Islam: Religion of Peace

[Undesired Walrus]

I'm slowly working my way through my Quran, and have got onto the chapter entitled 'The Declaration of Immunity'.

'Verily God hath purchased of the true believers their souls and their substance, promising them the enjoyment of paradise; on the condition that they fight for the cause of God: whether they slay or be slain, the promise for the same is assuredly due by the law, and the gospel, and the Quran'.

Then I got onto the chapter 'Jonas':

'But as for the unbelievers, they shall drink boiling water, and they shall suffer a grevious punishment'

I'm not entirely sure what I am missing here. I like to think I'm not closed minded, and I think I am proving that by reading the book. Presumably there are socially moderate Muslim theologians in the Middle East who fluster and explain away these passages with hundreds of years of debate, but I really cannot see any way around interpretation here. If Mohammed (Or God's words through him) didn't intend just this, why did he write the thing down? Did he want to leave some puzzle that could only be solved by theological debate? Possibly. But it's somewhat unlikely isn't it? It's unlikely Genghis Khan's famous 'There is no greater happiness...' speech was born into existence to one day be interpreted to reveal the exact opposite.

Most of all, why do faiths create only the most horrific command's to be later interpreted? What's wrong with 'Pinch the unbelievers' being interpreted instead? At least nobody gets killed with that.

As with deuteronomy 13:1, Jonas also makes it clear that interpretation isn't all that desired:

'Answer (To the infidel) 'It is not fit for me, that I should change it (The words of the Quran) at my pleasure: I follow that only which is revealed onto me''

[bokonon]

I don't think this passage is a commandment for something the believers are expected to inflict on unbelievers, but a description of the punishment Allah himself will inflict on the unbelievers in the afterlife. Without looking it up, it's certainly similar to many such passages, which talk about what the infidels will have to drink (sometimes boiling water, sometimes boiling pus, sometimes a cold dark drink -- when I get to naughtyville, I'm heading for the "ice-cold cola" section.

In my conversations with Muslims, their attitude is that you are alive now, you can convert and avoid what is clearly to come, you have been warned. It's not Muslims who will be doing the punishing, it's their hateful god himself. The Muslims will be laughing at this torture; when they tire of virgins, this will be one of the entertainments the Islamic version of paradise will offer.

[Rufo]

Hm, I'm not sure I completely understand your point. Is it that you do not understand how anyone can interpret these statements as peaceful, or why anyone intending to found a peaceful religion would write things which could easily be interpreted as anything but peaceful?

[Undesired Walrus]

I don't think this passage is a commandment for something the believers are expected to inflict on unbelievers, but a description of the punishment Allah himself will inflict on the unbelievers in the afterlife.

The boiling water point? Sure I agree. Plus it is in that very context.

But 'Verily God hath purchased of the true believers their souls and their substance, promising them the enjoyment of paradise; on the condition that they fight for the cause of God: whether they slay or be slain,' seems to quite clear that you do this (slay or be slain) down here to get up there. You get to bypass the day of judgement too.

[AkuManiMani]

The boiling water point? Sure I agree. Plus it is in that very context.

But 'Verily God hath purchased of the true believers their souls and their substance, promising them the enjoyment of paradise; on the condition that they fight for the cause of God: whether they slay or be slain,' seems to quite clear that you do this (slay or be slain) down here to get up there. You get to bypass the day of judgement too.

Man makes his gods in his own image. Through the actions of man are his gods made manifest.

[bokonon]

'Verily God hath purchased of the true believers their souls and their substance, promising them the enjoyment of paradise; on the condition that they fight for the cause of God: whether they slay or be slain,' seems to quite clear that you do this (slay or be slain) down here to get up there. You get to bypass the day of judgement too.
Gotcha. Yes, that's a problem. The texts were written in simpler, cruder times, when "spin" was still in the future. Rather than speaking of freedom, liberation, and truth, it was just an unvarnished "kill or be killed."

[Beerina]

Doesn't Islam subscribe to the validity of most of the OT, in common with Jews and Christians? That shared bit is enough right there. :(

[Undesired Walrus]

But I really feel I must be missing something here. Surely the entire world, including the sizable amount of good muslims aren't simply ignoring these parts of the Quran are they? A Muslim friend often brings up the 'He who kills one man kills all of mankind' but at the very least that seems to be in direct contradiction with the verses above.

There is a American Muslim called Hamza Yusuf, who recently said that there is not a single part of the Quran that advocates killing. I couldn't believe it.

[aggle-rithm]

There is a American Muslim called Hamza Yusuf, who recently said that there is not a single part of the Quran that advocates killing. I couldn't believe it.

On the other hand, there seems to be an unwritten rule: "If another Muslim kills someone, it's not my place to condemn his actions."

The next unwritten rule is: "Obeying the previous unwritten rule is not tacit approval of murder. Somehow."

Sure...

I don't meet that many Muslims, granted, but I have yet to meet one who will enthusiastically condemn the actions of radical Muslims who kill innocent people. They just say, "That's not us. That's someone else."

[bokonon]

Surely the entire world, including the sizable amount of good muslims aren't simply ignoring these parts of the Quran are they?
Essentially. If you ask them, they may tell you that this bit applies to the 7th century world in which it was written, when Islam was fighting for its life, or that "slay" has some special spiritual meaning which won't make a bit of sense when you try to pin it down.

Most of the Muslim world is still illiterate and doesn't speak Arabic. They memorize the Quran in Arabic without comprehending the meaning of anything they're reciting. Maybe they get translations of the verses you're citing, and maybe they don't. Most Christians know a few stories they've seen at the movies, and can quote a couple of psalms, a couple of proverbs, and a couple of verses from the NT. Chances are, most good Muslims don't grapple with the verses you've cited.

[BigAl]

I recommend Benazir Bhutto's book, "Reconciliation: Islam, Democracy and the West” as a probably authorative commentary of the book by a modern Muslim. She talks about the problem of english translations and how people with any agenda can spin things.

[Undesired Walrus]

Which part of boiling water being forced into your mouth can be mis-translated?

[JoeEllison]

But I really feel I must be missing something here. Surely the entire world, including the sizable amount of good muslims aren't simply ignoring these parts of the Quran are they? A Muslim friend often brings up the 'He who kills one man kills all of mankind' but at the very least that seems to be in direct contradiction with the verses above.

There is a American Muslim called Hamza Yusuf, who recently said that there is not a single part of the Quran that advocates killing. I couldn't believe it.

Why not? Christians and Jews do it all the time.

[Rufo]

The boiling water point? Sure I agree. Plus it is in that very context.

But 'Verily God hath purchased of the true believers their souls and their substance, promising them the enjoyment of paradise; on the condition that they fight for the cause of God: whether they slay or be slain,' seems to quite clear that you do this (slay or be slain) down here to get up there. You get to bypass the day of judgement too.
Basically, this can be interpreted as that Islam is not a religion of pacifism, nothing else. As bokonon pointed out, the Qur'an was written during a time when killing to defend Islam was a pressing issue - I'm not saying Muslims didn't do more than that even in those days, but it needn't necessarily be interpreted as "slay the unbelievers". It states that killing and dying for one's cause is noble. What it fails to state is when the time is right to do so - it is left to interpretation, with sometimes fatal results.

[FireGarden]

But I really feel I must be missing something here. Surely the entire world, including the sizable amount of good muslims aren't simply ignoring these parts of the Quran are they? A Muslim friend often brings up the 'He who kills one man kills all of mankind' but at the very least that seems to be in direct contradiction with the verses above.

There is a American Muslim called Hamza Yusuf, who recently said that there is not a single part of the Quran that advocates killing. I couldn't believe it.

That's from sura 5, I think. And the quote should go something like "He who kills a man, except for murder or...." Capital punishment is accepted in the Quran, so I don't know what Hamza Yusuf meant. Could you give a wider context, please.

As for the quote you gave from Sura 9, Islam (like many other cultures) accepts that there is such a thing as a just war. So it becomes a version of "dulce et decorum est..."

[nzric]

Hi Walrus

Good on you for reading it. I wouldn't know, personally, but apparently much of the "glory" of the Qu'uran is from the phrasing & rhythm of the text as well, i.e. playing on words and rhyming huge strings of phrasing while still retaining deep meaning and context (God is a rapper, obviously). Much of this would be lost in the translation.

Even if you can't learn a rudimentary amount of Arabic I'd suggest you get some audio of people reciting text from the Koran. It's amazing to hear even if you don't know what the words mean (and many would argue even better if you don't :))

I really can't stand Salman Rushdie's writing, but he does often manage to get some of this awe across in his books. May be a good start.

[FireGarden]

Just another point...

the chapter entitled 'The Declaration of Immunity'

That's the opening line of sura9, as far as I can tell. The title of the Sura is "repentance".

Googling your title doesn't give a sura title.

[Dr H]

I'm not entirely sure what I am missing here. I like to think I'm not closed minded, and I think I am proving that by reading the book. Presumably there are socially moderate Muslim theologians in the Middle East who fluster and explain away these passages with hundreds of years of debate, but I really cannot see any way around interpretation here. If Mohammed (Or God's words through him) didn't intend just this, why did he write the thing down? Did he want to leave some puzzle that could only be solved by theological debate?
I am in awe at someone reading a religious text, and wondering that it is obscure, ambiguous, contradictory, and illogical.

[Undesired Walrus]

Even if you can't learn a rudimentary amount of Arabic I'd suggest you get some audio of people reciting text from the Koran. It's amazing to hear even if you don't know what the words mean (and many would argue even better if you don't :))


I speak a moderate amount of Arabic after going to classes for a while, but only catch the odd line there and here hearing it sung. Arabic is such a stunning language, that I feel it is a tragedy the main text is what it is.

FireGarden, my Quran clearly has a different chapter title. It is before 'Jonas'.

[Peter Soderqvist]

I recommend Benazir Bhutto's book, "Reconciliation: Islam, Democracy and the West” as a probably authorative commentary of the book by a modern Muslim. She talks about the problem of english translations and how people with any agenda can spin things.


Soderqvist1: Maybe "Reconciliation: Islam, Democracy and the West” is a spin from her "soft agenda"? And Usama Bin Laden and the Talibans doesn't compromise with what is stated in the Koran?

[aggle-rithm]

I am in awe at someone reading a religious text, and wondering that it is obscure, ambiguous, contradictory, and illogical.

Hey, if it weren't, ANYONE could be a theologian, and there'd be no money in it.

[Darat]

But I really feel I must be missing something here. Surely the entire world, including the sizable amount of good muslims aren't simply ignoring these parts of the Quran are they? A Muslim friend often brings up the 'He who kills one man kills all of mankind' but at the very least that seems to be in direct contradiction with the verses above.

There is a American Muslim called Hamza Yusuf, who recently said that there is not a single part of the Quran that advocates killing. I couldn't believe it.

The "sacred texts" of religions are not what religions are - at best they form the basis for aspects of the religion. However the actual religion will be a mixture of what the religious authorities state the sacred texts mean, day-to-day religious practises which may in fact be cultural practises and so on.

Consider perhaps a more familiar example, the Roman Catholic Church. You will not find that organization/religion described in the Bible i.e. you will not find its hierarchy, its doctrines, customs and practises and opinions described in the Bible. The Bible only forms part of what the RCC is.

[ixolite]

I'm slowly working my way through my Quran, and have got onto the chapter entitled 'The Declaration of Immunity'.

'Verily God hath purchased of the true believers their souls and their substance, promising them the enjoyment of paradise; on the condition that they fight for the cause of God: whether they slay or be slain, the promise for the same is assuredly due by the law, and the gospel, and the Quran'.

Then I got onto the chapter 'Jonas':

'But as for the unbelievers, they shall drink boiling water, and they shall suffer a grevious punishment'

I'm not entirely sure what I am missing here. I like to think I'm not closed minded, and I think I am proving that by reading the book. Presumably there are socially moderate Muslim theologians in the Middle East who fluster and explain away these passages with hundreds of years of debate, but I really cannot see any way around interpretation here. If Mohammed (Or God's words through him) didn't intend just this, why did he write the thing down? Did he want to leave some puzzle that could only be solved by theological debate? Possibly. But it's somewhat unlikely isn't it? It's unlikely Genghis Khan's famous 'There is no greater happiness...' speech was born into existence to one day be interpreted to reveal the exact opposite.
If in doubt, check a tafsir, i.e. the Ibn Kathir at tafsir.com. :)

But I really feel I must be missing something here. Surely the entire world, including the sizable amount of good muslims aren't simply ignoring these parts of the Quran are they?
Yes, they are. Bear in mind, that most moslems don't read the Koran in their own language. They learn to recite it in arabic, but reading the translated Koran like reading the bible in christian families is not done. Therefore most moslems are simply ignorant about their own faith. I remember discussing one moslem, who flat out denied 4:34 was a verse in the Koran after I quoted it. :covereyes And it's not like if they are the only theists to put up a mental blockage to the unpleasant facts of their faith.

A Muslim friend often brings up the 'He who kills one man kills all of mankind' but at the very least that seems to be in direct contradiction with the verses above.
5:32 is directed at Jews (children of Israel), not at moslems. Of course moslems like to omit that part.

[Gord_in_Toronto]

The "sacred texts" of religions are not what religions are - at best they form the basis for aspects of the religion. However the actual religion will be a mixture of what the religious authorities state the sacred texts mean, day-to-day religious practises which may in fact be cultural practises and so on.

Consider perhaps a more familiar example, the Roman Catholic Church. You will not find that organization/religion described in the Bible i.e. you will not find its hierarchy, its doctrines, customs and practises and opinions described in the Bible. The Bible only forms part of what the RCC is.

But of course the RCC is fully biblical. Does not Jesus tell Peter that he (Peter) shall be the rock on which he (Jesus) shall build his church? Or is that only a pun in Greek? :rolleyes:

[FireGarden]

5:32 is directed at Jews (children of Israel), not at moslems. Of course moslems like to omit that part.

According to the Quran: Adam, Abraham and Moses were all Muslims. So 5:32 was, indeed, aimed at Muslims.

Also according to the Quran, God has revealed only one religion. So there cannot be different laws revealed for different peoples. It does say in places that Jews, Christians and Sabians will have nothing to fear in the after-life but that those who changed revelation (or hid parts of it) will face damnation. So, while the Quran acknowledges that Judaism and Christianity are different to Islam, the Quran does not say that God provided different revelations to different people.


The original version of that verse is from a Rabbi's commentary -- not the Torah. So 5:32 would be God endorsing something as divine revelation which might otherwise have been dismissed as the writings of a human being.

And, as Darat says, you have to take a look at more than just text in order to understand the religion. Muslims do indeed take 5:32 as applying to them.

[Kopji]

In Islam, "peace" means the peace that comes from obedience to God. This is probably different than what you mean by peace.

I've heard at least once, (and that was from a Persian Baha'i so it's not really fair) - that the Quran makes more sense when it read "in order of revelation", and with the idea that it unfolded over time, maybe a bit like a flower. So passages interact or are expanded on in more than a simple way.

I don't remember what the correct chronological order is, but I know that English Qurans are not always printed in chronological order. There should be a reference somewhere though.

When I ask specific questions like you are, believers tended to get angry. Good luck.

[FireGarden]

I don't remember what the correct chronological order is, but I know that English Qurans are not always printed in chronological order. There should be a reference somewhere though.

Quran's are printed in the same order, both for English and Arabic.

You're right that it is not in the order of revelation. It seems to be in order of length of the Sura. (Apart from the first, which is short).

Google turns up
http://www.icbh.org/topics/QuranOrder.htm

Which is the Islamic Centre in Beverly Hills

I'm not sure how much agreement there is amongst Muslims as to the order of revelation. Sura 96 being the first seems widespread. Abdullah Yusuf Ali says that verse 4 of Sura 5 was the last revealed.


http://www.geocities.com/mihraab786/Quran.html
Says it was the 3rd verse of Sura 5 Al Maidah -- the table

But verse aren't always numbered the same way.
In fact, http://history.hanover.edu/courses/excerpts/344qur.html
has verse 4 beginning: "Forbidden to you (for food) are:"

Which is verse 3 in wiki's translation: http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Holy_Qur%27an/Al-Meada

The verse also has the line "This day have I perfected your religion for you, completed My favour upon you, and have chosen for you Islam as your religion," which backs up a claim to being the last verse


http://www.ummah.net/Al_adaab/hadith/muslim/had11.html
has a Hadith saying the last verse was about Kalala.

http://www.islaam.com/Article.aspx?id=462
says "This word "kalala" occurs only in two places in the Quran [4:12 and 4:176] and on both occasions regarding inheritance."


Ummah net also has a hadith saying that the last sura revealed is Sura al-Bara'at

That's Chapter 9 (Surah Al-Bara'at / The Immunity) in this translation:
http://aaiil.org/text/hq/comm/mali/malimain.shtml

Though wiki, and others, give Sura 9 as:
At-Taubah (Repentance)
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Qur'an_(English_translation)
And doesn't list a surah called al-bara'at (immunity)
And, from the Walrus' translation, they seem to be the same sura but with different titles.


ICBH, above, gives the last Sura as 110-An-Nasr (wiki translates that as divine support) Sura 9 (Al-Tawba) is given as 2nd to last sura by ICBH

But, I suppose, there is a general agreement about whether a sura is early, late or middle-ish.