Those who are good, regardless of 'believing in him' get a shot at happiness. Really, that's where the confusion lies.
So it's easy to understand why it is so often taken out of context. You've shined a whole new view on the subject for me and I would like to continue my research knowing what I do now. It gives me an even greater understanding. Perhaps seeing that the double meanings are there will help you to describe them to others. It's difficult to say that your 'not' reffering to someone when they aren't even aware that the double meaning exists to begin with. The quotes help too though. We've got to share all the information we can to make things right you know? Thanks a lot for your time and I'm sorry if I seemed brash. It wasn't my intention.
Yes, the term "unbeliever" is used differently in different context of the Qur'an, which is why I've been whining all day about taking things out of context.
In a certain story in the Qur'an, it may refer to a group of people, in another it may refer to an Egyptian Pharaoh, in yet another it may refer to humanity in general. The context, however, is almost always clear if people do not cherry pick quotes out of context, like Nick did.
So who's an unbeliever according to the Qur'an? Easy, you can spot them by their "actions". I'll summarize the characteristics of unbelievers based on my understanding of the Qur'an. I recommend you do your own research.
1). They are liars (Nothing they say is true).
2). They are hypocrites (Pretend to be something they are not).
3). They are greedy (They care for no one but themselves.).
4). They are faithless (They lack any moral conscience. They don't believe their actions have any repercussions, spiritual or otherwise.).
5). They are wicked and tyrannical (They derive pleasure in the misery of others).
6). They are oppressors (They take advantage of the weak).
7). They deny the truth even when it's apparent to them.
Nothing in that list states an "unbeliever" is a non-Muslim. As you'll see if you read the Qur'an the criteria for unbelief is based on "actions". Thus, a Muslim is always on guard and constantly evaluating if his or her actions fits the profile of an "unbeliever", and for good reason too. In fact, you don't need to be a Muslim to see that being an "unbeliever" is not cool. That is of course if you have well grounded ethical and moral standards.
I leave you with the following verse from the Qur'an
002.256: "There's no compulsion in Religion."
Nobody has the right to force anyone to worship or believe in God. At the same time people shouldn't go around misrepresenting other people's beliefs, especially if they don't understand these beliefs. I recommend you read the Qur'an at least once, and then form whatever conclusions you wish about it.
Cheers
Greetings. I just watched Gisburne's video and then found your reply. I've never read the Quran, so the video had me worried; I am very glad to see that his portrayal of the substance of the text was inaccurate.
That said, I feel compelled to challenge you on this statement: If free speech is about making inaccurate, irresponsible, reckless, dangerous and false statements to further hidden agendas, then censorship ain't that bad after all.
If that is how you feel, then you don't understand the point of free speech. Certainly, many abuse it; but it also gives you the opportunity to speak freely in response, as you have done. The real question is, if there is to be censorship, who gets to decide, and how do we know their motives are pure?
I urge you to rethink your position (or at least, declare that you were speaking from an understandable but momentary frustration). Censorship is a cure much worse than the disease.
Contrary to popular misconception, "Freedom" and "Free" speech is no excuse for obnoxious and irresponsible behavior.
There are consequences for stupidity exercised in the name of "Freedom" and "Free" speech.
Try;
1) yelling "Fire!" in a theatre;
2) threatening the life of the President;
3) Lying to congress;
4) Falsely accusing anybody, especially an affluent person;
5) Joking about a bomb in a building;
6) Slapping people on the street, just because you are "Free" to do so;
7) Insulting your boss;
8) and so on...
"Freedom" and "Free" speech is a mirage. There are consequences for speech and actions depending on culture and society. But one thing is clear, intentionally dispersing false information for whatever agenda is considered irresponsible and unethical in all morally upright societies including "Free" ones. Most societies including "Free" ones punish people for making false or irresponsible statements. So what "Freedom" are we talking about here? And how isn't our "Freedom" and "Free" speech already censored by societal/cultural rules, laws or tenets?
I don't believe in "Free" speech because there's no such thing. I believe in responsible speech, truthful statements and ethical behaviors. Nick's objective is clear. He's goal is to put Muslims and Islam in bad light because he is an atheist. How's that responsible? How's that ethical? How's that objective?
Unfortunately, many individuals interpret "Free" speech as an excuse to be intolerant, obnoxious and irresponsible. It's unfortunate that this society rewards them for such behavior under the guise of a common ideology they believe in called "Free" speech.
If you live in the USA, you already live in a society that is heavily censored. Censorship is not inherently evil. "Freedom" is not inherently good.
If you examine how freedom of speech has come to be interpreted by the courts in the US, you will find that yes, on the one hand, certain speech acts are restricted, because the danger they cause is deemed to outweigh any possible expressive value they may have. You give the canonical example of yelling "fire!" in a crowded theater.
On the other hand, however, certain other kinds of speech are considered to have a greater claim on freedom, and the kind with the greatest such claim is political speech. In our tradition, political speech is supposed to be completely unfettered, and for a very simple and stark reason: if the government can suppress any political speech, it will inevitably abuse that ability as a way of keeping itself in power. This is the nature of government. This is why we consider censorship so dangerous.
Gisburne's video has to be considered political speech. I understand that you consider it irresponsible and unethical, and I want to assure you I'm not defending it. But I do defend his right to post it, just as I defend your right to publicly argue that it is distorted.
Most societies including "Free" ones punish people for making false or irresponsible statements. In the commercial arena, yes, we do have laws against false advertising, etc. In the personal arena also, yes, you can be sued for libel. But in the political arena, no -- because, as I said, who decides what is false or irresponsible? (Note, for instance, that politicians have little or no ability to sue for libel. They give this up when they enter the public sphere.)
Censorship is not inherently evil. "Freedom" is not inherently good. I am sorry you think this way. I hope you will come to value freedom more someday.
But I do defend his right to post it, just as I defend your right to publicly argue that it is distorted.
Do you also defend people's right to:
1). yell "Fire!" in a gathering, even when there's no fire;
2). incite, instigate and spread hatred against a group of people, say the aboriginal American Indians;
3). harass or threaten to harm innocent people; or
4). disseminate information that may cause violent upheavals?
How about actions? What actions do you defend, and which don't you? After all, in a truly "Free" society people should have the right to do whatever they like.
"Freedom" comes with a basket of double standards. For instance, isn't it ironic slavery used to be legal in a society that extols the value of "Freedom" and indeed was supposedly founded upon it?
You may argue I don't value "Freedom". I argue I value the spirit of the ideology by I recognize its limitations.
The simple fact is, that regardless of what Nick was saying, he was not endangering life or property, nor was he committing a crime. Therefore, the censorship of his video was wrong: just as a fundamentalists', or indeed a moderates' video informing all atheists that they would burn in hell etc. etc. and citing "terrible passages" in the work of Darwin, Dawkins and Doug Adams should not be removed.
As long as Nick was not committing a crime, such as paedophilla, his video, nor anyone else's should be censored.
Hey Mystilleef,
Just wanted to say that was a nice context explanation. Personally, I love the beautiful poetic flow the words in the Qu'ran have; it's always nice to read a exerpt that so demonstrates that beauty.
I have to commend you on your reply - in Proverbs, there's a verse about answering a fool [Proverbs 26], and Nick Gisburne fits as a square peg in a square hole. You have not tried to answer Nick, something that would only make him seem wise. Instead you have written an answer that those commoners who might be deceived by him could read, and hopefully, find truth.
Anyway, well done. By the way, IMO you've got a very good eye for UI design - well done there as well.
First of all, thank you for this post. It made me realize how ignorant I am about Islam and how misrepresented it is. I decided to do some research for myself.
One example: I had heard of Muhammad killing Jews in Medina. Here is the context of that incident.
1. There were many groups of Jews in Medina at that time, but there was only one (Banu Qurayza) that they fought and killed. The other Jewish groups in the area live in peace with Muhammad and his followers.
2. The goup had allied themselves with the Quraysh (who had come to kill Muhammad and his followers). They demostrated it by telling the Quraysh of Muhammad's battle plans and supplying the Quraysh with weapons.
3. Muhammad submitted to the judgment of a Hakam (neutral, mutually accepted judge) who declared that there warriors should be killed for their treason.
So Muhammad was following tribal law concerning traitorous enemies during a war. The fact that they were Jewish was incidental. I'm not sure what to make of it (and I hope my summary does the situation justice), but it was a much different situation than I was led to believe.
I also found this verse of the Quran particularly interesting:
"Those who believe in the Quran, those who follow the Jewish scriptures, the Sabians and the Christians--anyone who believes in God and the Last Days, and who does good deeds, will have nothing to fear or regret." (5:96)
Thou wilt indeed find them, of all people, most greedy of life,-even more than the idolaters: Each one of them wishes He could be given a life of a thousand years: But the grant of such life will not save him from (due) punishment. For Allah sees well all that they do.
This is worse than how Nick quotes it. "Each one of them" have you ever heard of stereo typification which is at the hart of racism? Surely some of them will be good and some bad like every other “race”. Sorry but this is indefensible.
Salaam alaykum..... who are you to judge about islam and jews...i myself is a muslim girl and proud of it..i never did once judge about jews religion
.i respect them as they respect me..i even got jew friends...clearly i know its free speech... but what are you going to gain out of it? the truth ? there is no truth until u actually read the whole of qur-ran ... this is in the qur-ran
(5/54/55)
O you who believe, take not jews and Christians for your bosom friends and protectors; they are but friends and protectors of one another, and any of you who turns to them for friendship and protector is one of them. Verily Allah does not guide wrong-doers. those with sick hearts you see how eagerly they speed among them, sayin. 'We do fear lest a change of fortune should bring us disaster. Ah. perhaps Allah will give you victory or an authority from Him. then will they repent of the secret thoughs they harbored in their hearts."
so basically this does not mean however, that the Quran asks Muslim to declare emmity against Jews and Christians. On contrary, it encourages them to do all possible good to them with one reservation that while they should be nice to them, when it comes to bosom friends whom one entrusts with his secrets and relies upon in matters of religion it is only natural that the Quran limits this relationship to believers
its sad how you choose to ignore that fact
and regardless scientist non-muslim's say they found most of the science in the holy quran and thats a fact
here is the link ...
http://www.scienceislam.com/scientists_quran.php
Mystilleef,
Thank you for this - it has deepened my understanding, and made me feel a little less fearful of Muslims to know that there are those like you among their numbers.
The problem we have here is that there seems to be a very vocal minority in Islam (I will assume it is a minority), who are intent on death and destruction to bring about the global caliphate (Bin Laden and his cronies). There also seems to be a similar (or perhaps the same) minority who react very badly to any commentary on Islam.
A message like yours, and protests led by marching and banners would be acceptable. But not one that carries banners saying "Death to unbelievers". There is a great hipocracy amongst those who say "It is so unfair to say we are not a peaceful religion that we will burn flags, wave guns in the air, make death threats against individuals and bomb threats against governments". It is a fault of the media that it is such bigots that get all the attention.
Perhaps if Islam really is the message of peace that you have respectfully put forward, then Islam should be taking to task the minority who make it sound like a violent and angry group.
It is a bit of a shame that after such a good and amicable rendition by Mystilleef that Shamira had to taint it. She shows the kind of distrust and fear that the world has come to expect, even if she speaks for a very unpleasant vocal minority. I am an atheist, considering UU, and I feel that close, trusting friends should have nothing to do with which book you put your faith in. I certainly do not choose friends based on such shallow and tainted judgements.
BTW - Playing with scribes - like the idea. May have to file a bug or two.
A Context for you to rely on: a jew, ukrainian origin, atheist.
I understand perfectly the way this video upset you, I watched it too in it's time on YouTube. It did several things for me – it made me realize how hatred can be blown out of proportion by FUD, the exact technique, it made me remember George Carlin's "imagine how stupid the Average person is, then understand that half of them are stupider than that". You can call yourself a muslim all you want, but do realize what context most people associate with that group. Likewise is calling yourself a hacker. Think about that.
Now, you gave me more then enough of yourself in this and other posts so I can disassociate you from "t3h l33t terrorists" in my own mind, but then again – I'm considered to be way above the average person in terms of perception and negotiating beliefs. Most people don't think.
Thank you for being a muslim hacker, you rule bro. Seriously, you're awesome.
You're one of the few "Internet People" I'd actually like to meet and talk to in person.
Hello goddll,
People should be judged based on character, merit and accomplishments. Not on stereotypes exagerated and fueled by sectarian prejudices and propaganda.
I am a Muslim and I'm not ashamed of my beliefs.
The very definition of a Muslim is one who serves the universes' sole divine force/energy by serving his creations.
Truth and justice are the core attributes of a Muslim.
A Muslim speaks the truth, seeks the truth, lives by these truths and exposes the truth for others to be rightly guided. In essense, TRUE Muslims are guided by scientific enquiry, not guess work, superstition, blind following, baseless rituals or even faith.
To be just means to treat all creations (humans, animals, our environment, resources, knowledge, etc) with dignity and respect. And also to ensure that their is balance (no unfairness, oppression, persecution) in society.
This is the philosophy of Islam.
For thousands of years groups of people have invested an ungodly amount of time to distort the message of Islam to satisfy selfish and political motives. So far they've been very successful.
By associating a Muslim to a terrorist you are simply allowing yourself to be a victim of historical propaganda.
Which reminds me, I need to update the blog to reflect and better English translation of the Quran. :-)
Maybe someday I may blog about system called Islam.
Cheers
... ALI just said it: Most "western" commentators of this blog clearly are victims of a long tradition of efficient anti-muslim-propaganda and misinformation. Every week many innocent people and some soldiers in Irak and Afghanistan are killed as a direct consequence of this propaganda.
So dont mistrust the muslims. Mistrust media like CNN, military cinema heroes like IronMan and (above all) american finance terrorists who are publicly killing people for oil. Your "free speech" is nowadays just an efficient way of spreading misinformation.
There is only one way out of this. Read into the sources and dont believe interpreters like "Nick"..
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home