I want to oppose Islam...

[Sandracottus]

You see a rabid dog running at you, you dont say " Lord, he knows not what he doth .Forgive him"

Get the point ?

Yes, but the issue is; I do not see Islam as being analogous to a rabid dog, nor do I see it as running at me...

So you would rather wait till the hurricane reaches ashore ? Wait and bear with its rage?

What the hurricane has done and does to other places at other times and presently is of no consequence to you, is it?

Thats quite improvident and self destructive. I hear Britain has a real Muslim immigration problem. Good luck


Just last week in East India dozens of innocents died when nutcrack muslims(descendents of illegal immigrants from Bangladesh) went crazy (or Jihadi )and forced thousands to flee 4 districts.

They call themselfs some sort of minority organization .


The trouble is, they did only what the Koran asked them to do----Do not tolerate non muslims



And I assure you......... it wont stop. It simply wont. Just as it has been for 1400 years ---Egypt, Iran, Iraq, Afghan, Palestine, Thailand, Porkistan ...etc....-----so shall it be

On the seventh day Allah Pooped and a Pedophile Prophet was born

Amen

 

[Laurens]

So you would rather wait till the hurricane reaches ashore ? Wait and bear with its rage?

What the hurricane has done and does to other places at other times and presently is of no consequence to you, is it?

I do not accept the proposition that there is a "hurricane" coming. Changing the analogy doesn't make your point any more valid.

Thats quite improvident and self destructive. I hear Britain has a real Muslim immigration problem. Good luck

Oh so you heard that did you? Must be true then...

And regardless, even if we did have a "Muslim immigration problem" this doesn't mean that they're going to kill all the infidels and impose Sharia law in Britain...

Just last week in East India dozens of innocents died when nutcrack muslims(descendents of illegal immigrants from Bangladesh) went crazy (or Jihadi )and forced hundreds of thousands to flee 4 districts.

I do not deny the existence of Islamic extremists, however a localized incident in a region with some historical land/border issues does not justify irrational hatred and fear towards the entire Islamic religion.

The trouble is, they did only what the Koran asked them to do----Do not tolerate non muslims

The Koran enjoins Muslims not to attack first (2:190), not to kill women and children (6:151), not to kill innocents (5:32)...

 

[Sandracottus]

I have found it hopeless explaining why Islam is greatly different and needs to be confronted.

You believe in the "Extremist-moderate" division of Islam, quite contrary to the Islamic theology of Jihad which requires war, slaughter, enslavement and forced conversions from all muslims . The people you describe as "moderates" either practice Taqquiya (religious deception) or they sincerely dont know Islam.

Your belief will change only if you understand that the Koran is intrinsically violent and dangerous

So , obviously, the only way to make you understand is by going deep into the Koran, often using the random quotes apologists like you quote

The Koran enjoins Muslims not to attack first (2:190), not to kill women and children (6:151), not to kill innocents (5:32)

...[/

You seem unaware of the Law of Naksh or abrogation stated in the KOran

Funny you didn't read the very next verse.......2.191===" 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."

You also need to understand the historical background, of Momo attacking Meccans , of him being spared, of him not returning the mercy when he finally won and all such facts before you scream on the "who attacked first issue"

Also these later verses abrogate your quote :-9.29 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

Sura 9.5 "verse of the sword" - But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, an seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war); but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practise regular charity, then open the way for them: for Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.

"Ibn `Umar said that the Messenger of Allah said,

I have been commanded to fight the people until they testify that there is no deity worthy of worship except Allah and that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah, establish the prayer and pay the Zakah.
This honorable Ayah (9:5) was called the Ayah of the Sword, about which Ad-Dahhak bin Muzahim said, "It abrogated every agreement of peace between the Prophet and any idolator, every treaty, and every term." Al-`Awfi said that Ibn `Abbas commented: "No idolator had any more treaty or promise of safety ever since Surah Bara'ah was revealed."Tafsir ibn Kathir


Need I say of your "not to kill innocents" verse?

If you gave a damn about what millions of women and children have suffered in Pedophilia, Slavery, rape, polygamy and so on.sanctioned by the Koran.....you wouldn't be very impressed with your quote.

I would particularly be interested in your commentary on the Koranic sanction of abducting women as war booty:--

Also (forbidden are) women already married, except those whom your right hands possess. Thus has Allah ordained for you. All others are lawful, provided you seek them from your property, desiring chastity, not fornicationSurely, Allah is Ever All-Knowing, All-Wise.
Qur'an 4:24


Or how about raping women in front of their non muslim husband?......Pretty nice .

Some of the Companions of the apostle of Allah were reluctant to have intercourse with the female captives in the presence of their husbands who were unbelievers. So Allah, the Exalted, sent down the Quranic verse, "And all married women (are forbidden) unto you save those (captives) whom your right hands possess". That is to say, they are lawful for them when they complete their waiting period." [The Quran verse is 4:24]
Abu Dawud 2:2150








So Laurens.......got anything nice on Islam ?

 

[australopithecus]

I sat next to 3 Muslims at work today. Guess how many tried to kill/convert me.

 

[Duvelthehobbit666]

I sat next to 3 Muslims at work today. Guess how many tried to kill/convert me.

About the same amount as the Christians who tried to do the same thing.

 

[Laurens]

I have found it hopeless explaining why Islam is greatly different and needs to be confronted.

You believe in the "Extremist-moderate" division of Islam, quite contrary to the Islamic theology of Jihad which requires war, slaughter, enslavement and forced conversions from all muslims . The people you describe as "moderates" either practice Taqquiya (religious deception) or they sincerely dont know Islam.

This is the exact same rhetoric you hear between sects of different religions. Such and such do not adhere to such and such a doctrine therefore they are not true Muslims/Christians. But who are you to say who the true Muslims are?

Are you aware that there are many different interpretations of Islam, Sharia and the Hadith etc? Not all view Jihad in the same manner. You're taking the extremist interpretation of Islam and positing it as the one true interpretation, but who are you to say that is so?

Your belief will change only if you understand that the Koran is intrinsically violent and dangerous

The Bible is pretty fucking violent too, that doesn't mean all Christians are violent.

So , obviously, the only way to make you understand is by going deep into the Koran, often using the random quotes apologists like you quote

Okay so I'm an apologist for Islam now? For the record I think Islam is just as fucking stupid as any other religion. I just don't hold the bigoted and racist view that all Muslims, especially those of Arabic descent are a threat to me or anyone else.

You seem unaware of the Law of Naksh or abrogation stated in the KOran

Funny you didn't read the very next verse.......2.191===" 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."

Yeah and so what? I was only appealing to the Koran to show that just like the Bible you can take what you want from it. The Bible is full of horrible violent shit too. It does not follow from this that Christians are violent.

You also need to understand the historical background, of Momo attacking Meccans , of him being spared, of him not returning the mercy when he finally won and all such facts before you scream on the "who attacked first issue"

I don't give a fuck. This does not justify your bigotry.

If you gave a damn about what millions of women and children have suffered in Pedophilia, Slavery, rape, polygamy and so on.sanctioned by the Koran.....you wouldn't be very impressed with your quote.

Like I said, I only quoted the Koran because you made the assertion that it was 'violent and dangerous' my point was to say that you can take whatever you want from it, just like you can with the Bible.

I don't deny that there is violence and bigotry in the Koran and the Hadith, but it simply doesn't follow from this that all Muslims are violent and dangerous, so we might as well give up on the Koran scholarship route because it has nothing to do with the point at hand, nor does it justify your views.

I would particularly be interested in your commentary on the Koranic sanction of abducting women as war booty:--

Also (forbidden are) women already married, except those whom your right hands possess. Thus has Allah ordained for you. All others are lawful, provided you seek them from your property, desiring chastity, not fornicationSurely, Allah is Ever All-Knowing, All-Wise.
Qur'an 4:24


Or how about raping women in front of their non muslim husband?......Pretty nice .

Some of the Companions of the apostle of Allah were reluctant to have intercourse with the female captives in the presence of their husbands who were unbelievers. So Allah, the Exalted, sent down the Quranic verse, "And all married women (are forbidden) unto you save those (captives) whom your right hands possess". That is to say, they are lawful for them when they complete their waiting period." [The Quran verse is 4:24]
Abu Dawud 2:2150

I think of these the same way as I do about the verses in the Bible that pertain to the kidnapping and rape of women. I think it's disgusting. But again it doesn't mean that Christians want to go out to kidnap and rape women.

So Laurens.......got anything nice on Islam ?

Well I've been to hospital and have been treated by Islamic doctors and nurses. I was at a shop the other day and had a brief, but pleasant chat with the Muslim guy behind the counter. The other week I sat in front of a group of Muslims on the bus, and none of them were wearing bombs... None of them showed any animosity towards me, none of them tried to kill me. They were all perfectly civil and friendly. It might come as a shock to you, but Muslims are humans, just like you and I.

Just because some Muslims hold extremist interpretations, doesn't mean that all Muslims think and act like that. Your appeals to the Koran prove nothing. There are plenty of peaceful Muslims out there who are very vocal about their disagreement with extremism and their condemnation of terrorism, but you don't hear from these folks because the news only picks up on the violent extremists (condemnation of terrorism doesn't make good headline material, advocating it does). That doesn't mean they don't exist however. You might say they are lying and are really extremists, or that they just don't understand Islam, but this is useless when asserted without evidence. And what evidence could you possibly provide for such an assertion?

(edited for a grammatical mistake that I feel I should give myself 50 lashes for)

 

[CosmicJoghurt]

I think it's irrelevant what Islam is supposed to mean, what the Qur'an actually means and whether it means violence or not - what matters is that the majority of muslims are peaceful, moderate muslims. Now it's up to each one of us to decide how this relates to, let's say, extremist muslims.

For example:

You believe in the "Extremist-moderate" division of Islam, quite contrary to the Islamic theology of Jihad which requires war, slaughter, enslavement and forced conversions from all muslims . The people you describe as "moderates" either practice Taqquiya (religious deception) or they sincerely dont know Islam.

See this is just irrelevant. The notion that the Qu'ran advocates violence and extremism doesn't change the fact that most muslims don't adhere to those principles.

 

[Sandracottus]

This is the exact same rhetoric you hear between sects of different religions. Such and such do not adhere to such and such a doctrine therefore they are not true Muslims/Christians. But who are you to say who the true Muslims are?

This is the same apologetic bullshit that is wonted in the internet.

In my replies to this sort of arguments which is based on the flawed idea that "All religions are essentially the same" I will take help from the Satyameva Jayate website.

Who am I to say what true muslims are?

I have read the Koran and I totally agree with the CSPI that 65 % of it talks ill of non muslims and that 75 % of the Hadith is about Jihad.

I know exactly what Jihad means and what it asks muslims to do .

Just look at the ultimate message of the Koran

The tag "religion of peace" strangely remains with Islam despite the abundance of Quranic, historical and scholarly evidence to the contrary, as well as the negative impressions of it given by the actions of many of its adherents. It's also rather ironic, as the God of Islam never meant for his religion to be ever perceived as a peaceful one. The purpose of this article is to reveal whether Muhammad, with the help of his alter ego- Allah, devised Islam as a vehicle of peace or a force of violence.

Chapter 9 of the Qur'an- Al Taubah (Repentance) is considered to be the closing remarks of Muhammad's god. The only Sura (chapter‎) said to have been revealed after this is Al Nasr (Victory), which consists of only a few verses. Considering the apparent militant disposition of Islam; it should not come as a big surprise to learn that this final chapter is not at all about making peace among the people, but is a double edged sword, causing a rift in humanity; dividing it into the domain of believers (Dar al-Islam) and unbelievers (dar al-kufr) with the aim of preserving endless enmity between the two. For non-Muslims who would like to discover what Islam's god commands of Muslims in their affairs, this chapter can be a touchstone, provided it is read in context. Sahih Muslim testifies to this being the last chapter revealed by the God of Muhammad:

Abu Ishaq said that he heard al-Bara' b 'Azib (Allah be pleased with him) say: The last complete sura revealed (in the Holy Qur'an) is Sura tauba (i e. al-Bara'at, ), and the last verse revealed is that pertaining to Kalala.
Sahih Muslim 11:3941

From verse 47:4, two conclusions can be made:

>>>> Muslims cannot cease fighting even after they win a war. Rather, they should look for other ways in which to shed more blood.
>>>>> This fight should continue until the day of resurrection, as Mujahid stated believers cannot stop fighting until the end of times. (The very reason Allah stipulates the limit as "until war sheds its burden"). This will be looked into further, with additional material from authentic Islamic sources.


Surah 9, Ayah 29

Fight those who believe not in Allah or 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.

Here in the above verses the command of Muhammad's god to fight, is not against those who fight Muslims or oppress them. Many Muslims attempt to conciliate these kinds of Qur'anic verses with the excuse "Islam only permits fighting in self defense." Sadly for them, here the reasons for fighting is clearly not due to the other side waging war against Muslims, nor due to any kind of oppression, but the only reason god ignites his pious followers against the other side is due to their disbelief in Allah and the last day and also for not refraining from what is forbidden by Allah and his messenger Muhammad. To sum up; the simple rejection of Islam is sufficient cause for Muhammad's god to issue marching orders to the pious to engage in war until the infidels are subjugated. If unbelievers are not willing to submit themselves and covert to Islam, the only chance of survival rests in paying Jizyah to Muslims, which according to the Qur'an itself, is a blotch (of humiliation) So, the explication is, Jizya is the only means of survival for non-Muslims in a Muslim land.

CAN YOU DENY THIS ?

Finally, what does the last revealed chapter of Islam's holy book have to offer the world? The answer is nothing but antagonism. Muhammad ordered expeditions even from his death-bed. The activities of his followers including the four rightly-guided caliphs were constricted chiefly into invading nation after nation and establishing Islamic states all over the invaded lands. Thus Islam can fairly be called coercive, expansionist and imperialistic - ironically, some common smears hurled at the West by many modern Muslims (who are thereby guilty of hypocrisy - yet another choice complaint). Words followed by actions speak much louder here. Muhammad, the founder of Islam, could never envision a non-violent, just world where members of all faiths would live a peaceful co-existence. Rather, he was driven with a virulent lust for domination. His words "There will always be a group in his community of believers that are dominant over infidels" reveals how it is impossible for Muslims to envision peace. An ideology stuck in a certain backdrop of history where killing and subjugating others in the name of religion had been made legal by divine dictations can never bring peace to the world. If it was intended for peace, Allah shouldn't have revealed his last words coated in blood

Are you aware that there are many different interpretations of Islam, Sharia and the Hadith etc? Not all view Jihad in the same manner. You're taking the extremist interpretation of Islam and positing it as the one true interpretation, but who are you to say that is so?

I am well aware of this fact. I am also aware that the Sunnis are more violent than Shias.

What you dont understand is that the Koran makes no distinctions when it calls for war, rape, slavery, slaughter and robbery.

You also dont modern Koran was probably altered by the gangster Khaliph Uthman, who is said to have burned all the copies of the other recension.

So what we have is one koran followed by both Shias and Sunnis who have proved equally violent and beastly.

One Hadith says that there was 73 sects of Islam and that ALL BUT ONE WILL GO TO HELL

We know what that means.

So , obviously, the only way to make you understand is by going deep into the Koran, often using the random quotes apologists like you quote

Okay so I'm an apologist for Islam now? For the record I think Islam is just as fucking stupid as any other religion. I just don't hold the bigoted and racist view that all Muslims, especially those of Arabic descent are a threat to me or anyone else.

The problem is not Muslims. The Problem is Islam and the fact that all muslims who visit a madrassa risks being infected with hatred. This wont be immediately manifect in a country like yours.



If you or I were muslim, we might be no different.

But failing to understand the Islamic theology and to pretend that its just like all other religions, is a big mistake which many civilizations have paid the prize for.


Many muslims have no Idea what the real Islam is. They are what you might call "moderates".
You really cant tell them apart unless they blow a bomb first. And the chances of that happening in a muslims minority country is poor. But things change drastically once Islam becomes a majority.

What I am asking you to do is stop treating Islam the way you treat other religions. Confront the fact that It unanimously calls for violence in almost every page of the Koran and hadith.

The analogy of a rabid dog and the imminent hurricane stands.

You need to see the threst before it gets to you.

Whats so difficult man?......dont you see Afghanistan and Saudi and Porkistan and Palestine?


You may be indifferent to the fact that the Violence that immigrant muslims perpetrated in East India 2 weeks ago has inspired thousands of muslims in Mumbai to do the same just 4 days ago .

The religion of peace strikes again. At least police shot dead 7 of these creatures.

You seem unaware of the Law of Naksh or abrogation stated in the KOran

Funny you didn't read the very next verse.......2.191===" 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."

I don't give a fuck. This does not justify your bigotry.

You dont care what the Koran says
You dont care what kind of a demon Momo was
You dont care about the human sufferings under Islam,

You want to believe that its not Islam......that its just Terrorists.

I think of these the same way as I do about the verses in the Bible that pertain to the kidnapping and rape of women. I think it's disgusting. But again it doesn't mean that Christians want to go out to kidnap and rape women.

Exactly ! But how come Muslims dont stop their medieval barbarism?

The answer is that the historical instances of Christian violence has died , but the Koran still lives.

My next post deals with this comparison.

Well I've been to hospital and have been treated by Islamic doctors and nurses. I was at a shop the other day and had a brief, but pleasant chat with the Muslim guy behind the counter. The other week I sat in front of a group of Muslims on the bus, and none of them were wearing bombs... None of them showed any animosity towards me, none of them tried to kill me. They were all perfectly civil and friendly. It might come as a shock to you, but Muslims are humans, just like you and I.

For the last time Laurens ......this is not about Muslims. This is about Islam and its transforming potency.

You might say they are lying and are really extremists, or that they just don't understand Islam, but this is useless when asserted without evidence. And what evidence could you possibly provide for such an assertion?

All muslims are not terrorists
But all terrorists are muslims.

Why is that Laurens?

I have shown you that the terrorists are in perfect agreement with the Koran.

 

[Prolescum]

[centre]Sufi

Shia

Sunni

Ahmadiyya

Nation of Islam

[/centre]

 

[Sandracottus]

Like I said, I only quoted the Koran because you made the assertion that it was 'violent and dangerous' my point was to say that you can take whatever you want from it, just like you can with the Bible.

Yeah and so what? I was only appealing to the Koran to show that just like the Bible you can take what you want from it. The Bible is full of horrible violent shit too. It does not follow from this that Christians are violent.

The Bible is pretty fucking violent too, that doesn't mean all Christians are violent.

I should post this as a new topic, but I wont do anything of the sort ever again , considering the low life expectancy of my posts on Islam


I found a nice article on this. I reproduce it here

http://www.meforum.org/2159/are-judaism-and-christianity-as-violent-as-islam

This will be the only time that I will deal with this topic. Next time you try to neutralize islam with "Bible is also like that " I will direct you to this.

I am sorry for this post being long. But it addresses the issue to the fullest. You dont have to read the whole thing if you dont want to . Just address the higlighted facts

LAURENS.......YOU ONLY HAVE TO ADDRESS THE HIGHLIGHTED FACTS .

PROLESCUM TRIED TO CONVEY YOUR SAME MESSAGE THAT THERE ARE GOOD MUSLIMS. THIS POST REPLIES TO HIM IN GREEN AND LARGE FONT.


Are Judaism and Christianity as Violent as Islam?

"There is far more violence in the Bible than in the Qur'an; the idea that Islam imposed itself by the sword is a Western fiction, fabricated during the time of the Crusades when, in fact, it was Western Christians who were fighting brutal holy wars against Islam."[1] So announces former nun and self-professed "freelance monotheist," Karen Armstrong. This quote sums up the single most influential argument currently serving to deflect the accusation that Islam is inherently violent and intolerant: All monotheistic religions, proponents of such an argument say, and not just Islam, have their fair share of violent and intolerant scriptures, as well as bloody histories. Thus, whenever Islam's sacred scriptures,the Qur'an first, followed by the reports on the words and deeds of Muhammad (the Hadith),are highlighted as demonstrative of the religion's innate bellicosity, the immediate rejoinder is that other scriptures, specifically those of Judeo-Christianity, are as riddled with violent passages.

More often than not, this argument puts an end to any discussion regarding whether violence and intolerance are unique to Islam. Instead, the default answer becomes that it is not Islam per se but rather Muslim grievance and frustration,ever exacerbated by economic, political, and social factors,that lead to violence. That this view comports perfectly with the secular West's "materialistic" epistemology makes it all the more unquestioned.

Therefore, before condemning the Qur'an and the historical words and deeds of Islam's prophet Muhammad for inciting violence and intolerance, Jews are counseled to consider the historical atrocities committed by their Hebrew forefathers as recorded in their own scriptures; Christians are advised to consider the brutal cycle of violence their forbears have committed in the name of their faith against both non-Christians and fellow Christians. In other words, Jews and Christians are reminded that those who live in glass houses should not be hurling stones.

But is that really the case? Is the analogy with other scriptures legitimate? Does Hebrew violence in the ancient era, and Christian violence in the medieval era, compare to or explain away the tenacity of Muslim violence in the modern era?

Violence in Jewish and Christian History

An article by Pennsylvania State University humanities professor Philip Jenkins, "Dark Passages," delineates this position most fully. It aspires to show that the Bible is more violent than the Qur'an:

n terms of ordering violence and bloodshed, any simplistic claim about the superiority of the Bible to the Koran would be wildly wrong. In fact, the Bible overflows with "texts of terror," to borrow a phrase coined by the American theologian Phyllis Trible. The Bible contains far more verses praising or urging bloodshed than does the Koran, and biblical violence is often far more extreme, and marked by more indiscriminate savagery. "¦ If the founding text shapes the whole religion, then Judaism and Christianity deserve the utmost condemnation as religions of savagery.[3]

Several anecdotes from the Bible as well as from Judeo-Christian history illustrate Jenkins' point, but two in particular,one supposedly representative of Judaism, the other of Christianity,are regularly mentioned and therefore deserve closer examination.

The military conquest of the land of Canaan by the Hebrews in about 1200 B.C.E. is often characterized as "genocide" and has all but become emblematic of biblical violence and intolerance.

As for Christianity, since it is impossible to find New Testament verses inciting violence, those who espouse the view that Christianity is as violent as Islam rely on historical events such as the Crusader wars waged by European Christians between the eleventh and thirteenth centuries. The Crusades were in fact violent and led to atrocities by the modern world's standards under the banner of the cross and in the name of Christianity. After breaching the walls of Jerusalem in 1099, for example, the Crusaders reportedly slaughtered almost every inhabitant of the Holy City. According to the medieval chronicle, the Gesta Danorum, "the slaughter was so great that our men waded in blood up to their ankles."

In light of the above, as Armstrong, Esposito, Jenkins, and others argue, why should Jews and Christians point to the Qur'an as evidence of Islam's violence while ignoring their own scriptures and history?

Bible versus Qur'an

The answer lies in the fact that such observations confuse history and theology by conflating the temporal actions of men with what are understood to be the immutable words of God. The fundamental error is that Judeo-Christian history,which is violent,is being conflated with Islamic theology,which commands violence. Of course, the three major monotheistic religions have all had their share of violence and intolerance towards the "other." Whether this violence is ordained by God or whether warlike men merely wished it thus is the key question.

Old Testament violence is an interesting case in point. God clearly ordered the Hebrews to annihilate the Canaanites and surrounding peoples. Such violence is therefore an expression of God's will, for good or ill. Regardless, all the historic violence committed by the Hebrews and recorded in the Old Testament is just that,history. It happened; God commanded it. But it revolved around a specific time and place and was directed against a specific people. At no time did such violence go on to become standardized or codified into Jewish law. In short, biblical accounts of violence are descriptive, not prescriptive.


As with Old Testament verses where God commanded the Hebrews to attack and slay their neighbors, the sword-verses also have a historical context. God first issued these commandments after the Muslims under Muhammad's leadership had grown sufficiently strong to invade their Christian and pagan neighbors. But unlike the bellicose verses and anecdotes of the Old Testament, the sword-verses became fundamental to Islam's subsequent relationship to both the "people of the book" (i.e., Jews and Christians) and the "idolaters" (i.e., Hindus, Buddhists, animists, etc.) and, in fact, set off the Islamic conquests, which changed the face of the world forever. Based on Qur'an 9:5, for instance, Islamic law mandates that idolaters and polytheists must either convert to Islam or be killed; simultaneously, Qur'an 9:29 is the primary source of Islam's well-known discriminatory practices against conquered Christians and Jews living under Islamic suzerainty.

In fact, based on the sword-verses as well as countless other Qur'anic verses and oral traditions attributed to Muhammad, Islam's learned officials, sheikhs, muftis, and imams throughout the ages have all reached consensus,binding on the entire Muslim community,that Islam is to be at perpetual war with the non-Muslim world until the former subsumes the latter. Indeed, it is widely held by Muslim scholars that since the sword-verses are among the final revelations on the topic of Islam's relationship to non-Muslims, that they alone have abrogated some 200 of the Qur'an's earlier and more tolerant verses, such as "no compulsion is there in religion." Famous Muslim scholar Ibn Khaldun (1332-1406) admired in the West for his "progressive" insights, also puts to rest the notion that jihad is defensive warfare:

In the Muslim community, the holy war [jihad] is a religious duty, because of the universalism of the Muslim mission and the obligation to convert everybody to Islam either by persuasion or by force ... The other religious groups did not have a universal mission, and the holy war was not a religious duty for them, save only for purposes of defense ... They are merely required to establish their religion among their own people. That is why the Israelites after Moses and Joshua remained unconcerned with royal authority [e.g., a caliphate]. Their only concern was to establish their religion [not spread it to the nations] "¦ But Islam is under obligation to gain power over other nations.

Modern authorities agree. The Encyclopaedia of Islam's entry for "jihad" by Emile Tyan states that the "spread of Islam by arms is a religious duty upon Muslims in general "¦ Jihad must continue to be done until the whole world is under the rule of Islam "¦ Islam must completely be made over before the doctrine of jihad [warfare to spread Islam] can be eliminated." Iraqi jurist Majid Khaduri (1909-2007), after defining jihad as warfare, writes that "jihad "¦ is regarded by all jurists, with almost no exception, as a collective obligation of the whole Muslim community." And, of course, Muslim legal manuals written in Arabic are even more explicit

Qur'anic Language

When the Qur'an's violent verses are juxtaposed with their Old Testament counterparts, they are especially distinct for using language that transcends time and space, inciting believers to attack and slay nonbelievers today no less than yesterday. God commanded the Hebrews to kill Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites, and Jebusites,all specific peoples rooted to a specific time and place. At no time did God give an open-ended command for the Hebrews, and by extension their Jewish descendants, to fight and kill gentiles. On the other hand, though Islam's original enemies were, like Judaism's, historical (e.g., Christian Byzantines and Zoroastrian Persians), the Qur'an rarely singles them out by their proper names. Instead, Muslims were (and are) commanded to fight the people of the book,"until they pay the tribute out of hand and have been humbled"[13] and to "slay the idolaters wherever you find them."[14]

The two Arabic conjunctions "until" (hata) and "wherever" (haythu) demonstrate the perpetual and ubiquitous nature of these commandments: There are still "people of the book" who have yet to be "utterly humbled" (especially in the Americas, Europe, and Israel) and "idolaters" to be slain "wherever" one looks (especially Asia and sub-Saharan Africa). In fact, the salient feature of almost all of the violent commandments in Islamic scriptures is their open-ended and generic nature: "Fight them [non-Muslims] until there is no persecution and the religion is God's entirely. [Emphasis added.]"[15] Also, in a well-attested tradition that appears in the hadith collections, Muhammad proclaims:

I have been commanded to wage war against mankind until they testify that there is no god but God and that Muhammad is the Messenger of God; and that they establish prostration prayer, and pay the alms-tax [i.e., convert to Islam]. If they do so, their blood and property are protected.

This linguistic aspect is crucial to understanding scriptural exegeses regarding violence. Again, it bears repeating that neither Jewish nor Christian scriptures,the Old and New Testaments, respectively,employ such perpetual, open-ended commandments. Despite all this, Jenkins laments that

Commands to kill, to commit ethnic cleansing, to institutionalize segregation, to hate and fear other races and religions "¦ all are in the Bible, and occur with a far greater frequency than in the Qur'an. At every stage, we can argue what the passages in question mean, and certainly whether they should have any relevance for later ages. But the fact remains that the words are there, and their inclusion in the scripture means that they are, literally, canonized, no less than in the Muslim scripture.

One wonders what Jenkins has in mind by the word "canonized." If by canonized he means that such verses are considered part of the canon of Judeo-Christian scripture, he is absolutely correct; conversely, if by canonized he means or is trying to connote that these verses have been implemented in the Judeo-Christian Weltanschauung, he is absolutely wrong.

Yet one need not rely on purely exegetical and philological arguments; both history and current events give the lie to Jenkins's relativism.

Whereas first-century Christianity spread via the blood of martyrs, first-century Islam spread through violent conquest and bloodshed. Indeed, from day one to the present,whenever it could,Islam spread through conquest, as evinced by the fact that the majority of what is now known as the Islamic world, or dar al-Islam, was conquered by the sword of Islam. This is a historic fact, attested to by the most authoritative Islamic historians. Even the Arabian peninsula, the "home" of Islam, was subdued by great force and bloodshed, as evidenced by the Ridda wars following Muhammad's death when tens of thousands of Arabs were put to the sword by the first caliph Abu Bakr for abandoning Islam.

Muhammad's Role

Moreover, concerning the current default position which purports to explain away Islamic violence,that the latter is a product of Muslim frustration vis-à -vis political or economic oppression,one must ask: What about all the oppressed Christians and Jews, not to mention Hindus and Buddhists, of the world today? Where is their religiously-garbed violence? The fact remains: Even though the Islamic world has the lion's share of dramatic headlines,of violence, terrorism, suicide-attacks, decapitations,it is certainly not the only region in the world suffering under both internal and external pressures.

For instance, even though practically all of sub-Saharan Africa is currently riddled with political corruption, oppression and poverty, when it comes to violence, terrorism, and sheer chaos, Somalia,which also happens to be the only sub-Saharan country that is entirely Muslim,leads the pack. Moreover, those most responsible for Somali violence and the enforcement of intolerant, draconian, legal measures,the members of the jihadi group Al-Shabab (the youth),articulate and justify all their actions through an Islamist paradigm.

In Sudan, too, a jihadi-genocide against the Christian and polytheistic peoples is currently being waged by Khartoum's Islamist government and has left nearly a million "infidels" and "apostates" dead. That the Organization of Islamic Conference has come to the defense of Sudanese president Hassan Ahmad al-Bashir, who is wanted by the International Criminal Court, is further telling of the Islamic body's approval of violence toward both non-Muslims and those deemed not Muslim enough.

Latin American and non-Muslim Asian countries also have their fair share of oppressive, authoritarian regimes, poverty, and all the rest that the Muslim world suffers. Yet, unlike the near daily headlines emanating from the Islamic world, there are no records of practicing Christians, Buddhists, or Hindus crashing explosives-laden vehicles into the buildings of oppressive (e.g., Cuban or Chinese communist) regimes, all the while waving their scriptures in hand and screaming, "Jesus [or Buddha or Vishnu] is great!" Why?

There is one final aspect that is often overlooked,either from ignorance or disingenuousness,by those who insist that violence and intolerance is equivalent across the board for all religions. Aside from the divine words of the Qur'an, Muhammad's pattern of behavior,his sunna or "example",is an extremely important source of legislation in Islam. Muslims are exhorted to emulate Muhammad in all walks of life: "You have had a good example in God's Messenger." And Muhammad's pattern of conduct toward non-Muslims is quite explicit.

Sarcastically arguing against the concept of moderate Islam, for example, terrorist Osama bin Laden, who enjoys half the Arab-Islamic world's support per an Al-Jazeera poll, portrays the Prophet's sunna thusly:

"Moderation" is demonstrated by our prophet who did not remain more than three months in Medina without raiding or sending a raiding party into the lands of the infidels to beat down their strongholds and seize their possessions, their lives, and their women.[

In fact, based on both the Qur'an and Muhammad's sunna, pillaging and plundering infidels, enslaving their children, and placing their women in concubinage is well founded.And the concept of sunna,which is what 90 percent of the billion-plus Muslims, the Sunnis, are named after,essentially asserts that anything performed or approved by Muhammad, humanity's most perfect example, is applicable for Muslims today no less than yesterday. This, of course, does not mean that Muslims in mass live only to plunder and rape.

But it does mean that persons naturally inclined to such activities, and who also happen to be Muslim, can,and do,quite easily justify their actions by referring to the "Sunna of the Prophet",the way Al-Qaeda, for example, justified its attacks on 9/11 where innocents including women and children were killed: Muhammad authorized his followers to use catapults during their siege of the town of Ta'if in 630 C.E.,townspeople had refused to submit,though he was aware that women and children were sheltered there. Also, when asked if it was permissible to launch night raids or set fire to the fortifications of the infidels if women and children were among them, the Prophet is said to have responded, "They [women and children] are from among them [infidels].



Though law-centric and possibly legalistic, Judaism has no such equivalent to the Sunna; the words and deeds of the patriarchs, though described in the Old Testament, never went on to prescribe Jewish law. Neither Abraham's "white-lies," nor Jacob's perfidy, nor Moses' short-fuse, nor David's adultery, nor Solomon's philandering ever went on to instruct Jews or Christians. They were understood as historical acts perpetrated by fallible men who were more often than not punished by God for their less than ideal behavior.

As for Christianity, much of the Old Testament law was abrogated or fulfilled,depending on one's perspective,by Jesus. "Eye for an eye" gave way to "turn the other cheek." Totally loving God and one's neighbor became supreme law.[23] Furthermore, Jesus' sunna,as in "What would Jesus do?",is characterized by passivity and altruism. The New Testament contains absolutely no exhortations to violence.

Still, there are those who attempt to portray Jesus as having a similarly militant ethos as Muhammad by quoting the verse where the former,who "spoke to the multitudes in parables and without a parable spoke not",said, "I come not to bring peace but a sword."] But based on the context of this statement, it is clear that Jesus was not commanding violence against non-Christians but rather predicting that strife will exist between Christians and their environment,a prediction that was only too true as early Christians, far from taking up the sword, passively perished by the sword in martyrdom as too often they still do in the Muslim world.

Others point to the violence predicted in the Book of Revelation while, again, failing to discern that the entire account is descriptive,not to mention clearly symbolic,and thus hardly prescriptive for Christians. At any rate, how can one conscionably compare this handful of New Testament verses that metaphorically mention the word "sword" to the literally hundreds of Qur'anic injunctions and statements by Muhammad that clearly command Muslims to take up a very real sword against non-Muslims?

Undeterred, Jenkins bemoans the fact that, in the New Testament, Jews "plan to stone Jesus, they plot to kill him; in turn, Jesus calls them liars, children of the Devil." It still remains to be seen if being called "children of the Devil" is more offensive than being referred to as the descendents of apes and pigs,the Qur'an's appellation for Jews.[ Name calling aside, however, what matters here is that, whereas the New Testament does not command Christians to treat Jews as "children of the Devil," based on the Qur'an, primarily 9:29, Islamic law obligates Muslims to subjugate Jews, indeed, all non-Muslims.


Does this mean that no self-professed Christian can be anti-Semitic? Of course not. But it does mean that Christian anti-Semites are living oxymorons,for the simple reason that textually and theologically, Christianity, far from teaching hatred or animosity, unambiguously stresses love and forgiveness. Whether or not all Christians follow such mandates is hardly the point; just as whether or not all Muslims uphold the obligation of jihad is hardly the point. The only question is, what do the religions command?

John Esposito is therefore right to assert that "Jews and Christians have engaged in acts of violence." He is wrong, however, to add, "We [Christians] have our own theology of hate." Nothing in the New Testament teaches hate,certainly nothing to compare with Qur'anic injunctions such as: "We [Muslims] disbelieve in you [non-Muslims], and between us and you enmity has shown itself, and hatred for ever until you believe in God alone."[29]
Reassessing the Crusades

THE CRUSADES

The fact remains: The Crusades were a counterattack on Islam,not an unprovoked assault as Armstrong and other revisionist historians portray. Eminent historian Bernard Lewis puts it well,

Even the Christian crusade, often compared with the Muslim jihad, was itself a delayed and limited response to the jihad and in part also an imitation. But unlike the jihad, it was concerned primarily with the defense or reconquest of threatened or lost Christian territory. It was, with few exceptions, limited to the successful wars for the recovery of southwest Europe, and the unsuccessful wars to recover the Holy Land and to halt the Ottoman advance in the Balkans. The Muslim jihad, in contrast, was perceived as unlimited, as a religious obligation that would continue until all the world had either adopted the Muslim faith or submitted to Muslim rule. "¦ The object of jihad is to bring the whole world under Islamic law.[32]


It was against this backdrop that Pope Urban II (r. 1088-1099) called for the Crusades:

From the confines of Jerusalem and the city of Constantinople a horrible tale has gone forth and very frequently has been brought to our ears, namely, that a race from the kingdom of the Persians [i.e., Muslim Turks] "¦ has invaded the lands of those Christians and has depopulated them by the sword, pillage and fire; it has led away a part of the captives into its own country, and a part it has destroyed by cruel tortures; it has either entirely destroyed the churches of God or appropriated them for the rites of its own religion.

Even though Urban II's description is historically accurate, the fact remains: However one interprets these wars,as offensive or defensive, just or unjust,it is evident that they were not based on the example of Jesus, who exhorted his followers to "love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who spitefully use you and persecute you."[34] Indeed, it took centuries of theological debate, from Augustine to Aquinas, to rationalize defensive war,articulated as "just war." Thus, it would seem that if anyone, it is the Crusaders,not the jihadists,who have been less than faithful to their scriptures (from a literal standpoint); or put conversely, it is the jihadists,not the Crusaders,who have faithfully fulfilled their scriptures (also from a literal stand point). Moreover, like the violent accounts of the Old Testament, the Crusades are historic in nature and not manifestations of any deeper scriptural truths.


But this begs the question: If this is how Christians behaved,who are commanded to love, bless, and do good to their enemies who hate, curse, and persecute them,how much more can be expected of Muslims who, while sharing the same violent tendencies, are further commanded by the Deity to attack, kill, and plunder nonbelievers?

Raymond Ibrahim is associate director of the Middle East Forum and author of The Al Qaeda Reader (New York: Doubleday, 2007).

 

[Sandracottus]

I think it's irrelevant what Islam is supposed to mean, what the Qur'an actually means and whether it means violence or not - what matters is that the majority of muslims are peaceful, moderate muslims. Now it's up to each one of us to decide how this relates to, let's say, extremist muslims.

For example:

You believe in the "Extremist-moderate" division of Islam, quite contrary to the Islamic theology of Jihad which requires war, slaughter, enslavement and forced conversions from all muslims . The people you describe as "moderates" either practice Taqquiya (religious deception) or they sincerely dont know Islam.

See this is just irrelevant. The notion that the Qu'ran advocates violence and extremism doesn't change the fact that most muslims don't adhere to those principles.

This argument of "moderate- extremist" has already been dealt with.

You know this differentiation holds only in a society where muslims are a minority. Almost all muslim majority countries fail in this respect, or maybe all of them.

To understand Taqqiya, lets look at a recent statistical study.


Nearly two thirds of people in Pakistan hold favourable views of al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden and 86 per cent approve of President Pervez Musharraf, according to a survey by a major American organisation.

Nearly half of those interviewed said suicide bombings against Israelis and, in Iraq, against Americans and other Westerners are justified.

The report by the Washington-based Pew Global Attitudes Project survey found that 65 per cent favoured Osama and that pluralities of 47 per cent believed Palestinian suicide attacks on Israelis were justified. Forty-six per cent thought attacks on Westerners in Iraq were justified.

The Pew Research Centre is a non-profit and non-governmental organisation, which specialises in opinion surveys. Its reports are widely respected in Washington's academic circles.

Pakistan was one of four Muslim-majority countries in the survey, which also included Turkey, Jordan and Morocco, the governments of all of which have strong ties with the US.

Pew, the polling organisation questioned 1220 people in Pakistan's urban areas, 1000 nationwide in four Moroccan cities and about 1000 each nationwide in Turkey and Jordan between February 19 and March 3.

The survey had a margin of error of plus or minus 3.5 percentage points.
Pew also conducted polls during the same period in the United States, Britain, France, Germany and Russia

A majority of Pakistanis surveyed in a poll appeared to be aggrieved over the death of Osama bin Laden, with 51 per cent describing their emotions as "grief" though one-third said they were unconcerned by the incident.

The nationwide study was released by Gilani Foundation and carried out by Gallup Pakistan, the Pakistani affiliate of Gallup International. The poll covered 2,530 men and women in the rural and urban areas.

The poll was conducted among 2,530 men and women representatives of the adult population of Pakistan. They were distributed in the rural and urban areas of various provinces and districts and comprised a cross-section of various education, income, age and linguistic backgrounds

 

[australopithecus]

2530 people do not represent 176,745,364 people. Sorry, but your argument is weak. Again.

 

[Sandracottus]

2530 people do not represent 176,745,364 people. Sorry, but your argument is weak. Again.

You are making the weakest possible argument considering muslims when the issue is what Islam teaches



There are tons of other polls in any Muzzie majority country you want . Probably they will all get this same response .

 

[Frenger]

2530 people do not represent 176,745,364 people. Sorry, but your argument is weak. Again.

You are making the weakest possible argument considering muslims when the issue is what Islam teaches



There are tons of other polls in any Muzzie majority country you want . Probably they will all get this same response .

Sandypants, we have been through this, what a holy book says is irrelevant if the majority of it's followers are peaceful and purposeful people, which in the case of Islam, they are. What is so difficult to understand here?

 

[DepricatedZero]

I built a website for a Muslim. She's a teacher. She uses it to help ESL(English as a Second Language) Students find community projects they can volunteer in, in order to practice communicating in English. She gave me a gift card as thanks for the site, she didn't have to - I offered to do it for free. She's given me gifts of chocolate, and a badge of a character from a manga signed by the artist of the manga. The students, by the way, are mostly African and Central/South American. She gave up one of her kidneys to a guy she didn't know. She's one of the most tolerant and giving people I know, and has never even spoken to me about Islam. The only reason I know she's a Muslim is that her son is my best friend and explained it once. He, by the way, served 7 years in the military.

When I hear people bitching about the "muslim terror" or comparing the spread of islam to a "hurricane" ready to ravage everything in its path, I'm reminded of her and how laughably incongruous that description is, not to mention ignorant and fallacious. Most Christians I know are far more villainous.

 

[CosmicJoghurt]

I built a website for a Muslim. She's a teacher. She uses it to help ESL(English as a Second Language) Students find community projects they can volunteer in, in order to practice communicating in English. She gave me a gift card as thanks for the site, she didn't have to - I offered to do it for free. She's given me gifts of chocolate, and a badge of a character from a manga signed by the artist of the manga. The students, by the way, are mostly African and Central/South American. She gave up one of her kidneys to a guy she didn't know. She's one of the most tolerant and giving people I know, and has never even spoken to me about Islam. The only reason I know she's a Muslim is that her son is my best friend and explained it once. He, by the way, served 7 years in the military.

When I hear people bitching about the "muslim terror" or comparing the spread of islam to a "hurricane" ready to ravage everything in its path, I'm reminded of her and how laughably incongruous that description is, not to mention ignorant and fallacious. Most Christians I know are far more villainous.

This alone wouldn't be of any statistical importance, but I know what you mean, and I agree.

 

[)O( Hytegia )O(]

100% of the followers of Vedas principles I've met are complete tools, reality-denying, conspiracy nutters.
No matter what Vedas teaches, I judge a religion based upon the actions of it's followers and not the text itself.

 

[DepricatedZero]

I built a website for a Muslim. She's a teacher. She uses it to help ESL(English as a Second Language) Students find community projects they can volunteer in, in order to practice communicating in English. She gave me a gift card as thanks for the site, she didn't have to - I offered to do it for free. She's given me gifts of chocolate, and a badge of a character from a manga signed by the artist of the manga. The students, by the way, are mostly African and Central/South American. She gave up one of her kidneys to a guy she didn't know. She's one of the most tolerant and giving people I know, and has never even spoken to me about Islam. The only reason I know she's a Muslim is that her son is my best friend and explained it once. He, by the way, served 7 years in the military.

When I hear people bitching about the "muslim terror" or comparing the spread of islam to a "hurricane" ready to ravage everything in its path, I'm reminded of her and how laughably incongruous that description is, not to mention ignorant and fallacious. Most Christians I know are far more villainous.

This alone wouldn't be of any statistical importance, but I know what you mean, and I agree.

Thanks Ya, I know statistically I'm only describing one person, which doesn't represent a significant quantity (what's the fair representation, 1 represents 10,000? something like that, for studies?). It's more on point that understanding that people are people and not whatever label you want to apply to them is crucial. Yes, I abhor the teachings of Islam - but no more than the teachings of Christianity, and certainly not to where I would ascribe that on the average theist. The Pope? Sure. Extremists? Sure. But they're not your every day run of the mill followers. Most are tempered with common sense and consideration. I don't assume that someone is an extremist just because they were a cross or a hijab.