The qu'ran banned alcohol and pigs, but why did it not ban Methamphetamine, crack cocaine or nuclear weapons?

Question

Sure, Pigs are filthy, but no doubt Nukes are more deadly? If whoever proclaimed the rules had divine vision and wisdom, wouldn't he/she/it be able to forsee the future and ban the stuff in the future that would be harmful to mankind? As far as I see it, alcohol and pigs may be some of the most deadly stuff back 1500 years ago, but right now, they are nowhere as deadly as the other stuff like crack cocaine or ice.

Answer 1

It does ban those things because it discourages violence (contrary to popular belief) and says that your body should be cherished. Alcohol and pigs are just specific derivatives of these two ideas.

Answer 2

keep reading,I bet if you look in there you'll find that there is a ban on doing totally stupid things to your body,just like in the Bible. You don't need specific names of the things that are no good for your body & soul. The pigs & alchohol were an example to let you know that not everything that you can eat or otherwise put in your body is ok. Simple studies have found both of these to be harmful to us. Do you need a study or science to see that crack is bad? Read more, learn more...

Answer 3

The Qu'Ran is a book written by some dude(s) that had no idea that nukes were ever going to exist. Even people that believe in the "holy texts" admit that they were all written by humans and are therefore flawed.

Answer 4

Here is an explanation.

It's better if a book says that killing innocents is bad than if it says that a specific weapon, chemical, etc. is wrong.

There is no point in listing all of them, because people can change a thing's name.

For example, during Prohibition, when bars became Speakeasies. When bootleggers sold alcohol.



A lecture about the Quran.
http://www.divshare.com/download/34932-025

Good luck, Peace.




CHEMICALS:
alcohol
Methamphetamine
Crack
Cocaine
etc.



WEAPONS:
Guns, Bullets
Swords
Mustard gas
Missles
mines
rockets
nukes
fire (somethimes)
Napalm

Etc.

Answer 5

I am not believer in the qu'ran, but if their book said no nuclear weapons, could/wouldn't they have just named it something different. Like saying the anti-christ name is "Bob" how many people would go ahead and name their child Bob if they believe that the anti-christ would be born?

Answer 6

of direction there could desire to be. Bans are difficult, because of fact to maintain them there must be mutual believe. Failed bans: german air capacity, torture, effective bans: Germ war, gas war, "Dum Dum" exploding bullets. ought to we ever have a international police/military with the authority and capacity to flow after violators? available, yet very complicated. the sturdy information, Europe, a conflict floor for hundreds of years, has had 60 yrs of relative peace and is getting extra advantageous. shortage of materials, the biggest reason for conflict is actual over. Our technical society has the possiblilty of offering "sufficient for anybody" IF it has the political will. think of of the "celebrity trek" economic device.

Answer 7

You make an excellent excellent point most people will not fully develop.

If the Quran is supposed to be a life-manual, for all time, that gives specifics, such as what not to eat or to drugs to avoid, we should have expected this list to be all inclusive for all time.

Meth is a much more dangerous drug today, yet the Quran only address the dangerous drug of its time by name?

False religion. Period.

Answer 8

Wouldn't that be like asking Moses to give an opinion of private jets vs commercial?

Answer 9

It should be obvious that such things were not known in 620 AD. So it would have been pointless (not to mention impossible) to say anything about them.

Answer 10

DAMN..
GOOD QUESTION. I GUESS THEY THINK WORSE OF SOME AND NOT OF THE OTHER. OR MAYBE THEY JUST THINK THEY ARE TOO GOOD TO BE DOING METH AND SUCH LIKE THAT SO THEY WOULDN'T THINK OT BAN IT