The logical curse in Islam. Why muslim cannot change their religion without becoming apostate

I have an issue with the difference between what people tell me the Quran says and the literal writing in the Quran. From my point of view logically the Quran is worse than what Muslim project.

This is being pushed as the true face of the Quran by many muslim:


What it really say 5:32-5:33

Because of that, We decreed upon the Children of Israel that whoever kills a soul unless for a soul or for corruption [done] in the land - it is as if he had slain mankind entirely. And whoever saves one - it is as if he had saved mankind entirely. And our messengers had certainly come to them with clear proofs. Then indeed many of them, [even] after that, throughout the land, were transgressors.

Indeed, the penalty for those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger and strive upon earth [to cause] corruption is none but that they be killed or crucified or that their hands and feet be cut off from opposite sides or that they be exiled from the land. That is for them a disgrace in this world; and for them in the Hereafter is a great punishment,

The problem for Muslim from my point of view is that the Quran is seen as a divine perfection and Muslim cannot question that perfection without apostasizing themselves. In a way every time a Muslim is lying about what Quran say they are logically rejecting Muhammad words and that is a good thing since any deviation from the golden rule should be rejected as the insanity it is.

The dissonance "what the peaceful Muslim want Muhammad to have said" and the real message and the need for Muhammad to be perfect on all levels, is a logical curse that will cause lowered self awareness in the practitioner, since the two cannot be logically true. If you submit to the literal Quran you become objectively like a monster instead of a saint wanting Mutualistic relationships that benefit all involved. If you reject the literal Quran you are logically rejecting the perfection of Islam.

So forever Muslim will have to call others lying about their religion since they cannot fix the dissonance curse and cannot admit that their religion is not logically perfect causing self deceit instead and projecting the problem away from themselves to others.

This will of course hinder the possibility to be Mutualistic to other people and coexists with other cultures since there is a need of logical self deceit in all souls so that no one points out this problem.

a reply to: LittleByLittle

The translation of the passage you quote sounds reasonable to me: who would kill without just cause is insane.

Interesting that it is addressed to the children of Israel, and frankly I am ready to defend in a sharia court murders of Muslims by Israelites as being a response to a "soul or corruption in the land" when applicable, pro bono, with Quranic scripture as legal ground. Israelites who kill without cause are also indicted by Israeli courts.

a reply to: wisvol

Define wage war against Allah and his messengers? Is rejecting Islam and Muhammad waging war against them?

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Define wage war against Allah and his messengers? Is rejecting Islam and Muhammad waging war against them?

Waging war against Allah in my opinion is a losing proposition. His messengers, well.. Really carefully there because a lot of people claim to be his messengers. The liars are worth exposing.
Rejecting opinions is most definitely not waging war.

a reply to: wisvol

You did not define it at all.

Is refusal to accept Allah is god or exists waging war on him? Is trying to tell people to convert to another religion waging war?

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

You did not define it at all.

I didn't do what you asked?
wow
maybe I'm not at your service then

Is refusal to accept Allah is god or exists waging war on him? Is trying to tell people to convert to another religion waging war?

No on both questions
waging war involves waging war, beliefs aren't war, telling things isn't war
waging war in order to convert is waging war, whether converting to or away from any specific religion

originally posted by: wisvol

I didn't do what you asked?
wow
maybe I'm not at your service then

You responded to my post. I did not ask you to. Maybe if you do not like answering a post you should not reply to it.

No on both questions
waging war involves waging war, beliefs aren't war, telling things isn't war
waging war in order to convert is waging war, whether converting to or away from any specific religion

Just an FYI, you are clueless. Usury (interest) is described as waging war on Allah. So charging interest on a loan is enough to warrant this treatment.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

You responded to my post. I did not ask you to. Maybe if you do not like answering a post you should not reply to it.

I answer questions. Not satisfied? say it politely and I'll accommodate, say it like a brat, and get nothing.

Just an FYI, you are clueless. Usury (interest) is described as waging war on Allah. So charging interest on a loan is enough to warrant this treatment.

You actually wrote "just an FYI, you are clueless." Read it again and see how great it proves you and your point to be.
A crack whore said that not buying her crack is waging war on Allah.
Is it?
nope, words have meanings and war means war

originally posted by: wisvol
nope, words have meanings and war means war

Except I already proved their definition of war is not the same as yours.

O you who have believed, fear Allah and give up what remains [due to you] of interest, if you should be believers.

And if you do not, then be informed of a war [against you] from Allah and His Messenger. But if you repent, you may have your principal - [thus] you do no wrong, nor are you wronged.

al-Baqara 278-279
quran.com...

Charging interest is waging war.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Charging interest is waging war.

According to your translation, a war should be waged against those who charge interest.
This does not mean the contrary.
The party waging the war is not the one loaning, in case your linguistics are really that #ty.

And waging war against those who charge interest only makes sense if they're asking for interest on a loan you haven't wilfully contracted, otherwise it's coming back on your contractual word, aka lying.

originally posted by: wisvol
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Charging interest is waging war.

According to your translation, a war should be waged against those who charge interest.
This does not mean the contrary.
The party waging the war is not the one loaning, in case your linguistics are really that #ty.

And waging war against those who charge interest only makes sense if they're asking for interest on a loan you haven't wilfully contracted, otherwise it's coming back on your contractual word, aka lying.

False. The verse does not say that. It says you should not charge interest at all. If you do you should have war waged on you.

This doesn't even go into the whole "mischief" aspect of the OP verse. I already proved your assertion you need to wage actual war on Allah false. There is a whole host of things that results in this. Disobeying Allah gets you this treatment too.

So much peace.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Let smarter people handle theology, law, war, and probably scissors.

a reply to: wisvol

So I basically just destroyed your argument and you have no response. About what I thought.

How about I leave it to Ibn Kathir?

`Wage war' mentioned here means, oppose and contradict, and it includes disbelief, blocking roads and spreading fear in the fairways.

www.qtafsir.com...

Sorry you have no clue what the verses mean, I do.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

smarter than Ibn Khatir

waging war already has a meaning, he doesn't get to make a new one

other wise this sentence also means pizza

a reply to: wisvol

So you have no response, thought so.

a reply to: LittleByLittle

From my perspective it simply requires muslims to accept other's beliefs without killing. Sure there are other beliefs albeit political, religous or personal that some malalinged believers take personally and feel it is their divine duty to destroy.

No one person can respect those beliefs.

Unfortunately for the muslim sect there are a substantive number of members who believe and overtake the .misinterpret. I am no muslim. I believe in a single god or creator who should give mercy and peace to all.

What a failure I am! No matter how much good I do, people are being tortured and agonisingly destroyed along with my faith in an all good and forgiving entity.

Nothing what happens outside my sanctuary will deflect me from the person I am, but hell, I'm angry lately because of the meaninless detruction of innocents for a religuous or political belief whether muslim or other.

Sorry, bit of a rant too.

Kindest regards and respect to all,

Bally.

Jeez!! Why is it so hard for people to understand that there is no one standard rule book of interpretation for ANY religion? People always act like there is one Islam, with one rule book. There never has been. The first Muslims had few guidelines for interpreting and creating law, and arguably now 1400 years later there is even less clarity of how interpretation should go. It's like this with every religion. The Qur'an has very few "legal" rulings... The rest, Islamic law, is almost all just the interpretations of man. This is liberating for loving liberal interpretations and dangerous for nuts who want a barbaric interpretation... We create the interpretation. It can say anything you want, hence Muslim bashers can find their interpretation just as liberal Muslims can find theirs.

But everyone, repeat after me.. THERE IS NO ONE ISLAM!!

The problem with Islam and all religion is that its down to interpretation. ISIS clearly thing that non of us are innocent so to them they are justified in there actions. Absolute Idiots if you ask me....

a reply to: AudioOne

People always act like there is one Islam, with one rule book. There never has been.

Actually, the Qur'an is the Islamic rule book.

Interpretations are just that. Anyone is welcome to interpret anything, but interpreting something as something else ruins credibility.

There absolutely is one Islam: that of Mohamed Ibn Abid Allah.
The rest is opinion

a reply to: wisvol

Look deeper and not at the surface. I am completely aware of your words and your meaning, as this is how I might have thought about it years ago. But if you study words and meaning you will know it is impossible to read anything without an act of subjective interpretation (post modern theory, Derrida etx.) For instance, all translations of the Qu'ran take liberties. The worst are the wahhabi translations that infer if the Qu'ran is talking about Christians or Jews when it is not specifically naming either. I have maybe 15 different Qu'rans in my library. The actual original words are very sparse on matters of law. There are very few legal rulings in the Qu'ran, most having to do with matters of inheritance and marriage This is a fact. Any scholar on the Qu'ran will tell you this. The Qu'ran doesn't even tell people to pray five times a day, although an interpreted translation might. Any deeps study will show you that the first Muslim communities after Muhammad's death were faced with many questions and uncertainty on how to proceed.

Sure, there is one Islam, that of Muhammad, when's the last time someone has been able to petition him with a question regarding Islam? The Hadith are imperfect and contradict each other on certain points. Weak hadith are still sited by "Islamic scholars" if they fit whatever narrative they are selling. It's all interpretation. It's been interpretation since Abu Bakr.. Islamic law and theology and philosophy developed over a 300 year span because Muhammad didn't talk about the fine details of legal theory, philosophy, or theory of religion. He was a prophet and prophets don't write detailed legal manuals with concise theory, deep esoteric framework mystical-philosophical texts, or works of ontology. That was developed over a long period of time afterwards, same as in every religion..