Live and let live

tonyj

Kaptain Redeye wrote:

I personally would like to know why some bombers think the Qu'uran justifies their actions. Im curious, and I dont think Ill find the answer on the politcs board. Im curious to the Islamic reaction to these bombings, I dont think Ill find it in after hours; on that note, I think the timing for this forum was very good.

If this is the forum for us to understand the 'image problems' that Islam is currently having, let's hear it from the Muslims on here. I'm also curious.

- What are the extremists fighting for; what are their objectives?
- How do they think the Koran justifies their actions?
- How do Muslims view other religions?
- Does Islam and the Koran promote tolerance and acceptance of other religions and ways of life?

On the issue of the timing of this forum. I doubt it would have been applauded if the bombings had happened in Dublin.

Hobbes

- What are the extremists fighting for; what are their objectives?

Those sort of questions are not open for discussion on this forum. Only how it relates to the religon.

As for the other questions, no problem there although you should really post them as seperate threads.

Talliesin

Kaptain Redeye wrote:

Roflmao. What religion were the majority of soldier on both sides in the Vietnam war, was that a religious war.

Like many points in history there was more than one conflict that is referred to by a single term. The conflict between the minority Roman Catholic rulership of South Viet Nam and the majority Buddhist and animist population did clearly have a religious context. The view of Dialetical Marxism on religion also had an effect, though this was less pronounced under Ho Chi Minh than under, for example, Lenin.

And what does this example tell us about the topic? Simply that pretty much no religion will escape being associated with some conflict some where (at least, not if they have the numbers for a standing army).

marco murphy

tonyj wrote:

If this is the forum for us to understand the 'image problems' that Islam is currently having, let's hear it from the Muslims on here. I'm also curious.

- What are the extremists fighting for; what are their objectives?
- How do they think the Koran justifies their actions?
- How do Muslims view other religions?
- Does Islam and the Koran promote tolerance and acceptance of other religions and ways of life?

On the issue of the timing of this forum. I doubt it would have been applauded if the bombings had happened in Dublin.

I doubt Dublin would be bombed but i am not a strategist.
The Qur'an doesnt advocate hatred to any other religions unless the religion is fighting muslims.
Jihad - جهاد - doesnt actually translate to ''Holy war''. It means striving or struggle.
It does come from Jahada which means exerting utmost effort.
Jihad appears in the Qur'an around...2 or 3 times but never used in a militant context.
Jihad is made up of 'lesser jihad'' and ''greater jihad''
Lesser is the military struggle and greater is the struggle of personal self-improvement against the self's base desires.

Permission to fight is only given to whom are oppressed.

tonyj

Poblachtach wrote:

The Qur'an doesnt advocate hatred to any other religions unless the religion is fighting muslims.
.
.
Permission to fight is only given to whom are oppressed.

Thanks for clarifying that. Is it safe to assume then that the Koran does not promote tolerance of other religions? - quite the opposite.

And taking your statement a stage further, there must be many muslims who feel that they are a) oppressed and b) under attack from other religions. For example the Iraqis; they are being attacked by Christians. And the Palestinians; oppressed AND under attack from the Jews.

So does the Koran justify the terrorist acts committed in Iraq and Israel? At the very least it makes the job of persuasion a lot easier for the extremists. They could well argue that they are staying true to the core teachings of Islam.

I think we are getting closer to addressing the question in this thread; "live and let live" - It is difficult to see how Islam is a religion of peace when there are strings attached.

Hobbes

Tonyj if you make accusations it is up to you to back them up. If you have questions about certain areas ask them.

tonyj

Hobbes wrote:

Tonyj if you make accusations it is up to you to back them up. If you have questions about certain areas ask them.

At the most I was drawing conclusions. But, I'll back it up with some quotes :

"I have been ordered by God to fight with people till they bear testimony to the fact that there is no God but Allah and that Mohammed is his messenger, and that they establish prayer and pay Zakat (money). If they do it, their blood and their property are safe from me" (see Bukhari Vol. I, p. 13).

The infidel is to be "killed or crucified, or have their hands and feet on alternate sides cut off, or will be expelled out of the land . . . and in the hereafter theirs will be an awful doom." (Surah 5:33)

Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Apostle, nor acknowledge the Religion of Truth, even if they are of the people of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with will submission, and feel themselves subdued. (Surah 9:29)

My question remains; Does Islam and the Koran promote tolerance and acceptance of other religions and ways of life?

marco murphy

Well it doesnt promote intolerance

Stabshauptmann

Talliesin wrote:

Like many points in history there was more than one conflict that is referred to by a single term. The conflict between the minority Roman Catholic rulership of South Viet Nam and the majority Buddhist and animist population did clearly have a religious context. The view of Dialetical Marxism on religion also had an effect, though this was less pronounced under Ho Chi Minh than under, for example, Lenin.

And what does this example tell us about the topic? Simply that pretty much no religion will escape being associated with some conflict some where (at least, not if they have the numbers for a standing army).

Seems i picked a poor example, I meant the US invasion of Vietnam, how it was capitalism Vs communism (supposedly) but that you could clearly identify both side by religion

tonyinuae

tonyj wrote:

At the most I was drawing conclusions. But, I'll back it up with some quotes :

"I have been ordered by God to fight with people till they bear testimony to the fact that there is no God but Allah and that Mohammed is his messenger, and that they establish prayer and pay Zakat (money). If they do it, their blood and their property are safe from me" (see Bukhari Vol. I, p. 13).

The infidel is to be "killed or crucified, or have their hands and feet on alternate sides cut off, or will be expelled out of the land . . . and in the hereafter theirs will be an awful doom." (Surah 5:33)

Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Apostle, nor acknowledge the Religion of Truth, even if they are of the people of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with will submission, and feel themselves subdued. (Surah 9:29)

My question remains; Does Islam and the Koran promote tolerance and acceptance of other religions and ways of life?

Good question! The above quotes don't really seem to indicate much in the way of approval or acceptance. Perhaps they are taken out of context, but they give the impression that 'infidels' (are people of the Book 'infidels?) as long as they keep quiet, stay out of the way, and pay money to the Islamic government, will be allowed to stay alive, at least.

The original carriers of the message to other lands, bent on converting others to Islam, did they attain their goal entirely through peaceful means, or was the sword used to help people to submit?

Cake Fiend

tonyj wrote:

Is it safe to assume then that the Koran does not promote tolerance of other religions? - quite the opposite.

You could say the same abou the Bible. In fact, I doubt any major religious text would advocate other religions

Hobbes

tonyinuae wrote:

The original carriers of the message to other lands, bent on converting others to Islam, did they attain their goal entirely through peaceful means, or was the sword used to help people to submit?

Which I am not entirely sure what you are getting at. The same can be said for a lot of religons. Christianty was enforced at times by far from peaceful means as well.

I may also stamp on "getting context" from quotes from people. Rather then people quoting a part to get their point across (You can prove anything with the Bible doing the same thing). I was hoping people would cover the context in which quotes are given as replies. I will see how it pans out.

Wibbs

Hobbes wrote:

Which I am not entirely sure what you are getting at. The same can be said for a lot of religons. Christianty was enforced at times by far from peaceful means as well.

Agreed. Christians, Jews, Hindus etc have sadly all used force to promote their religion. Though it would be my contention that aggressive action certainly seems to be more tolerated and indeed in some instances promoted in the basic religious teachings of Islam. If someone can find a quote(out of context or not) where Buddha, Jesus or whoever suggests killing, enslaving or taxing unbelievers, I'd be very surprised.

That said there is much in Islam(and the history of same) that is good. The issue I have is a lot of the good(for me at least) is lost when the aggressive parts are considered. Those same aggressive passages that give succour to those who bring disgrace to Muslims and humanity in general.

Hobbes

Wibbs wrote:

If someone can find a quote(out of context or not) where Buddha, Jesus or whoever suggests killing, enslaving or taxing unbelievers, I'd be very surprised.

Luke 19:27 "But those mine enemies which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me."

Matthew 10:34 "Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I come not to send peace, but a sword."

Luke 2:22 refers to Mary being unclean after Jesus birth.

John 15:6 refers to burning heretics.

Romans 1:26-32 Gays/Lesbians should be killed.

Corithians 11:3-15 refers to that Men are more important then women.

Corithians 14:24-35 tells women they should not talk only learn from thier husbands.

Ephesians 5:22-23 tells wives should submit to their husbands.

Timothy 2:11-14 implies women are inferior to men.

Timothy 3:2,12 More than one wife is allowed unless you a bishop or deacon.

Timothy 6:1-5 Human slavery is endorsed

Peter 3:1-7 Women should talk to their husbands in fear

Revelations 17:1-6 A whore is stripped, burned, and eaten.

...

Now I am only posting these to prove a point. If people continue to post quotes to claim out of context comments I will start stamping down on it.

Talliesin

Kaptain Redeye wrote:

Seems i picked a poor example, I meant the US invasion of Vietnam, how it was capitalism Vs communism (supposedly) but that you could clearly identify both side by religion

Not to mention the fact that the Catholics in Australia were very much preaching support for those politicians that backed the Australian involvement in the war in Viet Nam from the pulpit.

Really, you'd be pretty hard pushed to find a conflict where nobody claimed some god or other was on their side.

Wibbs

Hobbes wrote:

Luke 19:27 "But those mine enemies which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me....../.....Revelations 17:1-6 A whore is stripped, burned, and eaten.

...

Now I am only posting these to prove a point. If people continue to post quotes to claim out of context comments I will start stamping down on it.

Fair enough, though other than the first four, the rest are quotes by those following after the originator of the faith(especially Paul).

Anyway, I'm not defending any religion. I'm not a practising Buddhist, Christian, Jew or whatever(simpsons quote ahoy). They all have issues that need addressing. However this is the Islam forum and I just wanted an opinion from Muslims out there on their take on this aspect(among others) of their faith, both good and bad.

In any event there are far more numerous and directly aggressive passages in Islam, both in the Quran and Hadeeth(the life and sayings of the Prophet). The Hadeeth in particular goes further than the Quran in this.

Anyway I take your point that out of context quoting is an issue. Then again how can one have a discussion on these issues if no quotes are posted to back up arguments, for or against. I know that faith of any kind is a sensitive issue, but in the other religious forums, responsible quotes, out of context or not are left for those to agree or defend the point made. should this forum be any different?

Hobbes

Wibbs wrote:

Anyway I take your point that out of context quoting is an issue. Then again how can one have a discussion on these issues if no quotes are posted to back up arguments, for or against.

Well I am hoping that other posters will explain the context of quotes used. For the moment I am seeing people posting quotes and then using that quote to springboard everything that is wrong about Islam. The quote may as proven be out of context or not something that is enforced. Much in the same way to the bible quotes I posted.

r3boot

tonyj wrote:

At the most I was drawing conclusions. But, I'll back it up with some quotes :

"I have been ordered by God to fight with people till they bear testimony to the fact that there is no God but Allah and that Mohammed is his messenger, and that they establish prayer and pay Zakat (money). If they do it, their blood and their property are safe from me" (see Bukhari Vol. I, p. 13).

The infidel is to be "killed or crucified, or have their hands and feet on alternate sides cut off, or will be expelled out of the land . . . and in the hereafter theirs will be an awful doom." (Surah 5:33)

Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Apostle, nor acknowledge the Religion of Truth, even if they are of the people of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with will submission, and feel themselves subdued. (Surah 9:29)

My question remains; Does Islam and the Koran promote tolerance and acceptance of other religions and ways of life?

interpretation of the quran and sunnah is incrediably difficult. even for native arabic speakers. The transilations which you provide give no context as to which ayah they are from and do not seem to be word for word transilations but rather an interpretation of the original classical arabic the quauran was written in at the time of the prophet (or rather after his death I think).

Also give the names of the surahs rather than numbers in future since most muslims learn surahs by names and if you are quoting from the pprphet then you need to mention who gave the quote.

i think the 9;29 surrah refers to islamic law as interpreted in the 7th century and mentions punishments for stealing. Also I think crucification was banned under islamic law since the time of the prophet so I'm not sure whats going on there.

and al-bukhari is not a book its the name of the author of a book which collected quotations form the prophet (a.k.a sunnah). The book you are referring to is called saheeh of al bukhari.

In relation to your original question on acceptance in islam. During the time of the prophet muslims lived side by side with other religions in the arabian peninsula (or at least thats when most historical texts say) and the prophet often only went to war when he was forced to so I guess that the original followers of islam had to promote tolerance in their community in order to survive.

Scottish

As people seem to be looking for quotes to justify this or that, I thought I'd publish an interesting link to an article by Karen Armstrong in the Guardian the other day.

Her thesis is that literal interpretation of scripture of any kind is a recent phenomenon, brought about by the rise of reason and science.

Well worth a read, as people seem to be looking for context etc.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,1546558,00.html

The only religion I follow, incidentally, is Partick Thistle Football Club. It must be a religion, due to the amount of blind faith and suffering involved. It also, perversely gives rise to the belief that there is no God!

Hobbes

Good post r3boot. Actually the misconceptions link I posted in the charter covers more or less what you said.

Islam does not tolerate other religons however it does tolerate those who worship other religons and to kill anyone who follows those religons for that reason means your going to hell.

tonyj

r3boot wrote:

In relation to your original question on acceptance in islam. During the time of the prophet muslims lived side by side with other religions in the arabian peninsula (or at least thats when most historical texts say) and the prophet often only went to war when he was forced to so I guess that the original followers of islam had to promote tolerance in their community in order to survive.

Thanks for the reply r3boot. I'll think about it ...

Wibbs

r3boot wrote:

interpretation of the quran and sunnah is incrediably difficult. even for native arabic speakers. The transilations which you provide give no context as to which ayah they are from and do not seem to be word for word transilations but rather an interpretation of the original classical arabic the quauran was written in at the time of the prophet (or rather after his death I think).

This is a point I have always found strange, regardless of the religion in question. Why would God make these things so difficult. Surely clear instructions, such as "do not kill" are plain enough for everyone to understand? I do take your point about the Arabic translation though.

Also give the names of the surahs rather than numbers in future since most muslims learn surahs by names and if you are quoting from the pprphet then you need to mention who gave the quote.

Apologies. I'm as guilty of that. Sadly the site I use for reference and searching deals in the numbers. I'll see if I can get around that.

i think the 9;29 surrah refers to islamic law as interpreted in the 7th century and mentions punishments for stealing. Also I think crucification was banned under islamic law since the time of the prophet so I'm not sure whats going on there.

Is the Quran not unchanging? Even if it's a 7th century punishment? Surely it would be considered just even today as the instructions in the Quran are unchanging?

In relation to your original question on acceptance in islam. During the time of the prophet muslims lived side by side with other religions in the arabian peninsula (or at least thats when most historical texts say) and the prophet often only went to war when he was forced to so I guess that the original followers of islam had to promote tolerance in their community in order to survive.

Yes but he seems to have often gone to war to promote the faith, regardless, especially after he took Mecca.

Islam does not tolerate other religons however it does tolerate those who worship other religons and to kill anyone who follows those religons for that reason means your going to hell.

If someone could point to a sura that says this, that would be helpful(I'm just assuming(maybe wrongly) that you're taking this tolerance as read).

It's hard to see the tolerance when reading some of the following;

http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/002.qmt.html#002.191
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/008.qmt.html#008.065
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/009.qmt.html#009.029
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/025.qmt.html#025.052
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/047.qmt.html#047.004
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/008.qmt.html#008.039
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/003.qmt.html#003.085
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/009.qmt.html#009.023
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/005.qmt.html#005.051
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/009.qmt.html#009.005

Apologies in advance. I realise it's a multi link post, but it's just the sheer number of verses(there's more too) that seem to me intolerant and that's before we get into the various Hadeeth. I know things can be taken out of context, but so many? This is the problem I have reconciling the religion itself with the Muslims I know(they don't seem to have a problem with an unbeliever such as myself ).

r3boot

The original post was regarding tolerance to other religions, the quote you gave outlines the cutting of limbs.

This refers to 7th century islamic laws with regards to stealing. I know this because this is the only place where cutting of limbs is allowed under islamic law. The laws as were practiced at the time were based on what was understood from the quaran and sunnah. Please note the word understood our interpretation of the quran and sunnah defers from language to language and time to time as well as country to country.

2 Countries still openly practice full islamic law of the 7th century. These are saudia arabia and the islamic reupblic of iran. In iran the verse you refer to (at least I think it is) is interpreted as amputating a single finger of the persons choice in saudia arabia its amuptating an arm then the contralateral leg then the other arm and then the other leg in accordance to howmany times the offence was comitted. This example shows how much implied meaning is involved in the interpretation of these texts don't just jump in and copy and paste links..... read the same section of the quaran from more than one source in english or go and learn classical arabic in order to understand the context of the quote.

Personally I don't agree with this level of brutality which is why I probably should just stay quiet......

tonyinuae

Hobbes wrote:

Luke 19:27 "But those mine enemies which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me."

Matthew 10:34 "Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I come not to send peace, but a sword."

Luke 2:22 refers to Mary being unclean after Jesus birth.

John 15:6 refers to burning heretics.

Romans 1:26-32 Gays/Lesbians should be killed.

Corithians 11:3-15 refers to that Men are more important then women.

Corithians 14:24-35 tells women they should not talk only learn from thier husbands.

Ephesians 5:22-23 tells wives should submit to their husbands.

Timothy 2:11-14 implies women are inferior to men.

Timothy 3:2,12 More than one wife is allowed unless you a bishop or deacon.

Timothy 6:1-5 Human slavery is endorsed

Peter 3:1-7 Women should talk to their husbands in fear

Revelations 17:1-6 A whore is stripped, burned, and eaten.

...

Now I am only posting these to prove a point. If people continue to post quotes to claim out of context comments I will start stamping down on it.

This is why I do not subscribe to any of the three great monotheistic religions - far too much slaying and suppressing going on!

tonyinuae

Isn't it possible that we've gone beyond all this 7th century stuff and can decide in our hearts what is right and wrong? Isn't that the point to which all these religions are endeavouring to bring us?

r3boot

tonyinuae wrote:

Isn't it possible that we've gone beyond all this 7th century stuff and can decide in our hearts what is right and wrong? Isn't that the point to which all these religions are endeavouring to bring us?

I agree. I just wanted to clarify why people keep reading about severed limbs etc.

Suff

Tough topic, I only scanned through the posts...

this is what i think:

When God sent his message with the prophets (PBUT) this message was sadly changed/lost throughout the years.

In Islam we beleive that Christ and Moses came with the same message as Muhammad.

the message was to worship ONE GOD that's all.

yes Islam does have tolerance to the people of the book.

they are allowed to live in peace with Muslims.

when Islam came into belad al sham (now Syria, lebanon, jordan and palestine) no chruches/ sinagogs were destroyed or converted into mousqes.

till this day in Syria (where I'm from) you see harmony between Muslims and Christians and even Jews!
we have Haret el yahood (the Jewish Quarter) in the city which containe Jewsih families who lived here in peace for years and years.

under the islamic law, when the people of the book live amoung muslims thay must pay (jizyeh) a sum of money as a protection money to the islamic goverment.

Muslims pay (Zakat) 2.5% to the poor and needy every year which is also used to fund the building of the community.
when the (jisyah) is introduced onto the people of the book it is used to do the same thing.

it's like Tax in our current day!

when it comes to pegans, yes Islam does state that these people needs to be converted, before you say anything...it's also within the teachings of Christ and Moses.

more to come...