"Islam: What the West needs to know"

MooseJam

hivizman wrote: »

I certainly don't want to defend the Qur'an, but there's a very relevant passage in the New Testament, Matthew 7:1-5:

I'm not a christian, means nothing to me.

hivizman wrote: »

There may not be much evidence of Christians killing in the name of Christianity today (though some might suggest that religion was one of several factors in the various wars in the former Yugoslavia), but it's impossible to think of the history of Christianity without remembering the slaughter of "heretics" in the 4th and 5th centuries, the Inquisition, the Wars of Religion in the 16th and 17th centuries, and the many atrocities involved in bringing Christianity to Africa and Central and South America.

So your point is it's ok for muslims to carry out atrocities because christians did it too ?

Nodin

MooseJam wrote: »

So your point is it's ok for muslims to carry out atrocities because christians did it too ?

No, he's seeking to add context and balance to inane generalisations and simplifications such as

If you are a Muslim you have a direct commandment from Allah - in his own words, to kill non muslims !

......but that doesn't excuse the Qur’an, it is an incitement to murder.

Bottom line is the Qu'ran is incitement to murder and if you are a muslim then this should bother you greatly and give you reason to consider if you really want to follow this "faith"

you brought the bible into it, but fine lets forget about the bible because it's not relevant whats relevant is the Qu'ran is an incitement to hatred and murder

but whether it is doesn't really matter , the matter in hand is the Qu'ran, so we'll just leave it at the Qu'ran is an incitement to murder

MooseJam

Nodin wrote: »

No, he's seeking to add context and balance to inane generalisations and simplifications such as

yes but the context and balance is christians did bad stuff too, implying it's ok for muslims to do bad stuff,

I didn't make any generalisation - I quoted a passage from the Quran and said it was incitement to murder - it is, there's no other way you can read it unless you want to give it a go - seriously what does this passage mean please

Koran 47.4: “Therefore, when ye meet the unbelievers, smite at their necks and when you have caused a bloodbath among them, bind a bond firmly on them.”

also muslims believe the Quran is the word of Allah - as in Allah actually wrote this stuff himself, which makes it doubly bad

hivizman

Trying to interpret verses of the Qur'an is difficult enough for Islamic scholars, and is even more difficult for people relying on translations and transliterations of the original arabic text of the Qur'an. However, two key points of interpretation are (1) look at a verse in context, and (2) look at how the verse has been traditionally interpreted by Islamic scholars.

Sura Muhammad (Sura 47) is traditionally believed to have been revealed soon after the Hijra, when Muhammad emigrated from Mecca to Medina. At that time, the nascent Muslim community was under threat in particular from Muhammad's tribe the Quraysh in Mecca, who are almost certainly the people to whom the term "Unbelievers" (kafaru in the original arabic text) in verse 4 refers. Commentators, including the classic Tafsir of Ibn Kathir, broadly agree that the verse applies in the context of what is sometimes called "defensive jihad", where the Muslim community is actually under attack from people who not only reject Islam but are attacking Muslims precisely because they are upholding Islam. The verse basically says "defend yourselves forcefully". The verse goes on to say "thereafter (is the time for) either generosity or ransom: until the war lays down its burden" (Yusuf Ali translation).

So on this interpretation the verse is not an "incitement to murder" but a permission to defend oneself against violent attack. A Christian might contrast this with Matthew 5:39, quoting Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount: "But I say to you, Do not resist an evildoer. But if anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn the other also." But this would mean nothing to someone who is not a Christian.

Having given an alternative interpretation of Sura Muhammad 47:4, in the interest of context and balance I must observe that some Muslims, including respected scholars, believe that Islam is now, and has been for many years, under attack from "unbelievers", and hence that this verse provides authority for fighting back. Although the verse suggests the context of fighting in battle, a few Muslims claim that, as "the West" is attacking Islam in many ways, not just through direct military action, the verse permits Muslims to respond in many ways.

As I said in an earlier post, I certainly don't want to defend the Qur'an, but I think that we need to understand where the rationale for the sort of behaviour that I think we all deplore comes from in order to be able to deal with it more effectively.

MooseJam

hivizman wrote: »

As I said in an earlier post, I certainly don't want to defend the Qur'an, but I think that we need to understand where the rationale for the sort of behaviour that I think we all deplore comes from in order to be able to deal with it more effectively.

The rationale is fairly simple though, their holy book has verses that can be interpreted as kill everyone who doesn't believe what you do, the idea of searching for alternative meanings to passages is bizarre - you shouldn't have to , there should be nothing in it that even hints at this sort of thing let alone be crying out for bloodbaths,

it should give any clear headed muslim serious pause for thought - what am I doing following this.

Nodin

MooseJam wrote: »

yes but the context and balance is christians did bad stuff too, implying it's ok for muslims to do bad stuff,

No, its been explained to you already what was meant.

MooseJam wrote: »

I didn't make any generalisation - ,

Yes, you did. If the Koran was, as you keep repeating ad nauseam, 'an incitement to murder', we would see far more evidence of that kind of behaviour than we do. As we don't, theres obviously something wrong with your conception of the Koran.

MooseJam wrote: »

The rationale is fairly simple though, their holy book has verses that can be interpreted as kill everyone who doesn't believe what you do,,

So what? The majority of them don't believe that, presumably because they have a far better understanding of the Koran in context than you do.

Why do you keep focussing on your reading of it, rather than look at the facts?

MooseJam

Nodin wrote: »

Yes, you did. If the Koran was, as you keep repeating ad nauseam, 'an incitement to murder', we would see far more evidence of that kind of behaviour than we do. As we don't, theres obviously something wrong with your conception of the Koran.

Like I said before, most people are fairly decent at heart so they don't go around killing people, regardless of what any book says, that doesn't make what the book says OK. You can compare it to what the the bible says about homosexuality , does it condemn it ? I think it's fairly clear that it does, yet most christians are fine with gay people these days, but you get the few like the WBC screaming God hates fags and justifying it with their book. Likewise you get muslims who go around killing people and justifying it with their book, as a percentage they might be small but you are still talking about many many thousands killing thousands of people every year.

So what? The majority of them don't believe that, presumably because they have a far better understanding of the Koran in context than you do.
Why do you keep focussing on your reading of it, rather than look at the facts?

You are saying so what to the deaths of many thousands. As to why I keep focussing on my reading of it well I'm focussing on a reading of it, which lots of people share, like you say not the majority but a substantial amount of people nonetheless and thats a problem.

It's the 21st century and we still have people running around headless thinking their gods want them to kill people, it's ridiculous.

hivizman

MooseJam wrote: »

It's the 21st century and we still have people running around headless thinking their gods want them to kill people, it's ridiculous.

Remember that, for muslims, it's only the 15th century.

MooseJam, you are absolutely correct that it's a problem the way that a minority of muslims use verses from the Qur'an and traditions about Muhammad as justifications for the most extreme forms of violence. I've referred before in other threads to the book by David Cook Understanding Jihad (University of California Press), which summarises how both traditional and modern "scholars" have interpreted the violent verses in the Qur'an. Cook reproduces some pamphlets and website material that are quite frankly disgusting. Just as a flavour, because I really feel sick reading this stuff, here's something from a pamphlet called "The Importance of Jihad: On the Goals of Jihad", from 2002:

One of the goals of jihad is killing the infidels, annihilating them, and exterminating them. This is because infidelity is like cancer or even worse, so when an infidel does not convert to Islam or is not submissive to the laws of Islam then it is necessary to extirpate him so that the society in which he exists is not corrupted. The Most High said, "So, when you meet the unbelievers, strike their necks till you have bloodied them, then fasten the shackles". (Qur'an 47:4)

However, I don't personally know any muslim who accepts this line of argument, and I wonder whether we should judge a religion as a whole by reference to its extremists. By the way, extreme violence towards people of other beliefs isn't just a religious phenomenon - at times in the Soviet Union and Communist China, people of religion were killed or imprisoned purely because of their beliefs by representatives of an atheist state.