Reference in the koran, please?

[specious_reasons]

I have just recently started to read the Koran. Since I have not read that far into it, I haven't found the places where it specifically tells Muslims to kill all infidels.

Could someone kindly point me to these passages?

[Genghis Pwn]

Lol, it starts on page one.

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by specious_reasons
I have just recently started to read the Koran. Since I have not read that far into it, I haven't found the places where it specifically tells Muslims to kill all infidels.

Could someone kindly point me to these passages?

Sura 9, Verse 5 is the one most commonly cited (http://www.hti.umich.edu/k/koran/browse.html):

[9.5] So when the sacred months have passed away, then slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captives and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush, then if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, leave their way free to them; surely Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.

also:

[9.29] Fight those who do not believe in Allah, nor in the latter day, nor do they prohibit what Allah and His Apostle have prohibited, nor follow the religion of truth, out of those who have been given the Book, until they pay the tax in acknowledgment of superiority and they are in a state of subjection.

Looking in the Koran for the worst of the incitements to violence that fundamentalist Islamicists regard as religious duty is a waste of time. Far better to look in the Sunnah, the customs and teachings if Sunni Islam. The best comparison I could make is

Koran:Sunnah::Bible:Catechism

I don't know of any english translations of the Sunnah, but I've seen some stuff (quotes from and interpretations of the Sunnah) on Islamicist message boards that are pretty severe.

MattJ

[specious_reasons]

Originally posted by Genghis Pwn
Lol, it starts on page one.

Sorry, didn't see it, quotes? Specific references, please?

added:

Here: anyone can even cite passages and link to it.

http://www.hti.umich.edu/k/koran/browse.html

...This is the first one I found on the net, you can pick your favorite site for specific references.

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by Genghis Pwn
Lol, it starts on page one.

Page 1 of the Koran:

The Opening
In the name of Allah, the Beneficent, the Merciful.

[1.1] All praise is due to Allah, the Lord of the Worlds.
[1.2] The Beneficent, the Merciful.
[1.3] Master of the Day of Judgment.
[1.4] Thee do we serve and Thee do we beseech for help.
[1.5] Keep us on the right path.
[1.6] The path of those upon whom Thou hast bestowed favors. Not (the path) of those upon whom Thy wrath is brought down, nor of those who go astray.

[specious_reasons]

Originally posted by aerocontrols


Sura 9, Verse 5 is the one most commonly cited (http://www.hti.umich.edu/k/koran/browse.html):

Looking in the Koran for the worst of the incitements to violence that fundamentalist Islamicists regard as religious duty is a waste of time. Far better to look in the Sunnah, the customs and teachings if Sunni Islam. The best comparison I could make is

Koran:Sunnah::Bible:Catechism

I don't know of any english translations of the Sunnah, but I've seen some stuff (quotes from and interpretations of the Sunnah) on Islamicist message boards that are pretty severe.

MattJ

Thanks! I'll venture to look that quote up in more detail, I don't think I've reached it yet, been only spendng a few minutes a day on it.

One quick thing:

9.29] Fight those who do not believe in Allah, nor in the latter day, nor do they prohibit what Allah and His Apostle have prohibited, nor follow the religion of truth, out of those who have been given the Book, until they pay the tax in acknowledgment of superiority and they are in a state of subjection.


The people of the Book are Jews, Christians and Muslims, as is spelled out near the beginning of the Koran. "Those who do not believe in Allah" are the idol-worshippers of the region. So, if anything, it's inciting violence towards pagans., not Jews and Christians, as it is commonly claimed.

The claim has been made, much like Genghis Pwn here, that the Koran is this hate filled book inciting violence towards non-believers. Not the Sunnah. I think this argument is made from ignorance and prejudice. I'd like the people making this claim to show otherwise.

When I started reading the Koran, my first thought was, "This sucks!" But still, it's pretty tame in it's rhetoric, I haven't seen anything that is a clear incitment of violence.

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by specious_reasons
The people of the Book are Jews, Christians and Muslims, as is spelled out near the beginning of the Koran. "Those who do not believe in Allah" are the idol-worshippers of the region. So, if anything, it's inciting violence towards pagans., not Jews and Christians, as it is commonly claimed.

That's not how I read it. Let's parse, perhaps I'm doing it incorrectly:

Fight those who do not believe in Allah

Fight those who do not believe in the latter day

Fight those who do not prohibit what Allah and His Apostle have prohibited

Fight those who do not follow the religion of truth, out of those who have been given the Book,

Isn't the last sentence specifically saying fight Christians and Jews? They are the two groups 'out of those who have been given the book' who do not follow Islam, aren't they?

until they pay the tax in acknowledgment of superiority and they are in a state of subjection.

It seems clear to me. If they (Christians and Jews) will not submit to Islam or submit to Islamic rule and pay the Jizzah, then fight and kill them.

Originally posted by specious_reasons
When I started reading the Koran, my first thought was, "This sucks!" But still, it's pretty tame in it's rhetoric, I haven't seen anything that is a clear incitment of violence.


I find that translations vary widely (http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/038.qmt.html#038.044). The link is to 3 versions of of the same text, Sura 38, verse 44, which is commonly cited as the place in the Koran where wife-beating is approved of. My copy of the Koran I have at home is a translation by Rodwell (it may be the copy that you have) that says

And we said, "Take thy rod in hand, and strike[1] with it, nor break thine oath." Verily, he was patient!

The footnote [1] says:

Thy wife;--on whom he (Job, from the Old Testament of the Bible. Job ii 9) had sworn that he would inflict an hundred blows, because she had absented himself from him when in need of her assistance, or for her words. The oath was kept, we are told, by his giving her one blow with a rod of a hundred stalks.


Mohammad's message here is that Job kept his vow to beat his wife in response to her words recorded in Job ii 9: His wife said to him, "Are you still holding on to your integrity? Curse God and die!"

(I studied this particular portion of the Koran fairly in-depth a while back during a discussion at another MB.)

My point is, the tameness or not of the rhetoric depends a lot on who translated your version, unless you're reading it in the Arabic. There are also implications that may be difficult to recognize. (Would you upon your reading recognize that Job = Ayyub?)

I tried to read Rodwell's translation, and quit halfway through. I also thought it sucked.

MattJ

[aerocontrols]

Also

idolators or pagans etc... is (it seems from what I've read elsewhere) most literally translated as "those who join God (Allah) with other gods" with many Fundy Muslims interpret as not just pagans, but also Christians, who (falsely) join Allah with Jesus and the Holy Spirit.

All of this is academic to me as an atheist. I'm listed first off:

Fight those who do not believe in Allah

Lucky for me, I can fight back.

MattJ

[aerocontrols]

Perhaps the 3 translation page (http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/009.qmt.html#009.029) can help us with Sura 9:29:

YUSUFALI: Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.

PICKTHAL: Fight against such of those who have been given the Scripture as believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, and forbid not that which Allah hath forbidden by His messenger, and follow not the Religion of Truth, until they pay the tribute readily, being brought low.

SHAKIR: Fight those who do not believe in Allah, nor in the latter day, nor do they prohibit what Allah and His Messenger have prohibited, nor follow the religion of truth, out of those who have been given the Book, until they pay the tax in acknowledgment of superiority and they are in a state of subjection.

What do you think? Yusufali is pretty explicit in his translation.

MattJ

[JAR]

Actually, I have heard from people that the Islamic Fundamentalists practice a religion which is a corruption of Islam. That's what the president and many Muslims tell us. According to President Bush, Islam is a peaceful religion.

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by JAR
Actually, I have heard from people that the Islamic Fundamentalists practice a religion which is a corruption of Islam. That's what the president and many Muslims tell us. According to President Bush, Islam is a peaceful religion.


No True Scotsman (http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html#scots).

Who decides which version is corruption and which is true? Obviously, secular Islamic leaders and President Bush see a benefit in convincing the world and especially Muslims that fundamentalism is a corruption. I also see that benefit, and I hope that Islam becomes as secular as Christianity, for instance.

MattJ

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by aerocontrols



No True Scotsman (http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html#scots).

Who decides which version is corruption and which is true? Obviously, secular Islamic leaders and President Bush see a benefit in convincing the world and especially Muslims that fundamentalism is a corruption. I also see that benefit, and I hope that Islam becomes as secular as Christianity, for instance.

MattJ

We have a family friend who is a muslim. He is so meek and timid it is embarrasing.

We can just as easily put the argument forward for Christianity or Judaism. Or point out the absurdities of those religions too.

Personally, I am glad I am not a xian any more, and just as glad that I am not muslim or jewish. However, I don't see that concentrating on the faults of islam gets us anywhere. I can find just as many problems in the old testament, or the waffle from paul, which was the actual basis for christianity, as distinct from what jesus supposedly taught.

What are we to make of a religion in which there is only one god, but he only has an interest one race, for example? Or Josjua rampaging through the land, or the mass suicide of Masada?

Paul the apostle converted what at first appears to be a similar approach to life that the buddha proclaimed, into a mystical cult. The crusades, for example, demonstrated that the anyone, from any faith, if they want to, can justify any war.

What is important is to hope for the rationality and reason of people to triumph over the insanity of religion that has been twisted to place the importance of faith over human suffering. You can find plenty of examples of such behaviour all over the world. No need to stop at the absurdities of islam.

[DrBenway]

So, how do the mellow Muslims reconcile the contradiction between these ideas:

1. The Qu'ran is the literal word of Allah
2. The Qu'ran teaches that Muslims ought to either subjugate non- believers or kill them.
3. Muslims ought not subjugate or kill non-believers.

One view I've read might be termed "the expediency argument." Essentially, if the consequences resulting from efforts to subjugate or kill non-believers would cause more harm than good to most Muslims in the world, then the commandment does not have to be fulfilled, presently.

This argument fails to comfort me, as it leaves open the door for action in the future.

Another view: The Qu'ran is not the literal word of Allah. It's this view that I'd like to see become more prevalent in the Muslim world. If anyone can find examples in support of this view, from respected Muslim leaders today, I'd love to read them.

So I wonder, Matt and AUP, how do your Muslim friends reconcile this apparent contradiction?

[Mike B.]

The Muslims I have spoken to when pressed will say that they want the shiarra as law everywhere eventually. This is the scary part.

Remember an shiarra court recently sentenced a 21 year old to death in Pakistan for questioning the "prophet" Muhammad's belief about drinking alchol.

As far as religion goes, to each his own, I don't really care. However, I do not want to see the supreme law based on some religious law from the dark ages.

There are Suffi Muslims which believe in Allah, but also believe that the Shiarra is uneccessary. Of course for this they are considered the worst apostates by the fundamentalists.

[DrBenway]

Originally posted by Mike B.
There are Sufi Muslims which believe in Allah, but also believe that the Shiarra is uneccessary.
I'm a fan of the sufis. Unfortunately, they make up only a small percentage of world Islam (approx. 3%; maybe more if you count some of the more liberal Muslim groups in Indonesia).

[specious_reasons]

Originally posted by DrBenway

[...]
So I wonder, Matt and AUP, how do your Muslim friends reconcile this apparent contradiction?


The Muslims I know weasel their way out of the interpretations that you give. Usually, even though it's not specifically mentioned, they proclaim that all war and fighting should be in self defense. Therefore, the commandment to kill is to kill people who have already made the commitment to kill you.

So far, we have one example. Of which, I'm not entirely sure how it is to be interpreted. Is this it?

[Baker]

Originally posted by specious_reasons


The Muslims I know weasel their way out of the interpretations that you give. Usually, even though it's not specifically mentioned, they proclaim that all war and fighting should be in self defense. Therefore, the commandment to kill is to kill people who have already made the commitment to kill you.

So far, we have one example. Of which, I'm not entirely sure how it is to be interpreted. Is this it?

There are many different translations so it's hard to tell which one is more accurate.
These are some of the verses dealing with killing the unbelievers.

002.191
YUSUFALI: And slay them wherever ye catch them, and turn them out from where they have Turned you out; for tumult and oppression are worse than slaughter; but fight them not at the Sacred Mosque, unless they (first) fight you there; but if they fight you, slay them. Such is the reward of those who suppress faith.

PICKTHAL: And slay them wherever ye find them, and drive them out of the places whence they drove you out, for persecution is worse than slaughter. And fight not with them at the Inviolable Place of Worship until they first attack you there, but if they attack you (there) then slay them. Such is the reward of disbelievers.

SHAKIR: And kill them wherever you find them, and drive them out from whence they drove you out, and persecution is severer than slaughter, and do not fight with them at the Sacred Mosque until they fight with you in it, but if they do fight you, then slay them; such is the recompense of the unbelievers.

http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/002.qmt.html#002.191



008.065
YUSUFALI: O Prophet! rouse the Believers to the fight. If there are twenty amongst you, patient and persevering, they will vanquish two hundred: if a hundred, they will vanquish a thousand of the Unbelievers: for these are a people without understanding.

PICKTHAL: O Prophet! Exhort the believers to fight. If there be of you twenty steadfast they shall overcome two hundred, and if there be of you a hundred (steadfast) they shall overcome a thousand of those who disbelieve, because they (the disbelievers) are a folk without intelligence.

SHAKIR: O Prophet! urge the believers to war; if there are twenty patient ones of you they shall overcome two hundred, and if there are a hundred of you they shall overcome a thousand of those who disbelieve, because they are a people who do not understand.
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/008.qmt.html#008.065



047.004
YUSUFALI: Therefore, when ye meet the Unbelievers (in fight), smite at their necks; At length, when ye have thoroughly subdued them, bind a bond firmly (on them): thereafter (is the time for) either generosity or ransom: Until the war lays down its burdens. Thus (are ye commanded): but if it had been Allah's Will, He could certainly have exacted retribution from them (Himself); but (He lets you fight) in order to test you, some with others. But those who are slain in the Way of Allah,- He will never let their deeds be lost.

PICKTHAL: Now when ye meet in battle those who disbelieve, then it is smiting of the necks until, when ye have routed them, then making fast of bonds; and afterward either grace or ransom till the war lay down its burdens. That (is the ordinance). And if Allah willed He could have punished them (without you) but (thus it is ordained) that He may try some of you by means of others. And those who are slain in the way of Allah, He rendereth not their actions vain.

SHAKIR: So when you meet in battle those who disbelieve, then smite the necks until when you have overcome them, then make (them) prisoners, and afterwards either set them free as a favor or let them ransom (themselves) until the war terminates. That (shall be so); and if Allah had pleased He would certainly have exacted what is due from them, but that He may try some of you by means of others; and (as for) those who are slain in the way of Allah, He will by no means allow their deeds to perish.

http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/047.qmt.html#047.004

[Bjorn]

Originally posted by DrBenway
So, how do the mellow Muslims reconcile the contradiction between these ideas:

1. The Qu'ran is the literal word of Allah
2. The Qu'ran teaches that Muslims ought to either subjugate non- believers or kill them.
3. Muslims ought not subjugate or kill non-believers.Couldn't one just as well ask:

How do the Christians reconcile the contradiction between these ideas:

1. The Bible is the literal word of God
2. The Bible teaches that Christians ought to either subjugate non-believers or kill them.
3. Christians ought not subjugate or kill non-believers

Obviously, we (most of us) know that in general, Christians don't believe or follow everything written in the Bible. Just as most muslims are not following everything written in the Quran. :(

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by DrBenway

So I wonder, Matt and AUP, how do your Muslim friends reconcile this apparent contradiction?

The same way xians and jews do, they just ignore or rationalise away the parts that they don't agree with.

[Baker]

Originally posted by Bjorn
Couldn't one just as well ask:

How do the Christians reconcile the contradiction between these ideas:

1. The Bible is the literal word of God
2. The Bible teaches that Christians ought to either subjugate non-believers or kill them.
3. Christians ought not subjugate or kill non-believers

Obviously, we (most of us) know that in general, Christians don't believe or follow everything written in the Bible. Just as most muslims are not following everything written in the Quran. :(


Most?
I would argue this belief the word Islam it self means total submission to Allah.
The verses you that tell Christians ought to kill non-believers are all in the Old Testament.
As their belief go’s the New Testament was written to change the old.

[JAR]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


We can just as easily put the argument forward for Christianity or Judaism. Or point out the absurdities of those religions too.
I agree. In fact, the Old Testament has a story about this man named Samson. He causes a building to collapse, thus killing himself and a large number of heathens.

Does this remind anyone of the World Trade Center incident?

A portion of Christians and Jews might one day interpret this story as a justification for suicide bombings against infidels.

[hisham]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


The same way xians and jews do, they just ignore or rationalise away the parts that they don't agree with.
For Jews the situation is more complicated and they have many sources because Judaism was created by the Persians.

[DrBenway]

Originally posted by Bjorn
Couldn't one just as well ask:

How do the Christians reconcile the contradiction between these ideas:

1. The Bible is the literal word of God
2. The Bible teaches that Christians ought to either subjugate non-believers or kill them.
3. Christians ought not subjugate or kill non-believers

Obviously, we (most of us) know that in general, Christians don't believe or follow everything written in the Bible. Just as most muslims are not following everything written in the Quran. :(
Your statement above, "The Bible teaches that Christians ought to either subjugate non-believers or kill them," simply is not true.

[DrBenway]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
The same way xians and jews do, they just ignore or rationalise away the parts that they don't agree with.
I don't think most religious people would find your comment flattering.

Can you ask your Muslim friend how he reconciles the contradiction above, or would that be awkward?

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by DrBenway

Your statement above, "The Bible teaches that Christians ought to either subjugate non-believers or kill them," simply is not true.

I would also be interested in seeing the passages Bjorn is talking about.

MattJ

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by hisham

For Jews the situation is more complicated and they have many sources because Judaism was created by the Persians.

Does anyone else think this claim deserves its own thread?

[DrBenway]

Originally posted by specious_reasons
Usually, even though it's not specifically mentioned, they proclaim that all war and fighting should be in self defense. Therefore, the commandment to kill is to kill people who have already made the commitment to kill you.
I've heard this explanation also. I've heard it used by people who condemn the suicide bombers, but I've also heard it used by people who support the suicide bombers. Osama bin Laden claims to be fighting a defensive jihad against American Imperialism.

Thus, if I'm hoping to sort out the mellow Muslims from the rest, the "kill the infidel, but only in self-defense," doesn't help me much.

It's my feeling that all real religious tolerance and freedom rests upon a rejection of any literal reading of holy scripture. Once the fact of human interpretation and re-interpretation is accepted, no political or relgious leader can claim to be absolutely correct. Where there's room for discussion and debate, there's freedom.

The Sufis are not literalists. I'm still looking for the non-literalists among the Sunnis. Wherever they are, may their numbers grow.

[plindboe]

Originally posted by aerocontrols
YUSUFALI: Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.

PICKTHAL: Fight against such of those who have been given the Scripture as believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, and forbid not that which Allah hath forbidden by His messenger, and follow not the Religion of Truth, until they pay the tribute readily, being brought low.

SHAKIR: Fight those who do not believe in Allah, nor in the latter day, nor do they prohibit what Allah and His Messenger have prohibited, nor follow the religion of truth, out of those who have been given the Book, until they pay the tax in acknowledgment of superiority and they are in a state of subjection
It's just a matter of how you interpret the word "fight". You can fight with words or with swords. So this might as well be verses that ask muslims to argue for their religion.

Originally posted by Baker
002.191
YUSUFALI: And slay them wherever ye catch them, and turn them out from where they have Turned you out; for tumult and oppression are worse than slaughter; but fight them not at the Sacred Mosque, unless they (first) fight you there; but if they fight you, slay them. Such is the reward of those who suppress faith.

PICKTHAL: And slay them wherever ye find them, and drive them out of the places whence they drove you out, for persecution is worse than slaughter. And fight not with them at the Inviolable Place of Worship until they first attack you there, but if they attack you (there) then slay them. Such is the reward of disbelievers.

SHAKIR: And kill them wherever you find them, and drive them out from whence they drove you out, and persecution is severer than slaughter, and do not fight with them at the Sacred Mosque until they fight with you in it, but if they do fight you, then slay them; such is the recompense of the unbelievers.
This verse is about people who have invaded your country and oppress/persecute your people.

Originally posted by Baker
008.065
YUSUFALI: O Prophet! rouse the Believers to the fight. If there are twenty amongst you, patient and persevering, they will vanquish two hundred: if a hundred, they will vanquish a thousand of the Unbelievers: for these are a people without understanding.

PICKTHAL: O Prophet! Exhort the believers to fight. If there be of you twenty steadfast they shall overcome two hundred, and if there be of you a hundred (steadfast) they shall overcome a thousand of those who disbelieve, because they (the disbelievers) are a folk without intelligence.

SHAKIR: O Prophet! urge the believers to war; if there are twenty patient ones of you they shall overcome two hundred, and if there are a hundred of you they shall overcome a thousand of those who disbelieve, because they are a people who do not understand.

047.004
YUSUFALI: Therefore, when ye meet the Unbelievers (in fight), smite at their necks; At length, when ye have thoroughly subdued them, bind a bond firmly (on them): thereafter (is the time for) either generosity or ransom: Until the war lays down its burdens. Thus (are ye commanded): but if it had been Allah's Will, He could certainly have exacted retribution from them (Himself); but (He lets you fight) in order to test you, some with others. But those who are slain in the Way of Allah,- He will never let their deeds be lost.

PICKTHAL: Now when ye meet in battle those who disbelieve, then it is smiting of the necks until, when ye have routed them, then making fast of bonds; and afterward either grace or ransom till the war lay down its burdens. That (is the ordinance). And if Allah willed He could have punished them (without you) but (thus it is ordained) that He may try some of you by means of others. And those who are slain in the way of Allah, He rendereth not their actions vain.

SHAKIR: So when you meet in battle those who disbelieve, then smite the necks until when you have overcome them, then make (them) prisoners, and afterwards either set them free as a favor or let them ransom (themselves) until the war terminates. That (shall be so); and if Allah had pleased He would certainly have exacted what is due from them, but that He may try some of you by means of others; and (as for) those who are slain in the way of Allah, He will by no means allow their deeds to perish.
It seems that these verses are also about war, like the 002.191 verse, and it seems to me that the word "unbelievers" is used to describe the enemy. So the verses doesn't tell believers to kill anyone who doesn't believe, but instead tell believers to kill the enemy in the event of war.

Of course this is dangerous because it's open to interpretation. Terrorists interpret it to kill anyone who is on the same side of the enemy(occupiers of Palestine), while more moderate muslims interpret it only as self defense.

Peter :)

[DrBenway]

Originally posted by plindboe
It's just a matter of how you interpret the word "fight". You can fight with words or with swords. So this might as well be verses that ask muslims to argue for their religion.
From context, the fight refers to force of arms. Note this:

"until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued."

The "Jizya" is a special tax required of non-Muslims living under Muslim rule.

Islam is both a religion and a political ideology, which includes a detailed system of law.

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by plindboe

It's just a matter of how you interpret the word "fight". You can fight with words or with swords. So this might as well be verses that ask muslims to argue for their religion.


Please explain how that verse can possibly be interpreted as 'fighting with words'. No reasonable thinking person could come to that conclusion. All three translations give this:

Fight them until they pay the tax and are subdued

So how will that work based on your (somewhat generous) interpretation?

Unbeliever: I do not believe in/follow Allah according to your tradition.

Muslim: Let us discuss it, then.

(words follow)

Unbeliever: You have failed to convince me, and I remain an atheist/Christian/Hindu/Jew/whatever. However, since your argument was so skillful, I will acknowledge your superiority, feel myself subued/subjugated, and agree to pay a special tax.

Is this your reasoning? That this is what the Koran is suggesting in this passage? If I have mischaracterized what you are suggesting, please indicate how you believe one might convince me with words to acknowledge the superiority of Islam and pay a tax yet remain an unbeliever.

MattJ

[specious_reasons]

Originally posted by DrBenway

I've heard this explanation also. I've heard it used by people who condemn the suicide bombers, but I've also heard it used by people who support the suicide bombers. Osama bin Laden claims to be fighting a defensive jihad against American Imperialism.

Thus, if I'm hoping to sort out the mellow Muslims from the rest, the "kill the infidel, but only in self-defense," doesn't help me much.

It's my feeling that all real religious tolerance and freedom rests upon a rejection of any literal reading of holy scripture. Once the fact of human interpretation and re-interpretation is accepted, no political or relgious leader can claim to be absolutely correct. Where there's room for discussion and debate, there's freedom.

The Sufis are not literalists. I'm still looking for the non-literalists among the Sunnis. Wherever they are, may their numbers grow.

I think the distinguishing point would be when my (moderate) Muslim friends say that killing one person is killing all of humanity. The other (paraphrased) thing I've heard them say is, "everything in moderation." Is suicide bombing a reasonable approach to defeating Western Imperialism?

As to some of the quotes Baker produced, I have read a few of those in context. I got the impression that 002.191 was someting of the concept, "If you have to fight, kick their a**." That, in itself doesn't bother me. It's unfortunate that the Koran, as with most religious texts, needs to be iterpreted to avoid it causing harm.

[plindboe]

Good points DrBenway & aerocontrols, I agree with you and will withdraw that possible interpretation.

I tried searching on google for the word "Jizya", and it seems though that this tax has only existed few times during history. Once Mohammed imposed the tax, and a couple of times hundreds of years ago it was imposed on hindus in India.

Peter :)

[Bjorn]

Originally posted by DrBenway

Your statement above, "The Bible teaches that Christians ought to either subjugate non-believers or kill them," simply is not true. Deuteronomy (and other similar quotes):

13:6
If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which is as thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which thou hast not known, thou, nor thy fathers;

13:7
Namely, of the gods of the people which are round about you, nigh unto thee, or far off from thee, from the one end of the earth even unto the other end of the earth;

13:8
Thou shalt not consent unto him, nor hearken unto him; neither shall thine eye pity him, neither shalt thou spare, neither shalt thou conceal him:

13:9
But thou shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people. Not true? :confused:

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by plindboe
Good points DrBenway & aerocontrols, I agree with you and will withdraw that possible interpretation.

I tried searching on google for the word "Jizya", and it seems though that this tax has only existed few times during history. Once Mohammed imposed the tax, and a couple of times hundreds of years ago it was imposed on hindus in India.

Peter :)

It's my understanding that the Taliban made 'nonbelievers' (even Shia) pay it.

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by Bjorn
Deuteronomy (and other similar quotes):

Not true? :confused:

Is there a difference between someone who encourages apostasy and an unbeliever? It would seem so to me. The passage is very specific about who should be killed, and it doesn't say atheists like me who mind our own business.

Perhaps your other examples are more damning. I recall reading various verses that came pretty close to what you claim, but I don't recall something as clear as can be found in the Koran.

MattJ

[DrBenway]

Originally posted by Bjorn
Deuteronomy (and other similar quotes):

Not true? :confused:
Your quote stands in stark contradiction to the teachings of Jesus, as well as the example of his life. Christians have reconciled this contradiction, in a manner which reassures me that I don't need to fear for my life, if I somehow happen to entice a Christian into idolatry.

The primary resolution of this contradiction: the notion that the Bible stories are not to be taken as literal directions from the mouth of God. Most mainstream Christian sects are not Bible literalists.

Another resolution, embraced by even the Christian fundamentalists: Christians are no longer "under the Law (i.e., the Old Testament), but are now "under Grace." Salvation requires only faith in Jesus' life and work; the new law, replacing the Old Testament laws, is simply to love God and one's fellow man. No killing of infidels required.

[DrBenway]

Originally posted by aerocontrols
Is there a difference between someone who encourages apostasy and an unbeliever? It would seem so to me.
I think any religion which advocates killing non-belivers, whether those non-believers are talkative or not, ought to be condemned.

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by DrBenway

I think any religion which advocates killing non-belivers, whether those non-believers are talkative or not, ought to be condemned.

Yes.

I have more concern, however, for religions that advocate killing them because they are unbelievers.

[DrBenway]

Originally posted by plindboe
I tried searching on google for the word "Jizya", and it seems though that this tax has only existed few times during history. Once Mohammed imposed the tax, and a couple of times hundreds of years ago it was imposed on hindus in India.
Muslim countries, like non-Muslim countries, tax all persons under their jurisdiction. In the case of Muslim citizens, the tax may be called "zakah," while for non-Muslims it may be thought of as "jizya."

The point of the verse originally quoted, as I take it, is that the non-believers ought to be fought until they are made subject to Muslim rule.

[DrBenway]

Originally posted by aerocontrols
I have more concern, however, for religions that advocate killing them because they are unbelievers.
Oh. Maybe because I'm a talkative person, I view the distiction between unbelievers who talk about their views to believers, verses unbelievers who mind their own beeswax, as moot. :)

[DrBenway]

Originally posted by specious_reasons
I think the distinguishing point would be when my (moderate) Muslim friends say that killing one person is killing all of humanity.
Killing one innocent person is like killing all humanity (al-Ma'idah 5:32).

The catch is in that word "innocent." A fundamentalist might not view a citizen of a country opposed to Islamic beliefs as an innocent.

[Mike B.]

Originally posted by Bjorn
Deuteronomy (and other similar quotes):

Not true? :confused:

Bjorn,

I don't want to be put in the place of defending Xianity, but those quotes are from the first 5 books of the Bible, which include the Mosaic Law. As far as I know not even fundie Xians wish to reinstate the Mosaic law. They believe that the resurrection of Christ did away with the law, or at leas that is what Paul told them.

The difference is that there are numerous Muslims that wish to put into practice the Shiarra law, which is very similar to the Mosaic Law. It is telling that some of the few things that Islam feel are good in the Bible are those first five books.

I think there is enough in the Quran or the Muslim tradition to allow a more rationalist approach to the religion. It is just the people that try to do that are shouted down or killed by the fundies.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Mike B.


Bjorn,

I don't want to be put in the place of defending Xianity, but those quotes are from the first 5 books of the Bible, which include the Mosaic Law. As far as I know not even fundie Xians wish to reinstate the Mosaic law. They believe that the resurrection of Christ did away with the law, or at leas that is what Paul told them.

The difference is that there are numerous Muslims that wish to put into practice the Shiarra law, which is very similar to the Mosaic Law. It is telling that some of the few things that Islam feel are good in the Bible are those first five books.

I think there is enough in the Quran or the Muslim tradition to allow a more rationalist approach to the religion. It is just the people that try to do that are shouted down or killed by the fundies.

They are quite happy to, as I said before, rationalise away the bits that don't suit them, and follow the bits that do. The death penalty, for example, is very popular with fundies. Jesus would not have approved of it, but the old testament, 'eye for an eye' is trotted out quite regularly.

[Bjorn]

Mike B,
I don't want to be put in the place of defending Xianity, but those quotes are from the first 5 books of the Bible, which include the Mosaic Law. Neither do I want to defend muslims, there are certainly plenty of issues to criticize (and more of them, IMHO, there than in Christianity).

However, I want to remind us that most of the claims I see about how 'muslims' believe this or that are wrong in the sense that extreme opinions or fundamentalistic viewpoints are put forward as something they all believe.

(Indonesia has more muslims than any other country, yet we never hear about anyone being stoned (no jokes about marijuana please) or having their hands cut off. They've had a female prime minister, as have at least one other muslim country (Jedi forbid the US will be led by a woman one day).

As far as I know not even fundie Xians wish to reinstate the Mosaic law. Agreed, and yet the history of Christianity has been full of killings of infidels and I don't think they had difficulties defending what they did by quoting the Bible. You don't have to tell me it stopped a while ago, I know (although Christianity was far older as a religion than Islam is now, before the killings in the name of the religion stopped).

If the question is what the holy scriptures are saying, the two books are just as bad. If the question is do we practice killing people of another belief, the answer it that we both did, but the Christians seem to have stopped after 1500 years or so of doing so.

It is the people practicing Christianity that have changed, not the Bible.

The difference is that there are numerous Muslims that wish to put into practice the Shiarra law, which is very similar to the Mosaic Law. Numerous, yes, but very far from all.

I have lived and worked for a long time in a muslim country and travelled quite a lot in eight of them. I have never, ever felt threathened because I was not a muslim.

Further, I want to point out the paradox that Genghis/Jedi, who claims that 'muslims' want to kill every non-believer, at the same time is telling us how he lived in muslim countries and studied Islam, sitting in mosques for hours discussing with the locals, taking pictures of himself with them.

Why didn't they kill him then? :confused:

[Baker]

Originally posted by Bjorn
However, I want to remind us that most of the claims I see about how 'muslims' believe this or that are wrong in the sense that extreme opinions or fundamentalistic viewpoints are put forward as something they all believe.


Muslim militants are practicing mainstream Islam. They are not an extremist minority. Terrorists have not corrupted their religion. Their religion itself is corrupt. Al-Qaeda is not the enemy. They are but a symptom of a much more sinister and widespread disease.
Terrorism is the legacy of Muhammad, not bin Laden. The reason of Al-Qaeda’s existence, its popularity, its goals, even the means it uses to terrorize us, are all right out of the koran.
Muslims are taught in their schools to hate Americans and Jews and to kill us. It’s preached in their mosques, written in their media.

[hisham]

Originally posted by Baker


Muslim militants are practicing mainstream Islam. They are not an extremist minority. Terrorists have not corrupted their religion. Their religion itself is corrupt. Al-Qaeda is not the enemy. They are but a symptom of a much more sinister and widespread disease.
Terrorism is the legacy of Muhammad, not bin Laden. The reason of Al-Qaeda’s existence, its popularity, its goals, even the means it uses to terrorize us, are all right out of the koran.
Muslims are taught in their schools to hate Americans and Jews and to kill us. It’s preached in their mosques, written in their media.

Am not religious, but here maybe we need to talk about the corruption in the other side, just one example" of thousands from Judaism's holiest book THE TALUD ":
If a goy killed a goy or a Jew he is responsible, but if a Jew killed a goy he is not responsible.
Tosefta, Aboda Zara, VIII, 5

[specious_reasons]

Originally posted by Baker

Muslim militants are practicing mainstream Islam. They are not an extremist minority. Terrorists have not corrupted their religion. Their religion itself is corrupt. Al-Qaeda is not the enemy. They are but a symptom of a much more sinister and widespread disease.
Terrorism is the legacy of Muhammad, not bin Laden. The reason of Al-Qaeda’s existence, its popularity, its goals, even the means it uses to terrorize us, are all right out of the koran.
Muslims are taught in their schools to hate Americans and Jews and to kill us. It’s preached in their mosques, written in their media.

Right, this thread was started with the express purpose of proving that claim with references from the Koran.

Your claims:
1. Islam is corrupt.
2. The Koran advocates terrorism.

You've provided references in the Koran where it says to kill unbelievers. I haven't refuted those, because, frankly, I don't know how. Are you saying that what you've quoted proves Islam is corrupt from it's core? Are you saying that what you've already quoted clearly shows that it advocates terrorism?

All I want is references to back up such claims. If you can't provide them, what do you base your claims on?

[DrBenway]

Originally posted by Bjorn
(Indonesia has more muslims than any other country, yet we never hear about anyone being stoned (no jokes about marijuana please) or having their hands cut off. They've had a female prime minister, as have at least one other muslim country (Jedi forbid the US will be led by a woman one day).
Indonesia is not an Islamic state where Islamic law is put into practice. For an example of Islamic law in action, check out Saudi Arabia.

[JamesM]

Originally posted by hisham

If a goy killed a goy or a Jew he is responsible, but if a Jew killed a goy he is not responsible.
Tosefta, Aboda Zara, VIII, 5

Have you studied the Talmud, Hisham, or have you merely taken this from the compilation of alleged quotations from Jewish law that abound on the internet? For a full list, this site (http://www.posse-comitatus.org/jewper.html) seems as good as any.

A response to these quotes (which charges that most of them are fabrications) can be found here (http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Cyprus/8815/Response1.html)
If you can't be bothered to read them all, the quote given by Hisham is claimed to be genuine, but supposedly relates only to which type of court is responsible in murder cases.

I am unable to find a freely-available searchable English translation of the Talmud on the internet, unfortunately, so checking these sources first hand may prove difficult.

[DrBenway]

Originally posted by hisham
If a goy killed a goy or a Jew he is responsible, but if a Jew killed a goy he is not responsible.
Tosefta, Aboda Zara, VIII, 5
There are many groups in the world today advocating for Islamic government. Examples include: Hamas, Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade, Islamic Jihad, Hesballah, the Muslim Brotherhood, the Taliban, al Qaeda, Abu-Sayyaf, etc. There are political parties within several governments advocating for Islamic law. Islamic courts have jurisdiction in Pakistan, Syria, Egypt, Jordan, Iran, Malaysia, Sudan, etc. In Saudi Arabia, the Qu'ran is the national constitution.

In an Islamic court, the testimony of a non-Muslim is valued at only 50% of the testimony of a Muslim. In cases where it's one man's word against another, Islamic courts will always rule in favor of the Muslim over the non-Muslim.

Name one organized group in favor of the making the "Jews can kill goyim without guilt" idea you cite above. the law of the land in any country today.

[Baker]

Originally posted by specious_reasons


Right, this thread was started with the express purpose of proving that claim with references from the Koran.

Your claims:
1. Islam is corrupt.
2. The Koran advocates terrorism.

You've provided references in the Koran where it says to kill unbelievers. I haven't refuted those, because, frankly, I don't know how. Are you saying that what you've quoted proves Islam is corrupt from it's core? Are you saying that what you've already quoted clearly shows that it advocates terrorism?

All I want is references to back up such claims. If you can't provide them, what do you base your claims on?

Yes that is how Islamic terrorist justify killing by quoting the koran.
Here is the Qatari television channel Al-Jazeera interviewed Saudi sheikh Mohsin Al-'Awaji.
This should help you out on the topic.


We are proud that they define us as someone who strikes terror into the heart of the enemies of Allah and our enemies [a paraphrase of a Koranic verse], but not according to the definition they [the Americans] want. America wants us to define terror according to its criteria. The American definition of terror is that anyone who resists America's colonialist and religious interests is a terrorist…"

"The Saudis maintain that the Arabian peninsula is the resting place of the lions from which the leaders emerged. Those who confront America in Afghanistan, Chechnya, and Kashmir are the cubs of those lions. [The Saudis] who lead the Jihad in the world left without asking the permission of the rulers or the world. They broke through the barriers to leave. They run in pursuit of death, while George Bush and his administration fled the White House, at a certain point, when they were targeted."

"The Saudis believe that the glory of the [Islamic] nation appeared when our Prophet taught us the industry of death – when he taught us how to create death. Then life became cheap in our eyes… When one of the sons of our nation is killed, he says: 'I won,' and the master of the Ka'aba swears that he had won. This we see as the industry of death. We in Saudi society and in other Islamic societies have finally realized that this is the right path to tread in order to deal with today's deadly strategic weapons. If America has intercontinental missiles and bombs, then our bombs are the Jihad fighters, whom America has called 'suicide attackers' and we call 'martyrs.' We will develop them because we see them as a strategic weapon
http://www.memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Page=countries&Area=saudiarabia&ID=SP40002

[DrBenway]

Originally posted by Bjorn
I have lived and worked for a long time in a muslim country and travelled quite a lot in eight of them. I have never, ever felt threathened because I was not a muslim.
If you were a woman in western attire, or if you were a Christian wearning a cross around your neck, or openly carrying a Bible, you might have felt threatened.

[DrBenway]

Originally posted by Bjorn
However, I want to remind us that most of the claims I see about how 'muslims' believe this or that are wrong in the sense that extreme opinions or fundamentalistic viewpoints are put forward as something they all believe.
"All" is obviously an overstatement. However, it would be a mistake to equate those who support the notion that Islamic law ought to be the law of the land with a fringe, minor faction, of the Islamic world. Sunni Islam, which is considered the most mainstream form (practiced by 85% of the Muslims in the world), has a clearly articulated definition of Islamic Law. These laws are not the product of some new, fringe cult. They're centuries old. They've been continuously practiced in parts of the Arab world since the birth of Islam.

[specious_reasons]

Originally posted by Baker

Yes that is how Islamic terrorist justify killing by quoting the koran.
Here is the Qatari television channel Al-Jazeera interviewed Saudi sheikh Mohsin Al-'Awaji.
This should help you out on the topic.


That the terrorists quote the Koran is, to this discussion, irrelevant. Do you disagree that you have just made the following claims?

1. Islam is corrupt.
2. The Koran advocates terrorism.

There must be something that informs your opinion on this. I would assume that the source document itself has evidence of "corruption", as well as passages which advocate terrorism.

Do you claim that your previously quotes scriptures prove this?

The passage from your quote that interested me the most was this:

"The Saudis believe that the glory of the [Islamic] nation appeared when our Prophet taught us the industry of death – when he taught us how to create death. Then life became cheap in our eyes… When one of the sons of our nation is killed, he says: 'I won,' and the master of the Ka'aba swears that he had won. This we see as the industry of death.

Does anyone know how the Prophet taught Muslims "the industry of death"? Obviously, this would be a sign of corruption from the source. Of course, I take everything this a**hole says with a grain of salt.

[Baker]

Originally posted by specious_reasons


That the terrorists quote the Koran is, to this discussion, irrelevant. Do you disagree that you have just made the following claims?

1. Islam is corrupt.
2. The Koran advocates terrorism.

There must be something that informs your opinion on this. I would assume that the source document itself has evidence of "corruption", as well as passages which advocate terrorism.

Do you claim that your previously quotes scriptures prove this?


Yes that is correct as well as the Saudi sheikh’s comments.
These are just a few more verses from the Koran you might need.
005.033
YUSUFALI: The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger, and strive with might and main for mischief through the land is: execution, or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides, or exile from the land: that is their disgrace in this world, and a heavy punishment is theirs in the Hereafter;
PICKTHAL: The only reward of those who make war upon Allah and His messenger and strive after corruption in the land will be that they will be killed or crucified, or have their hands and feet on alternate sides cut off, or will be expelled out of the land. Such will be their degradation in the world, and in the Hereafter theirs will be an awful doom;
SHAKIR: The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His messenger and strive to make mischief in the land is only this, that they should be murdered or crucified or their hands and their feet should be cut off on opposite sides or they should be imprisoned; this shall be as a disgrace for them in this world, and in the hereafter they shall have a grievous chastisement,


008.059
YUSUFALI: Let not the unbelievers think that they can get the better (of the godly): they will never frustrate (them).
PICKTHAL: And let not those who disbelieve suppose that they can outstrip (Allah's Purpose). Lo! they cannot escape.
SHAKIR: And let not those who disbelieve think that they shall come in first; surely they will not escape.



Does anyone know how the Prophet taught Muslims "the industry of death"? Obviously, this would be a sign of corruption from the source. Of course, I take everything this a**hole says with a grain of salt.

Did you click on the link and read the entire interview? MEMRI (http://www.memri.org/index.html) translates the media in the middle east it shows you how the Arabs and Islam think from their own words.

[specious_reasons]

Originally posted by Baker

Yes that is correct as well as the Saudi sheikh’s comments.
These are just a few more verses from the Koran you might need.

Did you click on the link and read the entire interview? MEMRI (http://www.memri.org/index.html) translates the media in the middle east it shows you how the Arabs and Islam think from their own words.

Thanks for the additional quotes. Although, I don't understand why 008.059 shows anything corrupt, evil, or advocates terrorism.

No, I didn't read the interview, just to be stubborn. I'm looking for the people who make claims against the Koran show their proof.

I think it's fairly clear that Islam, in many forms of its practice, is evil. However, you, among others, have claimed that not only is the practice evil, but the source advocates it. I would like to see proof that this is what the Koran says.

...I apologize in advance if I'm getting antagonistic about this.

[renata]

Originally posted by aerocontrols




quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by hisham

For Jews the situation is more complicated and they have many sources because Judaism was created by the Persians.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Does anyone else think this claim deserves its own thread?

Yes, and it does: The Conversation about Israel/Arab relations. In that thread, I posed some questions about this claim, and inherent contradictions in it- so far, no answer on that topic.

[DrBenway]

Originally posted by specious_reasons
I would like to see proof that this is what the Koran says.

If the Qu'ran were the sole source of divine guidance for Muslims, I think it wouldn't be too difficult to rationalize away the nasty bits, using an argument like, "those verses were specific to the situation Muhammad faced at that time..." Unfortunately, there's also the Sunna, or the recorded sayings and deeds of the Prophet. These sayings and deeds are collected in several books. Islamic Law is based upon both the Qu'ran and the Sunna.

The Shi'ites reject some of the books the Sunnis accept.

[specious_reasons]

Originally posted by DrBenway

If the Qu'ran were the sole source of divine guidance for Muslims, I think it wouldn't be too difficult to rationalize away the nasty bits, using an argument like, "those verses were specific to the situation Muhammad faced at that time..." Unfortunately, there's also the Sunna, or the recorded sayings and deeds of the Prophet. These sayings and deeds are collected in several books. Islamic Law is based upon both the Qu'ran and the Sunna.

The Shi'ites reject some of the books the Sunnis accept.

I am aware of the Sunna, but know next to nothing about it. I'll gladly accept references from that, too. My knowledge of Islam seems to be far inferior to yours, DrBenway, and my only personal sources are from moderate (liberal) American muslims. They, of course, have an agenda to show me how reasonable their religion is.

I don't really want to single out Baker, since he's been a good sport on this thread, but he has made the claim that the Koran advocates terrorism. Or that the Koran is corrupt or evil. Others on the board have made similar claims. Personally, my BS meter starts going off the scale when this is said.

Of course, this thread has provided me with some substance to look into. As of right now, the given references,
- seem to advocate violence, especially against non-believers.
- can lump Christians in with the non-believers.

Fair summary?

[DrBenway]

Originally posted by specious_reasons
I am aware of the Sunna, but know next to nothing about it. I'll gladly accept references from that, too.
I'll find you some links. But I don't think the barbaric stuff is ultimately as harmful as these two ideas:

1. the notion that apostasy is a capital crime under Islamic law
2. the strict prohibition against bid'ah, or innovation.

If a Muslim cannot choose to be a non-Muslim without fear of death threats, what happens to any reformation movement within the Islamic world?

If any movement to change Islamic law is termed bid'ah, a crime also considered worthy of death, what happens to a reformer?

I'm more interested in how we can help mellow Muslims survive and carry on as mellow folk, than I am in condemning Islam entirely.

However, I think that sometimes a strong condemnation of certain Islamic beliefs and practices is helpful to the mellow Muslims out there. Westerners who apologize for Islam and praise it as a "religion of peace," strengthen the fundamentalist's sense of righteousness, and encourage persecution of the moderates in the Islamic world.

[specious_reasons]

Originally posted by DrBenway

(...)
I'm more interested in how we can help mellow Muslims survive and carry on as mellow folk, than I am in condemning Islam entirely.

However, I think that sometimes a strong condemnation of certain Islamic beliefs and practices is helpful to the mellow Muslims out there. Westerners who apologize for Islam and praise it as a "religion of peace," strengthen the fundamentalist's sense of righteousness, and encourage persecution of the moderates in the Islamic world.

DrBenway, a far more noble concept than the objective of my thread. You may be excused now. :D

[Baker]

Originally posted by specious_reasons


I am aware of the Sunna, but know next to nothing about it. I'll gladly accept references from that, too. My knowledge of Islam seems to be far inferior to yours, DrBenway, and my only personal sources are from moderate (liberal) American muslims. They, of course, have an agenda to show me how reasonable their religion is.

I don't really want to single out Baker, since he's been a good sport on this thread, but he has made the claim that the Koran advocates terrorism. Or that the Koran is corrupt or evil. Others on the board have made similar claims. Personally, my BS meter starts going off the scale when this is said.

Of course, this thread has provided me with some substance to look into. As of right now, the given references,
- seem to advocate violence, especially against non-believers.
- can lump Christians in with the non-believers.

Fair summary?

What is it that you are looking for besides what I have already showed you?
Here is the hadith.
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/muslim/

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by DrBenway

Indonesia is not an Islamic state where Islamic law is put into practice. For an example of Islamic law in action, check out Saudi Arabia.

By far the majority of people in Indonesia are Muslim.

[DrBenway]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
By far the majority of people in Indonesia are Muslim.
I don't dispute that. However, Islamic Law is not the law of the land in Indonesia, as it is in Saudi Arabia.

[Bjorn]

Originally posted by DrBenway

I don't dispute that. However, Islamic Law is not the law of the land in Indonesia, as it is in Saudi Arabia. Correct. In other words, the country with the largest population of muslims in the world is not ruled by Islamic Law, nor are the majority of muslim countries. If 'mainstream' islam can be defined as 'majority' islam, mainstream islam is somehow a lot less fundamentalistic than proposed here.

And even in the countries that are ruled by Islamic Law, e.g. Saudi Arabia as you mentioned - how many were stoned to death last year? None? :confused:

How many infidels did the Saudis kill last year? None? :confused:

[Bjorn]

Originally posted by DrBenway

If you were a woman in western attire, or if you were a Christian wearning a cross around your neck, or openly carrying a Bible, you might have felt threatened. A bit off topic, sorry, but I did once travel for three months with 'a woman in western attire' in the muslim world. She never covered herself too much (some muslims will see that as a mockery of their beliefs and traditions), but we never had a problem. Except a few hundred offers of marriage, of course. :)

Two of the countries were Yemen and Oman, not exactly the prototypes of 'modern' muslim countries. :p

[Baker]

Originally posted by Bjorn
And even in the countries that are ruled by Islamic Law, e.g. Saudi Arabia as you mentioned - how many were stoned to death last year? None? :confused:

How many infidels did the Saudis kill last year? None? :confused:



Not allowing women to drive and not allowing girls to participate in sport at schools and colleges are some issues that we do indeed find difficulty in defending.All the same, we respond with arguments that we believe are at least in part convincing and can at least absolve us of the charge of persecuting women. In our discussions with these visitors, we invariably focus on the rights which Islam grants to women — and those include the right of women to acquire and manage wealth
http://www.memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Page=countries&Area=saudiarabia&ID=SP47203#_ednref1


Come on Bjorn try to use some critical thinking on this.
I don’t know how many infidels they killed but its not a free country by a long shot.


Saudi Religious Police Launch Website
http://www.memri.org/bin/latestnews.cgi?ID=SD50403

Interviewing ali al-ahmed
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/saudi/interviews/ahmed.html

Come on Bjorn try to use some critical thinking on this.
I don’t know how many infidels they killed but its not a free country by a long shot.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/saudi/interviews/ahmed.html

[Frank Newgent]

Originally posted by Bjorn
In other words, the country with the largest population of muslims in the world is not ruled by Islamic Law, nor are the majority of muslim countries. If 'mainstream' islam can be defined as 'majority' islam, mainstream islam is somehow a lot less fundamentalistic than proposed here.


http://www.hawaii.edu/cseas/pubs/indonesia/indonesia.html


Another common thread that may be found throughout Indonesian society is the official state creed of Pancasila. Created by Sukarno, the first president of Indonesia, Pancasila is the set of five principles that is meant to guide the Indonesian way of life. The five principles are as follows:

1. Belief in One God: Indonesians allow freedom of choice in religion but acknowledge the existence of one God. Islam, Christianity, Hinduism, and Buddhism are all recognised as religions which may be practiced.

2. Nationalism: Indonesians proclaim allegiance to their country and recall the 1928 conference in which delegates declared their support for the idea of one country, one people, and one language for all of Indonesia.

3. Humanitarianism: Indonesians strive to build a just and humane society for all.

4. Democracy: Musyawarah and mufakat (discussion and consensus) form the basis for democratic involvement.

5. Social Justice: The weak must be protected and equal opportunities must be provided for the welfare of the people.

Every Indonesian learns about Pancasila in the schools. Pancasila is also promoted throughout the government civil service and is represented on the shield of the national coat of arms, which also features the mythical garuda bird and the national motto, "Bhinneka Tunggal Ika," which may be translated as "From Many There Is One" or, more commonly, "Unity in Diversity". Pancasila provides a common set of principles for a nation composed of dozens of different ethnic groups.

Indonesia's current president, Megawati Sukarno Putri, is Sukarno's daughter.

[Bjorn]

Originally posted by Baker
Come on Bjorn try to use some critical thinking on this.
I don’t know how many infidels they killed but its not a free country by a long shot.Let's assume they killed zero infidels. And stoned zero women.

How can you insist that mainstream Islam is about doing just that? If it is, how come they don't?

It's not like I say it is 'a free country' or defend it if they don't let women drive cars, but aren't we faaaaar from the amputation og hands and feet and the stoning of women? Fact is, I know American men who rather saw that females didn't drive on the highways. Or claim that they are femi-nazis. :)

And the killing of infidels?

Can we agree that such things are not happening in Saudi Arabia? Or can you show it happens?

Maybe we can try to find out if it is happening at all, and if it is, where and how much?

Maybe we can check if this is really 'mainstream' islam or just in very few places?

:confused:

[Bjorn]

Originally posted by Frank Newgent
Indonesia's current president, Megawati Sukarno Putri, is Sukarno's daughter. Well, just to show off: Putri means daughter or princess .... ;)

[DrBenway]

Originally posted by Bjorn
Maybe we can check if this is really 'mainstream' islam or just in very few places?
There are reasons the sharia isn't the law of the land everywhere. This doesn't mean that the sharia isn't widely accepted in the Muslim world as Allah's will for mankind.

They do amputate body parts in Saudi Arabia. And people are executed for various crimes by beheading in the public square.

As for the infidels, the sharia recommends subjugating them first. It's only necessary to kill them when they rebel against their Muslim rulers.

The sharia dictates killing apostates. Yet as far as I know, no apostates were killed in Saudi Arabia last year. How can this be explained?

Well, typically, an apostate is given three days to repent. He's only executed if he fails to come to his senses after the three day period. I think even Salman Rushdie would say, "Islam is just tops!" under those circumstances.

[Baker]

Originally posted by Bjorn

And the killing of infidels?

Can we agree that such things are not happening in Saudi Arabia? Or can you show it happens?

Maybe we can try to find out if it is happening at all, and if it is, where and how much?

Maybe we can check if this is really 'mainstream' islam or just in very few places?

:confused:

Here I go again MEMRI is a good source on how the Arab and Islamic world thinks.

Following a lesson on the monotheistic faiths, Saudi Arabian schoolchildren are asked to discuss "With what types of weapons should Muslims arm themselves against the Jews?" That question is part of an official textbook for 8th grade students which also emphasizes that "Jews and Christians were cursed by Allah and turned into apes and pigs," and that "The hour [the Day of Judgment] will not come until the Muslims fight the Jews and kill them."
http://memri.org/bin/media.cgi?ID=39202



David Mornin, who was arrested in November 2000, said that he was held in solitary confinement in a punishment cell for eight weeks “with the light burning all the time.” He told the Guardian that he too was subjected to physical abuse and threats while in interior ministry custody, in attempts to elicit a confession: “They flung me off the walls, punched me in the gut, kicked me in the ribcage... they hammered me. They threatened to gang rape my wife, to plant drugs on her, they said they would take me to the desert and cut my throat and leave me there.” He continued: “They kick you awake, make you sit down, then stand up about every 15 minutes.” Mornin also described how he was suspended: “They hung me from bars above the door by my handcuffs so I was just on the balls of my feet for 24 hours at a time. They did that on four occasions.” He said that when he was released he “had to write a thank you note to the king, and sign to say I had not been mistreated.”

Kelvin Hawkins, arrested in November 2000, told the Guardian he was not physically abused, possibly because his wife told Saudi authorities he had undergone a quadruple bypass. “What happened to me was sleep deprivation, I was hand cuffed, shackled and blindfolded and held in solitary confinement for three months,” he said. “Initially they tried to get me to confess to the bombings. After I confessed to running [an illegal] bar they stopped asking about the bombings,” he said.
http://hrw.org/press/2002/02/saudi020502.htm

[Frank Newgent]

Originally posted by Bjorn
Well, just to show off: Putri means daughter or princess .... ;)

I was on Bali when Gus Dur or President Wahid (http://www.hrw.org/press/1999/oct/etimor1020.htm) was deposed. Megawati replaced him.

Liked the guy just for his having told their equivalent of the House of Representatives that "they were all lousy."

[Bjorn]

There are reasons the sharia isn't the law of the land everywhere. This doesn't mean that the sharia isn't widely accepted in the Muslim world as Allah's will for mankind.Well, well.

You claim that sharia is widely accepted in the Muslim world as Allah's will. That might be so, but it certainly doesn't answer my question: If it is true, why don't they follow it?

They do amputate body parts in Saudi Arabia. Sure - according to Amnesty International's website it happened something like 90 times in the last 18 years, or five times a year (and those lefties exaggerate anyhow). Either the Saudis are extremely law-abiding, or the sharia is not what criminals are punished by.

http://www.amnesty.org/ailib/intcam/saudi/briefing/6.html

And people are executed for various crimes by beheading in the public square. That was the preferred way of executing people in France until recently (maybe even now). In the US, we electrocute them.

In the public square? If the US media got it their way, it would be on prime time TV. In fact I would be surprised if no US TV channel has shown a beheading already, or tried to get permission to show an electrocution. :rolleyes:

I think I can find members of this forum who have called for public execution more than once.

[Bjorn]

Baker,
Here I go again MEMRI is a good source on how the Arab and Islamic world thinks Sure, and a neutral one as well - one of the comments on their site reads like this:

I am full of admiration for the work MEMRI has done … in its dedicated exposure of Arab antisemitism. :rolleyes:

You didn't answer any of the questions I posted to you - how come they don't follow sharia if they all agree they want to?

How many infidels did they kill last year?

How come Genghis Jedi wasn't killed during his year-long stay and discussions on Islam? :rolleyes:

[Baker]

Originally posted by Bjorn
Baker,
Sure, and a neutral one as well - one of the comments on their site reads like this:

They translate the articles word by word unless you can prove other wise.
No-one disputes the accuracy of their translations.



How many infidels did they kill last year?

How come Genghis Jedi wasn't killed during his year-long stay and discussions on Islam? :rolleyes:


Yes in fact they just did a few hours ago haven’t you been watching the news?
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,86681,00.html

[Bjorn]

Originally posted by Baker
Yes in fact they just did a few hours ago haven’t you been watching the news?
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,86681,00.html We are speaking about different things here.

The story you are posting links to are about people defined as terrorists even in Saudi Arabia, not about how Saudi Arabia is ruled or how people are punished when they commit crimes.

My questions to you were:

How come the majority of muslims don't punish people according to the sharia if they all agree they want to?

How many infidels did they kill last year?

How come Genghis Jedi wasn't killed during his year-long stay and discussions on Islam?

Baker, my sceptisism isn't about conservative religious people being stupid (christians or muslims, they are). However, the majority of muslims are very far from the picture you and some others on this board try to paint.

Show some statistics on amputations? Stonings? Beheadings? Maybe compare the execution rates in the world to the US rates?

The problems ARE there, but there is no reason to exaggerate or cheat.

[DrBenway]

Originally posted by Bjorn
You claim that sharia is widely accepted in the Muslim world as Allah's will. That might be so, but it certainly doesn't answer my question: If it is true, why don't they follow it?

The reasons are several, and vary from country to country. Essentially, the chief argument against full implementation of the sharia in many places is inexpedience.
Sure - according to Amnesty International's website it happened something like 90 times in the last 18 years, or five times a year (and those lefties exaggerate anyhow). Either the Saudis are extremely law-abiding, or the sharia is not what criminals are punished by.

The sharia is the law of the land in Saudia Arabia. That is not a disputed fact. Because it is a closed society, we cannot get reliable statistics upon its penal system. Below is a link to the US State Dept. with some info:

http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2001/nea/8296.htm

[hisham]

Originally posted by JamesM

I am unable to find a freely-available searchable English translation of the Talmud on the internet, unfortunately, so checking these sources first hand may prove difficult.
I think you know the reason why you was unable to find a freely-available searchable English translation of the Talmud, maybe some people like MEMRI stuff will provide us a translation like this, but I wonder who they will work around subjects like:
"Alleged" Racism in the Talmud, how the Talmud describes the Christianity, Immorality in the Talmud, and many others …..?

[specious_reasons]

Originally posted by Baker


What is it that you are looking for besides what I have already showed you?
Here is the hadith.
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/muslim/
This is a forum where you can get even more answers.
http://forum.faithfreedom.org/viewforum.php?f=11

Well, all I'm looking for is for you to produce evidence of your claims. My entire point on this thread was that people on this forums are making claims about Islam which set off my BS meter.

You've provided evidence for your claim. I take the above to mean that you've already posted quotes you believe make your point. That's fine. I'll admit that what's been referenced so far is enough to start.

There's a fine line between combativeness and rational discussion on this topic, and I'm trying to keep it rational. I'll stop badgering you now.

[JamesM]

Originally posted by hisham

I think you know the reason why you was unable to find a freely-available searchable English translation of the Talmud,


I assume you mean it's because that list of alleged quotes from Jewish law is genuine (kosher? yeah, cheers). I can think of other, less sinister reasons, such as people wanting to make money from their work. Would you grant that that's a possibility?


"Alleged" Racism in the Talmud, how the Talmud describes the Christianity, Immorality in the Talmud, and many others …..?

You appear to have already made your mind up. Wouldn't you agree that the fact it's hard to get a translation of the Talmud on the internet is merely preventing us from easily verifying those quotes, and is not evidence that the quotes are true?

edited to clean up formatting

[Baker]

Originally posted by Bjorn
We are speaking about different things here.

The story you are posting links to are about people defined as terrorists even in Saudi Arabia, not about how Saudi Arabia is ruled or how people are punished when they commit crimes.

This is from the Ammnesty International link you provided.

More than 1,100 people have been executed in the past 20 years, according to reports received by Amnesty International, although the true total is probably far higher. It is almost certain that all were sentenced to death after secret and summary hearings and with no meaningful appeal.
http://www.amnesty.org/ailib/intcam/saudi/briefing/8.html


My questions to you were:

How come the majority of muslims don't punish people according to the sharia if they all agree they want to?

Does this answer your question?
This isn't all of them of course I just got the Arab Nations.


Yemen
http://www.austarab.com.au/Yemen/Yemen_constitution.html
The system of law is based on Islamic law. The commercial law is influenced by English common law principles. The death penalty is in force.


Algeria
The judicial system is based on French and Islamic traditions and socialist principles. The Supreme Court also has a constitutional role as the Council of State
http://www.austarab.com.au/Algeria/Algeria_constitution.html

Bahrain
The judicial system is codified on the basis of English jurisprudence and Islamic law. The death penalty is nominally in force.
http://www.austarab.com.au/Bahrain/Bahrain_constitution.html

United Arab Emirates
The UAE law system is based on Islamic legal principles, with introduction of some secular codes, but in practice they are interpreted differently by the local courts in different emirates. Abu Dhabi has a Ruler’s Court presided by a professional judge and the court in Dubai is run by a qadi (Islamic legal expert); the rulers in other emirates deal with legal issues themselves. The death penalty is in force.
http://www.austarab.com.au/UAE/UAE_constitution.html

Sudan
The system of law was substantially based on the English common law, with the judiciary as separate and independent authority. Since the 1980s the Islamic (Sharia) law was reintroduced.
http://www.austarab.com.au/Sudan/Sudan_constitution.html

Saudi Arabia
The legal system is based on Islamic law. The judiciary consists of religious courts with a chief judge as head, responsible for the Department of Shar’iah (legal) Affairs. Shar’ia courts are primarily concerned with family inheritance and property matters. The death penalty is in force for murder, robbery with violence, adultery and drug offences.
http://www.austarab.com.au/Saudi_Arabia/Saudi_Arabia_constitution.html

The War on Women
http://hrw.org/editorials/2002/women0822.htm

Slavery and Slave Redemption in the Sudan
http://www.hrw.org/backgrounder/africa/sudanupdate.htm



How come Genghis Jedi wasn't killed during his year-long stay and discussions on Islam?

You would have to ask him that and how do you know he is JK?
I don't think even JK is that obsessed with Islam.



Baker, my sceptisism isn't about conservative religious people being stupid (christians or muslims, they are). However, the majority of muslims are very far from the picture you and some others on this board try to paint.

I whish you where right but Islamic studies dominate their education.
The Islamic war manifesto is preached to them in every mosque. Islam's war against the infidels is the lead story on the state-controlled media outlets. Terrorists are turned into martyrs and idolized. In other words, the citizens of every Islamic state are indoctrinated. They are told what to think, what to believe, what to do.

[Bjorn]

Baker,

I deliberately skipped your comments about death penalty - unless you claim that it is a specific sharia punishment.

More in line with sharia laws is the question: In which of the countries above are infidels killed for being infidels?

[DrBenway]

Originally posted by Bjorn
More in line with sharia laws is the question: In which of the countries above are infidels killed for being infidels?
I'm too tired at the moment to read all I've missed here today...

As far as I know, Islamic law doesn't recommend killing people solely for being non-Muslim. How would that be at all practical? Where would the new converts come from?

I think people get in trouble in Islamic countries if they try to openly practice non-Muslim faiths, or if they challenge or criticize Islam or Muslim leaders. So long as the infidels keep a low profile, they're treated fairly hospitably.

But the western world is like an avalanche coming down upon the Muslim world, thanks to those satellite dishes popping up between the rocks. Allah says, "This town ain't no longer big enuff for me and all you damn infidels!"

[Baker]

Originally posted by Bjorn
Baker,

I deliberately skipped your comments about death penalty - unless you claim that it is a specific sharia punishment.

More in line with sharia laws is the question: In which of the countries above are infidels killed for being infidels?

Did you not notice all of the nations listed have a system of law that is based on Islamic law.

[Bjorn]

Originally posted by Baker


Did you not notice all of the nations listed have a system of law that is based on Islamic law. The first question in this thread was:

I have just recently started to read the Koran. Since I have not read that far into it, I haven't found the places where it specifically tells Muslims to kill all infidels. You and others have tried to point out that the Koran tells the Muslims to do so.

Further, you and others have claimed that a whole bunch of countries are ruled by Islamic law.

My question is, again: If both of your statements are true, how come they don't kill infidels? :confused:

[Baker]

Originally posted by Bjorn
The first question in this thread was:

You and others have tried to point out that the Koran tells the Muslims to do so.

Yes that’s correct


Further, you and others have claimed that a whole bunch of countries are ruled by Islamic law.

Yes as I have showed you in my last post the site was the from the Arab League.


My question is, again: If both of your statements are true, how come they don't kill infidels? :confused:

How many Muslim Governments are it’s not always easy to determine they don’t publicly announce to the non-Muslim world.
Many us terrorist around the world to kill Infidels

[Tony]

:cool:

[P.S.A.]

Time for another simple point;

How old a religion is Islam? How old is Christianity? And more importantly, has Christianity always been peaceful, and Islam always violent?

Or are we all falling for the fallacy of being history's true fulcrum again? 'Everything as it is right now, is it's true nature....'

(Oh, and we'll accept Christian's claims of Jesus superceding Mosaic law when they take the Old Testament out of their Bible's, and stop quoting from it in their sermons.)