[yoavm]

This is getting a little ridiculous... Your question was what parts of the Quran could be considered controversial. I'm really not looking for religious explanations. If you cannot see why having a text that says Jews committed crimes and are cursed, even if it's actually about some very specific Jews in the past, then I guess we don't agree on the definition of "controversial".

[bobxmax]

I don't think you know what anti-semitic means. That passage is talking about a very specific group of people and what happened to them. It has nothing to do with Jews in general as a race/people. Just because a sentence has the word "Jew" in it and isn't wildly positive doesn't automatically make it anti-semitic.

There are other parts where it talks about Arabs who transgressed and were cursed - is the Qur'an now anti-Arab?

Unfortunately this is the Islamophobic disinformation that's spread, primarily from 2 countries (Israel and India), and people like you happily parrot. I suspect this is because unlike Judaism, criticizing Islam/Muslims is socially acceptable.

And again, nothing you said remotely compares to the Torah which calls for child rape, infanticide and genocide. Which was the point of my original comment.

Agnostic West African with a partial doctorate in scriptural studies btw.

[pmarreck]

> Just because a sentence has the word "Jew" in it and isn't wildly positive doesn't automatically make it anti-semitic.

LOL, this is quite the impressive goalpost-moving. I'm sure all the terrorists who believe they will attain Jannat al-Firdous by becoming Shaheed while killing Israelis (thanks to Sunan Ibn Majah 2799, Book 24, Hadith 47) are making the same distinction you are.

Quran 2:80, Quran 5:82, Quran 9:29, Sahih Bukhari Volume 4, Book 52, Hadith 176 and Sahih Muslim 41:6985 and Sahih al-Bukhari 3593 (of course), Surah 9:30 actually makes a provably false statement about Jewish belief, Surah 98:6... I can continue if you'd like, or you can continue to insist that the book is not only hugely anti-semitic but also anti-christian (although to an admittedly lesser degree)

I am a complete skeptical agnostic at this point (although I was born Catholic). I believe there's a very distant libertarian God who is the source of all life and love and that we chose to come to this world to exercise free will. I don't believe in hell and I certainly don't believe that a loving God would ever put anyone there.

[bobxmax]

Good god what a stupid post. I knew I was in for a treat when you claimed a Hasan hadith was being used to justify murdering people, but then you followed it up with every verse you could find vaguely mentioning Jews and even some completely unrelated to them. It's like reading a fundie from Louisiana's "evidence" against vaccines on Facebook.

"USAF Veteran" - OK makes sense now. You emptied your brain and drank the Kool-Aid a long time ago.

[pmarreck]

Only a person with weak arguments has to attack the person making them instead of the argument itself, so thanks for taking the L dude. The truth has finally come out. You are, in fact, the original moron. If you can’t tell that it’s all bullshit, then that’s exactly what you are. A loving God is not also a threatening and punitive one. Because that makes no sense to anyone with a brain who has decided to actually use it. You’re in a death cult, or a useful idiot supporting one, and furthermore, the defense of Western values, per your ignorant and naïve Air Force remark, is absolutely worth it, and to hell with anyone who disagrees. I would gladly serve again to defend from the further encroachment of the bullshit worldview you support.

At least the Green Prince was smart enough to figure it out.

[bobxmax]

LOL oh my really struck a nerve with the basement dwelling philogynist

[pmarreck]

You got triggered first, otherwise you wouldn't have made a personal attack and investigated my profile. Those are the refuges of argument-losers.

And your account created 20 days ago indicates you got banned on another account for being an ass, or you are a noob. Neither of which looks good.

[pmarreck]

Literally every other day now we hear about a violent act by someone radicalized by the book you're defending. Either the New Orleans guy or the Vegas guy (or both; I can't keep track because there are so many) even had a Quran open to the page that inspired him.

EDIT: It was the New Orleans guy: https://nypost.com/2025/01/02/us-news/new-orleans-isis-terro...

For some reason, none of them ever have a Bible or a Torah or a Talmud or a Bhagavad Gita left open to a page demanding violence or supplication to a hateful God. None of them have religious paraphernalia except from one religion in particular, whose adherents keep claiming it is just "media bias" (since the left wing loves terrorists now and since most journalists and media are left-wing, we can actually safely assume that more is hidden than what is relayed, actually... and I'm not even trying to politicize this, but that's just facts)

But keep blaming the people instead of the book that enables them, though, while calling me stupid. Just like your fucking book with its bigamist pederast warmonger "prophet" victim-blames the raped because of how they dressed. LOLLLLL

[bobxmax]

i aint reading all that

happy for u tho

or sorry that happened