edited by request.
I think I'll just stand quietly, over here.
Your idea sounds good. It could possibly enlighten us. However in order for that to happen, most of us, as professed Christians (albeit not always good or active ones) would have to remain unbiased. And the nature of religion itself is absolutely biased. It is a very personal, and oftentimes illogical core belief system that substantiates our faith.
Therefore the only way to have any kind of enlightening discussion of Islam would necessitate Muslims on this board participating and injecting their opinions and interpretations as well. Frankly there are very few here, as far as I can tell from reading the countless posts on the subject, and they seem pretty meek when it comes to defending their faith.
As a biased Christian I will try to participate, however. Maybe something can be gained.
Watching and waiting
One misconception I would like to clear up --- the pig thing
You are forbidden carrion, blood,and the flesh of swine; also any flesh dedicated to any other than GOD. You are forbidden the flesh of strangled animals and of those beaten or gored to death; of those killed by a fall or mangled by beasts of prey (unless you make it clean by giving it the death stroke yourself); also of animals given to idols.
He that is constrained by hunger to eat of what is forbidden, not intending to commit sin, will find god forgiving and merciful.
translation : if your hungry eat pork-- no biggie to god
So the people who make such a big deal out of pigs and Muslims -- give it a break.
Good luck. One of my biggest complaints about apologetics from any perspective, is the tendancy to quote out of context. And that's with people who profess to know their subject matter.
Unless you've got some Koranic scholars lined up - how do you pull this off? It'll just look like a bunch of Islamic one-liners, with the weight of evidence based on number of quotes.
ETA- Read my sigline. I'm Catholic, but if you substitute "Bible" for "Koran" and "Catholicism" for "Islam" and "Vatican Consulate" for "CAIR" -- It's still wrong. What's it matter if the Koran is the most peace-mongering book ever written? It's supporters espouse a theocratic totalitarian world government.
I am at work now so it may be hard to do the research.
Anyway. IIRC, last time I read any of the Koran and studied commentary on it I was struck by one thing that really stood out to me.
The Koran does call for the death of willing infedels. Many verses support this. However, there a very specific distinction made in the Koran regarding which infedels are alright to murder if they refuse to convert and which ones are not. This distinction is made between those infedels who DO believe in the same God, Al'Lah, the God (Al is the equivalent of the definite article "the", and Al'Lah the "the God", denoting a difference between the Islamic monotheism and the polytheism practiced by many surrounding cultures) and those infedels who do not. Very specifically, the infedels who belive in "the God" are Christian and Jews. The connection is further made through historical tradition in that Jesus Christ is mentionad as a prophet of the God and that all Arabs trace their lineage back to Abraham (Jews from Abraham and Sarah to Isaac; Arabs from Ibrahim and Hagar to Ishmael). I will endeavor to find the verses to substantiate my claims if I can at work here.
What I'm saying with all this is that the Muslims who are participating in the reign of terror around the world ARE NOT interpreting the Koran properly. In fact, Iseriously doubt they even read it or practice the other tenets of their religion.
Not to hijack, but I have a theory:
The sort of "hording of knowledge" about scripture that led to the Protestant Reformation in Europe, wherein the laity and clergy rebelled against only priests having knowledge of scripture and interpreting it for the people is coming for a great deal of the Islamic world. Currently, Imams are tasked with interpretation and dissemination. This has elevated them to almost prophet-like status. I believe this will crumble. But in order for it to happen, the US must keep up its pressure on the Arab world. We must continue to wins hearts and minds. I believe in the inherent intelligence and reason of the Arab people. I believe if they continue to be shown what fringe extremists do in their midst they will eventually come around as a whole. This subject is much deeper and more complex than just a couple of paragraphs on ARFCOM can do it justice. But that's my opinion.
DF, I too am quite interested to see where this goes, my idea of culpability is, there have to be good muslims out there, it only stands to reason, but why have they not stopped the bad ones? Why do they attend mosques where the Imams preach hatred and murderous intent? Woudl it not behoove the good muslims to not support that kind of rhetoric? And if so, why haven't they?
Why haven't the good ones stood up and denounced the bad ones? Why aren't they preaching from their own holy book with chapter and verse of love instead of the hate filled spewage that is the norm?
Isn't that the culpability?
The life of Muhammed himself speaks volumes. He was a tyrant, a terrorist and a thug. He robbed, extorted and expelled Jewish tribes in Arabia, ordered the assassination of artists and political critics, the mass execution of prisoners(along with the enslavement of their wives and children). This is a matter of historical record. In this regard he was no different than countless other warlords across Europe and Asia, but to call this man a holy man and say we should emulate his life today . . .
Can anyone here today claim to understand the prophet Muhammed's teachings better than the people who lived with him in the 7th century? In the years following his death they waged offensive war across the Arabian penninsula and surrounding region, conquering and subjugating everything around them. After the Arabs, the Ottomans later took the holy war deep into Europe. Samuel Huntington said it best: "Islam's borders are bloody, as well as its innards." Violence is an inherent part of the Islamic faith. Today's terrorists are merely following in the footsteps of the Muslim armies that ravaged Europe and Asia for centuries.
Just so you know: I'm not religious and have no ax to grind with any faith. I'm just calling it as I see it.
I believe that the Koran can be TWISTED to support the idea of killing others.
My quotes from the Koran (per thread rules):
I think that this verse can be interpreted to allow attacks against non-Muslim people/countries.
This verse "allows" attacks against aggressors, and I'm sure that we have (and will always be) portrayed as the aggressors.
The only issue I have with this is picking and choosing quotes from a Book really does not give one a good "feel" for the faith.
If I were to pick and choose from the Old Testament, I could paint Jews as people who are willing to sacrifice their firstborn. I'm sure there is plenty to choose from in the New Testament also that would make Christians look bad.
Actually, I've found quite the opposite - that people who are trying to "prove" how evil the Koran is, quote single lines from verses - taken completely out of context - to demonstrate how the Koran supposedly commands all muslims to kill all non-muslims.
I've seen that claim several times recently on ar15.com - and because I was curious, I actually looked them up, and when taken in context, NONE of them supported what those people claimed.
So the practice of taking single lines or sections of verses to support a position - has been in my experience been the tactic of the people trying to demonize the Islamic faith, not of any "apologists"
If anyone is interested, I'll repost the example for a few days ago below - because they appear to be common verses that are used to show how evil the Koran is, and how it supposedly calls for muslims to kill all non-belivers.
I'd also like to point out that I am BY NO MEANS, any kind of an expert on the Koran or Islam. I read the Koran about 10 years ago out of curiousity (at the same time I read the egyptian Book of the Dead, the Epic of Gilgamesh, and other stuff like that). I know very little about Islam - other than what I have read on ar15.com, and what I know from observing the increasing numbers of muslim immigrants in Denmark (which is not a positive impression, btw).
So I am by no means a muslim "apologist" - nor am I am expert on any of these things, nor do I really care about, like or respect Islam.
What I do respect is knowledge and accuracy - and I found it fascinating that a complete layperson like myself, with no expertise, could just leaf through the Koran and discover for myself that the verses that purport to show how Islam is all about "killing all non-muslims" were taken completely out of context, and said no such thing. It depresses me a little that MANY people will simply take someone else's word for something like this, or read it on the internet, and just run with it - without really making sure if it's even remotely accurate. Personally, I'd think that the act of judging and condemming an entire major religion would require something a little more convincing to me that simply taking someone else's word for it - especially when the Koran is easily available for looking up in.
In my OPINION, there are two separate questions that might be adressed in this thread (Just my opinion, since it is doublefeed's thread). One is what the Koran legitimately says and what it says about other relgions, other people - and whether it commands/allows its followers to kill them or subjugate them or conquer them or whatever. Those are ultiamtely factual questions, and can be answered to a reasonable degree of accuracy by anyone with the ability to read and think clearly.
The second question is probably much more difficult to answer - and goes to the quesiton of WHY the extremists fundamentalist Muslims seem to be so prolific and violent. There certainly are fundemantalist and extremist Christians who are capabale ot violence, and who use their faith to justify violence - but their numbers seems very, VERY small - whereas the numbers of extremist violent muslims who use faith to justify their violence, seem to be much, much larger. Why extremist and violence seems to be a problem for Islam, is another interesting question to me (- but is probably a question for a different thread)
Since DoubleFeed wanted verses/quotes from the Koran, I'll cite one that I found which illustrates how Al Qeada is CLEARLY violating the Koran.
4:92 It is unlawful for a believer to kill another beliver except by accident.
a little futher in the verse,
He that kills a beliver by design shall burn in Hell for ever. He shall incur the wrath of God, who will lay His curse on him and prepare for him a woeful scourge
Now, I can certainly imagine that some terrorist or Al Qeada asshole might try to claim that "oh, but all those muslims we will on 9/11 were killed BY ACCIDENT as an unfortunate casualty of war" or some bullshit like that, but that clearly is HOW religious extremists do their thing - by re-interpreting holy tests to serve THEIR AGENDA.
The second line quoted above is completely clear and unmabiguous. There is no qualifier, and there is no expection. It is an absolute statement - a muslim to deliberately kills another muslim is going to hell. Al Qaeda (and other groups that sympathise) have on many occasions targeted and killed other muslims, including Turks, Pakistanis, Saudis, etc. I'm sure their extremism allows them to justify it to themselves with bullshit like "oh, we're at war, etc) but it seems to me that a strict interpretation of the Koran is very clear.
You're preaching to the choir That's my point - if you just use quotes, from any viewpoint or perspective, without the benefit of being trained to explain their contextual meaning, then you are presenting invalid views. I wasn't implying that one "side" or the other was doing this.
Got it - sorry I misunderstood. I agree.
Here (below) is the example I mentioned above. The quotes in RED were presented to me as evidence that the Koran commands muslims to kill all non-muslims:
I apologize for posting this (if it is not really relevant) but as an example of how single lines can easily be quoted out of context, and appear to mean something other than they really refer to, I think it is a useful example. (I also spent a lot of time on it - because I had to look everything up and read everything in the surrounding verses - so any excuse to get a little more mileage out of that work is great, because I have no shame )
This passage in the Koran refers to IDOLATORS (people who the Bible also doesn’t like - for example, those are the ones referred to in the 2nd commandment, in which God threatens people who worship idols). Idolators are a VERY different category from Christians and Jews. A passage that refers to killing idolators is not anywhere near commanding muslims to "kill all non-muslims"
In addition, that passage also specifically refers to idolators who do not have treaties with the muslims. Idolators who honor treaties with muslims and do not aid the enemies of the muslims also are not covered by what you quoted.
So this quote - scary and psychotic as it seems when viewed out of context - provides NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER that the Koran commands mulisms to "kill all non-muslims"
The rest of that passage reads "Such is the true promise which He has made them in the Torah, the Gospels and the Koran." - this is about fighting people who claim to represent God, but do not. Nothing in there about "killing all non-muslims"
This passage is also about fighting IDOLATORS, and a little further in, it says "If they incline to peace, make peace with them, and put your trust in God"
That also doesn't support the claim that the Koran commands to "kill all non-muslims"
This passage, like the first one, refers to fighting IDOLATORS, not all non-muslims - and this particular passage specifically refers to fighting aginst those idolators who have "come to terms" (i.e. entered into a treaty) and then broken it. It's a very specific statement about punishing and killing IDOLATORS who violated treaties with muslims. Nothing in there about "killing all non-muslims"
This passage follows immediately to the one I quoted above, which says "If they incline to peace, make peace with them, and put your trust in God" - so what you quoted clearly doesn't refer to "killing all non-muslims"
in addition, both of the lines cited from 8:39 and 8:65 refer to Muhammad's plan to attack a caravan on its way to Mecca, and his forces of about 300 supposedly routed about 1000 soldiers from Mecca. This is a pretty specific historical reference (like many of the books in the Old Testament are historical accounts), and has nothing to do with "killing all non-muslims"
Don't see anything in here about "killing all non-muslims"
This refers to conquering and subjugating other people - not "killing all non-muslims." In those days, everyone wanted to conquer their neighbors and convert them. Why would the muslims be any different? Nothing in here about killing all non-muslims.
Jews and Christians are NOT "infidels" they are people of the book (and are sometimes referred to as “unbelievers”, so this passage does not refer to killing all non-muslims.
I think you are absolutely correct -
There are many passages in the Koran that refer to fighting "idolators" or "infidels" or people that attack them.
For an asshole with an agenda, it's easy to come up with some pretext for how someone "attacked" you - either recently or far in the past, and then write yourself a blank check for action, because the Koran said it was okay to fight back.
Another verse that could easily be used in that way is from The Table, 5:33ish
Those that make war against God and His apostle and spread disorder in the land sall be put to death or crucified or have their hands and feet cut off on alternate sides, or be banished from the country."
Clearly, someone could use that particular passage to justify almost anything based on an "attack" - and I'm sure there are scholars in those religious schools in Pakistan who are probably telling kids that it's COMMANDED by the Koran that they go to Iraq and kill U.S. soldiers - based on this passage.
And with a little mental sleigh of hand, people can probably twist this to imply that even killing U.S. civilians is okay, because of course they support the "war against God" or some such nonsense.
Problem of course is, that such interpretations violate other parts of the Koran - like the prohibition against killing innocents - so the extremists just redefine the word "innocent" so that women and children in the U.S. somehow no longer fall into that category.
So while the Koran can EASILY be used to justify these sorts of things - I don't see that it was intended to be interpreted that way - but since I am NOT an expert or a scholar in this, that's hard for me to really say.
I haven't read this entire thread (no time yet) but wanted to raise two points... and I realize they are somewhat contradictory.
1: If the Koran (Qu'ran or however it is spelled) doesn't specifically talk about killing non-Muslims, why is it being corrupted in this way? The Bible can be corrupted in the same way (and has been) but that is not happening now. Anyone can use religion to justify their ends- Didn't Hitler claim to be a Christian and doing God's work? We know that is impossible... but it's easy to do bad things and try to justify it by claiming God made them do it.
2: I live in the state with the highest Muslim population outside of the Middle East... There may be problems here and there but I have not personally not had any issues with any Muslims. This leads me to believe that yes, there are extremists out there, and yes, the less-extreme probably turn a blind eye to them and their activities. There have been several arrests (the ones they just overturned notwithstanding) here, but there are so many, that the bad ones are a microcosm.
So in my opinion, NO, all Muslims aren't evil. But YES, for some reason there is a thread of violent aggression that runs through the religion that causes the world a lot of problems.
The answer to it all? That's for people smarter than me to come up with. Being overly diplomatic won't do anything, and nuking them all is definitely not the answer either. Somewhere in between
My version reads a little differently, and appears to refer to a city, not a population. My test reads:
"When We resolve to destroy a city, We first give warning to those of its people wo live in comfort. If they persist in sin, judgment is irrevocably passed, as We raze that city to the ground"
This story is very reminiscent of the Biblican story of Soddom ond Gomorrah - where God destroys those cities (killing everyone in them) because they persisted in sinning. In terms of the content of the story, I don't really see much difference.
I don't know exactly where the story of Soddom & Gomorrah is in the bible off the top of my head, but I am sure we could find an equally scary verse - demonstrating how God completely annihilated two cities because they refused to live the way he wanted them to.
An extremist could take either of those stories and use it to justify killing people who don't live according to his beliefes (be it Muslim or Christian) - but I don't see that as the intent of the passge.
If you keep reading the book "The Night Journey" that your verse comes from, you'll see that REPEATELY in the verse, it alks about how to have conversations with unbelivers.
From 17:45 to 17:58, from 17:83 to 17:100. In fact, several places clearly say that the unbelievers will pay for their unbelief on the Day or Ressurection and by going to Hell.
So it seems odd that a book would waste huge portions addressing how to talk to unbelievers, and warning them that they will go to hell if they do not believe - if muslims were simply supposed to kill them wherever you ran across them.
Taken OUT OF CONTEXT this certainly does appear horrible - but it does NOT refer to all non-believers.
This book (Spoils) refers to a specific historical event - where Muhammed's forces - of about 319 warriors - were planning to attack a caravan belonging to the Quraysh of Mecca on its way from Syria. An army of Meccans marched to assist the caravan, and the passage refers SPECIFICALLY to that battle. The nonbelievers referenced are the Meccan army whom they are about to fight in battle - not a global reference to any and all nonbelievers - but to opposing soldiers that they are about to engage.
To suggest that such a passage somehow justifies killing all non-mulisms, is to take it completely out of any context and the meaning it has.
As others have pointed out - that kind of thing can be done with ANY religious text. The old testament is FULL of passages like this, that would make Christianity and Judaism sound absolutely psychotic and bloodthiorsty, were they taken out of context.
Again, there seems to be a slight difference in translation between your version and mine. In mine, the verse reads:
"We have destroyed many a sinful nation and replaced them by other men"
Again, this is not really very different from the "boasting" of God about hacing sent plagues on the Egyptians, having destoyed Soddom and Gommorah, or having destroyed other cities and nations accounted in the Old Testament.
If you want to read Revalations, in the New Testament, it is FULL of this kind of stuff - about how nations will be destroyed by God if they are sinful, etc.
This doesn't seem to really be any different among the major religions, and it would appear to be the INTERPRETATION of it, by contemporary muslims - not the text as written. I really don't see how these passages from the Koran and in any way different from similar passages from the Old and New Testaments. I certainly don't see the exortation for muslims to go out and kill and terrorize, any more than I see that in the Jewish or Christian texts. The fact that muslims DO SO, and Jews and Christians by and large DO NOT, is a matter of the problem with Islam today, not the holy text as written.
The passage you quoted above (from the Book of the Cow - the Bible has much cooler names for their books than the Koran, btw ) refers SPECIFICALLY to the punishments that non-believers will get when they are judged and go to hell. It is not an exhortation, or a permission, for muslims to attack or harm them. In addition, it refers to a "disease" (or "sickness") "in their hearts" and does not refer to a physical disease or harm. The entire book is in large part about TRYING to convince or convert the unbelievers. If the Koran simply called for their killing, why would large parts of the Koran be concerned with how to talk to the unbelivbers, and how to convince them that the Koran is right. The very fact that large parts of the Koran are dedicated to this, also indicated how inaccurate the claim is that muslims are commanded to kill all unbelivers.
In fact, a little later in the SAME BOOK that you quoted, it is clearly written in 2:62 that
"Belivers, Jews, Christians, and Sabaeans - whoever believes in God and the Last Day and does what is right - shall be rewarded by their Lord; they have nothing to fear or regret"
I'm sorry, but I simply have not yet seen any evidence that Allah exorts muslims to kill all the non-believers. It is a claim that is made OVER and OVER again, but every time I actually read the passages, it turns out to be in reference to something else.
(Sure there are examples of killing all the non-belivers - such as the attack on the Meccan forces guarding the caravan, but it is not in any way a reference or aon exhortation to attack any and all nonbelievers. The fact that the killing of a specific group was called for, who happened to be non-believers, do not imply that all non-believers shoudl be killed. It's a question of logic, and one does not support the other.)
And as far as Saddam goes - you do know that Saddam Hussein was HATED by religious muslims, particularly the fundamentalist ones, right??? He deliberately set up a SECULAR arabic state, where religion did NOT have any power. Saddam never had the slightest interest in being a devout muslims until Iraq fell, and then suddenly he pretended to be devout, to get support from Islamists against the U.S. occupiers. To infer Saddam's motives to Islam is no different than to infer Hitler's motives to Christianity, and is a fallacy.
Ok, as many of you know I take the position that Islam and Terrorisim are not inseperable.
My arguments for this are mainly historical, and I have asked DF for permission to persue this track, as it does not involve quoting the Q'ran.
My first point is this: Islam was founded in 622, and Islamic Terrorisim was essentially founded in the 1950s/60s Isarel.
So, from 622 to 1950-whatever, Muslims coexisted with the rest of the world in a more or less conventional matter. Yes, there were wars, but this is the normal course of national existance. War is not terrorisim, and one nation conquering another, weather done in the name of religeon, economics, or expansion, is not terrirism. Christians and Jews fought wars for religeon too, both against surrounding peoples and amongst themselves (the civil war that split ancient Isarel into Israel and Judah/Judea, the various European conflicts around and after the Reformation, and of course the Crusades), and religeon has allways been a rallying cry to an otherwise secular war (For God, the King, and Spain, anyone?).
As for those of you who claim that calls for genocidal war are unique to Islam, take a look at the Old Testament again - Granted, God has not given such a call since then, but he did command it at times in the past.
Second, the 'adherance' of a population to it's religeon is generally a 'pyramid' with the wide end at 'not very devoted' and the point at 'fanatical'.
As an example, I am what you'd call a fundimentalist Christian. For religeous reasons, I will never have sex unless I am married, will not persue a divorce unless my spouse is unfaithful, have never done recreational drugs, and so on. (I am not bragging about how 'holy' I am, that would be wrong. I am using this to make a point)). I believe that salvation is by faith, not works, and thus 'doing more good than bad' will not get you into Heaven.
However, the majority of Americans who call themselves Christians do not hold these beliefs. Most believe that 'God' exists, and show up for church on Christamas and Easter. They see nothing wrong with having sex prior to marraige, and believe divorce is OK for whatever reason you wish. Most have gotten drunk (Biblical statements on booze say it's OK, but don't get drunk), some even do or have done drugs. They generally believe that if you do more good than bad you will be saved...
Similarly, very few (if any) Jews practice the sacrificial rites from the Law of Moses, and they no longer execute disobedient children, adulterers, or fornicators by stoning. But all of that is commanded by the Law.
As you move up the pyramid, you find folks who go to Church more regularly. Further up, you will find those who abandon the idea of 'good/bad salvation' , and/or believe in proper abstinance. And at the very peak, you will find those who have gone so far overboard that they have lost track of the Bible & God's teaching, and are now basically 'Christian Pharasees'.
The same pyramid applies to EVERY religeon. Islam is no exception. The folks on the bottom were the ones who bought booze when Baghdad fell, the folks at the peak are the ones we're fighting now. The vast majority of Muslims, like the majority of those who call themselves members of any spertiucular religeon, are 'casual' adherants, and the fanatics are (as usual) so fanatical they have lost track of their theology - it has been preverted by hate & rage.
My final point is this: The environment in most Arab countries is the true source for Islamic extremisim. It is very convenient for the govts of Muslim nations to promote radical Islam, as this allows an outlet for the people's grievances against the government. The result is that the clerics are allowed to entirely control the school system (so long as they teach a govt-acceptable curriculum), and they teach in a manner that preserves their power (eg thru rote learning and emphasis that the Elders/Clerics are allways right, do not question). The result is a school system that functions as indoctrination camp, and produces graduates who are taught to blame the USA and Israel for everything that's wrong with their country. Taxes up? Blame America... Young, Male & Unemployed (eg perfect revolutionary material)? Blame Israel & go blow yourself up! The government reinforces this with total control of the media. While the control is looser in some places than others, the most fanatical nations are the one where the government has the most control over the media.
The end result is that the Arab leaders use Radical Islam as a means to head off a revolution by giving their 'revolutionaries' something to do - something which is generally fatal to the revolutionary/jihadi. And THAT is the true source of Islamic radicalisim - not the religeon itself.
By my theory, eliminating these governments & replacing them with free regimes (as we are trying to do in Iraq) is the solution to Islamic radicalisim. Of course, many do not like this approach, as it requires fighting a 'sensitive' or 'limited' war for the 'hearts & minds' of the Arab world, but that is what must be done.
As for quotes from the Q'ran, remember that originally 'infidels' meant pagans/polytheists. Christiantity & Judaisim were given 'special' status, however the current crop of government-approved clerics has conveniently removed this distinction to promote their agenda.
I'd just like to make a note that for me to respond to each of the things that ilikelegs is posting, I actually need to go back, read the relevant section, understand it, and put together a response. (I don't know if ilikelegs is finding all of these cites, and writing this stuff up - or is merely cutting and pasting from some other source - but he certainly is posting a lot of stuff that would take a long time to respond to).
As I've skimmed over several of the new things he's posted, I see the SAME sorts of mistakes, fallacies and taking out of context as in the two sets of quotes that I have responded to. There simply isn't - to my knowledge - a call in the Koran for mulsims to kill non-believers.
But, because of the size of the Koran, people can keep coming up with one-line exceprts that are taken out of context, and CLAIM that they show that somehow the Koran does this.
I simply do not have the time to go back and read the Koran and responde to EVERY SINGLE ONE of such claims.
I did so in detail in response to someone else's post last week, and I just did so above in response to ilikelegs' first post - both posted in this thread (and I assume both people put their strongest case first). I am convinced that if the "best evidence" of this actually being in the Koran can be undermined so easily - by a layperson such a myself just quickly reading through the relevant verses - then the argument is pretty weak at best.
However, I simply do not have the time to keep doing it, so I'm going to have to take my leave of this thread for a while and get some work done. I've got a submission deadline to a conference today, and reading the Koran will not help me there.
I'd also like to thank people for NOT calling anyone names. Anyone that knows me, understands that I am NOT a big fan of Islam at all. I do see the institution of Islam as a threat to the West, and I see it specifically as a threat to my home (Denmark), and I have a deep and abiding hatred for islamic extremists and terrorists. My only reason for being in this thread is that I believe we DO NOT help our fight by being inaccurate or incorrect in our statements (those are the strategies of the Feinsteins of the world, and I would like to think we are above that).
Thanks for the link.
I want to be clear - I was NOT trying to slam ilikelegs or criticise him for cutting and posting!
I was just trying to point out that it is very time-consuming for me to go back into the Koran and read every passage, as well as the Book that the passage is from - in order to actually UNDERSTAND it, and then write a response.
Personally, I think it is very important to understand these things properly for oneself, rather than taking someone elses word for it, and judging/condeming an entire religion. (I'm NOT saying that's what ilikelegs is doing at all - I personally agree with many of HIS opinions).
Especially when dealing with a culture where freedom is foreign.
Remember: Here in the USA, we have tha bility to do many things that would get you jailed-or-worse over there...
Terror is a powerful tool against an allready oppressed (by their own government) people...
Failure to resist is NOT culpability for the actions of others... THAT is the old BS 'She didn't resist, so she must have wanted it' defense to rape, and it's just as invalid here as there...
The "Muslim" extremists, AKA AQ, is no more Muslim than the Klu Klux Klan is Christian. They both, as do a lot of people (perspective) blatantly use specific passages to justify their corrupt actions. The offenders are as much of a cancer to their own as they are to those around them.
I noticed you guys who are convinced all of Islam is bad, and all Muslims should be killed happend to overlook nor challenge my post.
I beg to differ with you there… Islamic Fundamentalist Terrorism was created by the Assassins @1090.
I posted this before but its worth repeating……
"ISLAMIC TERRORISM IS NOT NEW!!!!
THERE has been Islamic Terrorism for many, many, CENTURIES!
Read up on the Assassins and Alamut……
Fundamentalist assassins. Who are they? What is their background? .
Historical background of Assassins:
There was a time in history in which the world was plagued by assassins, the Assassin (Hashasi) cult of Alamut, the followers of the Sheikh al-Jabal (Old Man of the Mountain). This was a Muslim cult active in Persia, Iraq and Syria about 1090-1272. Their tactics were killing key personal of Muslim Kingdoms in nearby lands such as Sultans, Viziers who were following a life style that is unacceptable to them. Their terror tactics were so effective and their home base of Alamut was such a strong fortress that nobody could touch them and they could force their own politics into nearby areas. Their name Hashasi comes from the usage of Opium by Assassins. But several researchers indicates that their name comes from an Arabic word which means Protector. Their ideology was they were protecting Muslims from the wrong-doings of their rulers.
El-Kaide (or Al-Queda) strongly follows their strategy. First they founded several strong nearly impregnable fortresses in Afghanistans mountains. For several years they would indoctrinate their chosen assassins. Then they have planned a very dramatic act of terror to make them known in the entire world. To really understand Al-Queda, I think you should read about Assassins of Alamut.
Who can be an assassin?
Not everybody can be assassin. First of all assassins must himself die in his act of terror. The personal goal of an assassin is to achieve Martyrdom by dying in the act of killing the enemies of Islam. To do this Assassins need to have a suicidal character. Someone who wants to die. And it is a great sin in Islam to commit suicide. Then he must be very religious and believe that everything his religious leader says is absolutely true. Because he must never have a doubt about what he is doing is right. He must not have free will. He must be a person willing to let someone else to decide instead of him.
How they are recruited to the cause?
The most commonly used way is by covert Muslim charity organizations. Hamas in particular use this method. They are opening schools, mosques in poor or war torn Muslim neighborhoods. They helped people without wanting anything in return. By that way they keep in touch with possible candidates for assassins and foot soldiers (not everybody is cut out to be an assassin and they also need foot soldiers). Assassins are mostly chosen from unsocial, silent types. Especially the ones who had done great sins and had a strong desire to be forgiven by God or the ones who lost their loved ones are sought. In personal talks by their "new friends" they have been told that if someone died fighting in the way of God, he would be Martyr and all of his sins will be forgiven. He will live in Heaven with his loved ones. In suicidal religious people this kind of persuasion can be quite effective.
Why they are killing civilians?
In the sick way of thinking of a fundamentalists, people of democratic countries are responsible for what their countries are doing. Israel and USA (in their belief ruled by Jews) governments are inherently evil. The actions of these governments must be stopped at all costs. The only way to stop them is building an enmity between people and their governments by frightening people by terror. So by their logic, killing innocent civilians is a way to protect innocent Muslim civilians from the evil Israel and USA.
What is their weak point?
Killing civilians is a great sin in Islam. In their subconscious level every assassin know this. That is why some assassins blows his bomb when he is not near anybody else. And there are some incidents when assassins have run away without blowing their bombs. So, their belief of righteousness of their ways can be shaken by respected religious leaders. Fundamentalists know that. And any religious leader who oppose their ways, is immediately put on a death-list.
Like every organizations Fundamentalists needs headquarters and training areas. The USA should never let fundamentalists have a secure stronghold again like they had in Afghanistan.
Several years ago, Turkish intelligence offices had information that several charity organizations founded in Turkey are connected to Hamas. These organizations had committed no terrorist acts. But when there was enough proof that they did indeed have connections with Hamas they were closed and their founders have been sued for planning a conspiracy.
In Europe there was a fundamentalist organization working against Turkey which tried to recruit members from European Turks. Turkey used all his diplomatic strength to persuade European countries to close them down. Several European countries still refuse to close them down as they had done nothing illegal in their country.
Ideological background of fundamentalism:
Some religious scholars in past centuries have supported the belief that: This world is false, an illusion, a test. The real world will start when we die. In this world there will be only the real believers. It will be a world of peace and happiness. When this belief started it was a belief of peace. It encourages people to endure no matter how much suffer. As this world is false, in the next life it will all be good. But in the hands of Fundamentalist this innocent way of belief becomes a dangerous tool. In fundamentalist belief, one must sacrifice himself to achieve a better place in heaven. In fact they have invented a caste system for heaven in which Martyrs lives as the highest caste.
Communism: Soviets tried to recruit Muslims to the Communism. So they have trained their own religious leaders who teach their disciples that Communism is the only governing system that is true to Islam. By itself Communism itself did not hold in Muslim countries because of several issues. But fundamentalists took many communist ideals to fill their social and economic ideology. But more important is they copied the hierarchical structures of underground Communist organizations.
Recent History of fundamentalism: At first fundamentalist organizations were not strong in Muslim Arab countries. Nationalist Arab movements were much stronger. There were even a dream of united Arab Superpower. Destruction of Israel is the way that have found to unite all Arabs. But first, to do this Nationalist Arabs need to show Israel as an enemy of Islam. Because until 20th Century, Jews were allies of Islam, Nationalist Arabs invented the belief that Israel wanted to conquer entire Middle-East and they are inherently evil. But Nationalist Arabs were defeated in all 4 wars they fought with Israel. So their ideology and power base has suffered much. Fundamentalists filled the vacuum. Fundamentalists lacked the military forces of Arab Nationalists but they have a blindly fanatic support group. So they invented the asymmetrical war (or reinvention of Alamut terror). The worst suffered people of Arab-Israeli wars were Palestinians who had no state, no land, basically anything. So they gave fundamentalists a very easy to reach first manpower base. To have Palestinian support, fundamentalists need to be an enemy of Israel. They would preferred to destroy Arab Nationalists to enlarge their powerbase instead of Israel. Next came Iranian revolution. The biggest fundamentalism victory so far. USA should have supported the monarchy of Iran which was the most modern state in Middle-East and it was very pro-American. But the USA did nothing. To this day Iran is a secure center for fundamentalists. Then Syria, fearing an overthrow by a fundamentalist coup, chose to cut a deal with them. As long as they do not carry out any acts in Syria, fundamentalists are free to operate in Bekaa Valley. And last fundamentalist success was Afghanistan. After the Soviets withdrawal, a civil war started between formerly allied resistance groups. Again USA did nothing but watch. But Iran did not watch. They actively supported the Taliban (at least at the start) they gave them money, weapons. As the only group who had outside support the Taliban won the civil war. They opened the country to other fundamentalist groups which can operate with no restrictions. "
Islamic Fundamentalist Terrorism is as old as Islam itself… "
Nothing to debate.
164 Jihad Verses in the Koran
Read those, then go to MEMRI and read the translations of what the murderous freaks that lead Fundamentalist / Wahabist / Sharia / Salafist Islam today are saying every Friday, throughout the Islamic world.
Just read about the concepts of Dar al Islam (House of Peace) and Dar al Harb (House of War)
The JIHAD is already being waged against the West / the Infidels. To even doubt that, or quibble about the intent of their actions and their religion is NONSENSE - Ignorance at best, Dhimmitude / Apologist at worst.
I didn't think the point of this thread was HOW verses in the Koran are CURRENTLY being taken out of context and twisted for Fundamentalist / Wahabist etc purposes TODAY - but rather about WHAT the Koran actually says.
A Christian fundamentalist could easily find justitifcation in the Old Testament (and parts of the New Testament) that could be taken out of context and twisted to justify all kinds of bullshit too - but doesn't change what was actually written. (luckily, this doesn't really happen in any significant numbers - but the verses can easily be found in Christian and Jewish texts too).
Very interesting discussion gentlemen. One can cite quotes from the koran or the Bible or whatever tome you want. However it proves absolutely nothing. except that you can read. If you are really curious of Islam I suggest that you obtain a copy of the book "Sword of the Prophet" by Srdja Trikovic. Excellent background history of Islam from the historical perspective. In other words, the how what why and where of Islam. He explains the roots of Islam, the biography of Mohammed, and the formulation by Mohammed of Islam by grafting parts of the various religions, cults and pagan beliefs of the time in which he lived.
After reading this book you should have a better understanding of what Islam is and what it is not. This book traces the history of Islam from it's beginning to the present day. I think you find it a very enlightening book. Btw, it is available at Amazon.com. Buy it, read it , and then have a debate on Islam. Once you understand it's historical roots and not the propaganda bandied about by various entities, you will then be able to make a more informed decision. I have. And I have done my research on this "religion". And I want no parts of it.
You can believe anything you want, but the truth never changes. Something I should add. All the quotes from the Old Testament to buttress your arguement about how Christianity and Islam are comparable is just plain old horsehockey. Islam has never had a Christ and it definitely never had a Reformation. Until it does, Islam will remain a religion rooted in violence and in practice.
And this is the FUNDEMENTAL problem with Islam…
Unlike Christianity, it did not get a 'wake up call' like Christianity did during the Reformation. As a result, Islam has not adapted to the modern world or the modern mindset, it is still rooted implicitly in the 7th Century. As far as Islam is concerned 13 Centuries of religious, scientific and socio-political enligthenment and free thought has not happened.
As a result, Islam is fundemantaly at odds with our free thinking western societies.
No offense, but I thought that part of the whole POINT of this thread was about WHAT THE KORAN ACTUALLY SAYS. If that is the question (or part of the question), then being able to read can certainly allow one to largely answer that question. If the discussion is about that, then being able and willing to read provides all the proof one needs.
Problem is, some people (like the now-banned member called Ritual) don't actually bother to sit down and READ it, and do not understand the context or meaning of the quotes they are referencing.
I'm sure the book you recommend is useful for understanding what Islam has BECOME, and WHY Islamic Fundamentalism is such a problem today ... but as far as the dicussion I am often involved in - what the Koran ACTUALLY says - being able and willing to read is pretty much the only requirement. To me, those are two very different questions and discussions.
In many ways, I think Islam today is a somewhat "primitve" religion, that has simply not adapted well to the modern civilized world.
There are plenty of muslims who are trying to adapt, and trying to integrate their religion into modern western civilization, but there seems to be this hard-core reactionary fundamentalist movement which would rather destroy civilization that learn to act civilized and join it.
Here are a couple of snippets of the Quran that tell muslims to kill non muslims:
The Muslim Bible commands Muslims to murder all non-Muslims:
"O Prophet! Make war against the unbelievers (non Muslims) and the hypocrites and be merciless against them. Their home is hell, an evil refuge indeed." (Koran, at-Taubah 9:73)
More love for the Jews. This is what is commonly preached when the muslims are pumping themselves up or justifying their slaughter of Israelis.
"When you meet the unbelievers in jihad, chop off their heads. And when you have brought them low, bind your prisoners rigorously. Then set them free or take ransom from them until the war is ended." (Koran, Muhammad 47:4)
There's more to this, but I can't find it. Basically it called for the enslavement or murder of prisoners of war who couldn't be converted. It also allowed rape of women who would not convert and to enslave them as whores.
"The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and his messenger and strive after corruption in the land will be to be killed or crucified, or have their hands and feet and genitals cut off, or to be expelled out of the land. Such will be their humiliation in the world, and in the next world they will face an awful horror." (Koran, al-Ma'idah 5:33-34)
Eye for an eye, anyone?
That sounded pretty peaceful.
These are mainstream comments from not only their "holy book" but from everyday lectures and sermons given by these hate mongers. Is it any wonder why the religion is so hateful of everyone and so racist against the world?
More example of quotes taken out of context - and claiming to be about killing all non-believers, when in reality they are very specific historical references, or taken completely out of context.
A number of the quotes you raise have been raised before (for instance pretty much all of verses 8:xx and 9:xx in the Koran deals with IDOLATORS, not all non-muslims) and includes instructions to: "if they incline to peace, make peace with them, and put your trust in God" - that doesn't really sound like instructions to kill all non-muslims. As I mentioned earlier, in addition, lines cited from 8:39 and 8:65 (and pretty much all of 8:xx) refer to Muhammad's plan to attack a caravan on its way to Mecca, and his forces of about 300 supposedly routed about 1000 soldiers from Mecca. This is a pretty specific historical reference (like many of the books in the Old Testament are historical accounts), and has nothing to do with "killing all non-muslims.
If you read the Book of Joshua in the old testament with the same narrow interpreation and taking quotes out of context, you could easily claim that the old testament commands Jews to kill all non-Israelites. I'm not kidding- it's a trivial exercise, and I'd be happy to illustrate it if I had more free time.
If you had BOTHERED to read above (sorry, but it's VERY irritating to spend a LOT of my time actually READING the fucking thing, and then have people not even look at my response, and just quote the same stuff all over again ), ilikelegs already cited 17:16-17 and 21:11 and I commented on it above. Again, while people LOVE to quote these things as examples of how the Koran tells people to "kill all non-muslims" I simply don't see that actually supported when you read the actual text.
As I asked above, why would so many of these books be full of instruction about how to talk to the nonbelievers, and how to try to convince them that the Koran is right, and warning from God/Allah that those unbelivers will eventualyl be judged? Why would so much of these verses (mot of the book of the Cow, for instance) contain that, if muslims were just supposed to KILL THEM? Sure would have save a lot of space in the Koran
The reality is that the Koran DOES NOT give any general or global command to muslims to kill all non-muslims. It is certainly a book that does focus a lot on fighting, and on talking about conquest, and so forth - but it does not advocate the killing of all non-muslims indiscriminantly.