[DLQ2006]

I had engaged in this discussion many weeks back but didn't have time to follow up on whatever answers were given on that particular thread. It is a couple of questions that are still bothering me.

For those Muslims that believe that verses in the Qur'an that command Muslims to kill the non-believers until the end, are to be interpreted within the context of time and that it was only the polytheistic Jews at the time that were worshipping Ezra that were to be killed, I have 2 questions:

1) While I'm not convinced by a long shot that there really was a sect of Jewish people that were polytheistic and were worhipping Ezra as a God, lets say that they were. So........God wanted them killed? Speaking as someone who is no longer aligned with any religious group, I would rather be aligned with a group of polytheistic Jews than to be aligned with a religion that believes in killing others because of their religious beliefs or that believe in a God that would want this.

2) In regard to the ambiguity of all of this, it doesn't require a prophet to understand that there will be a lot of bloodshed over this commandment if it is not explained in specific terms. IOW: Why woudn't a prophet know how much bloodshed would be committed if his words do not specify who to kill, when, where, and for how long such killing should go on? Because if Islam really has been highjacked by those who falsely believe that this type of killing was meant for all time until there are no more non-believers to kill, then I'd say there is quite a bit of ambiguity in the Qur'an and surely the one true prophet would have been able to foresee this and be a bit more specific in his instructions to kill. An average person with no special powers or visions from God could have done a better job at making this subject in the Qur'an less ambiguous.

[Taliesin]

Originally Posted by DLQ2006 

I had engaged in this discussion many weeks back but didn't have time to follow up on whatever answers were given on that particular thread. It is a couple of questions that are still bothering me.

For those Muslims that believe that verses in the Qur'an that command Muslims to kill the non-believers until the end, are to be interpreted within the context of time and that it was only the polytheistic Jews at the time that were worshipping Ezra that were to be killed, I have 2 questions:

1) While I'm not convinced by a long shot that there really was a sect of Jewish people that were polytheistic and were worhipping Ezra as a God, lets say that they were. So........God wanted them killed? Speaking as someone who is no longer aligned with any religious group, I would rather be aligned with a group of polytheistic Jews than to be aligned with a religion that believes in killing others because of their religious beliefs or that believe in a God that would want this.

The Quran has developed the idea of a just war in defense and for liberation from persecution. It prohibits uncalled for violence, and allows only fighting those that fight against one and calls for making peace when the enemy wants peace...
Intentionally killing an innocent human is condemned by the Quran as one of the gravest sins.

So given that basic framework, what does sura 9 mean, the only sura without the starting-title "In the name of God, the merciful and forgiving"?

The historic context is important, the war started by polytheistic Mecca neared its end, with Mecca already and bloodlessly captured by prophet Muhammad and his followers. This decisive diplomatic and political victory was threatened by the armed polytheistic warriors allied with groups of polytheistic christians and jews. In order to establish peace and law and order, it was necessary to fight them until they were militarily subdued and paid the jizja-tax.

They probably thought that they fight to liberate their idols/gods, not knowing that prophet Muhammad already destroyed them.

Nowhere in the Quran is there an instruction to kill jews, nor christians, only in sura 9 prophet Muhammad and his followers were ordered to fight those from among the jews and christians, who didn't believe in God and the last day, until they were militarily subdued and paid the jizja-tax. Those that didn't believe in God and the last day were those jews and christians that turned to polytheism and allied themselves with polytheistic Mecca.

Originally Posted by DLQ2006 

2) In regard to the ambiguity of all of this, it doesn't require a prophet to understand that there will be a lot of bloodshed over this commandment if it is not explained in specific terms. IOW: Why woudn't a prophet know how much bloodshed would be committed if his words do not specify who to kill, when, where, and for how long such killing should go on? Because if Islam really has been highjacked by those who falsely believe that this type of killing was meant for all time until there are no more non-believers to kill, then I'd say there is quite a bit of ambiguity in the Qur'an and surely the one true prophet would have been able to foresee this and be a bit more specific in his instructions to kill. An average person with no special powers or visions from God could have done a better job at making this subject in the Qur'an less ambiguous.

The Quran is indeed very specific: to never start hostilities, to fight only those that fight, to make peace when the enemy wants peace..., only those with an agenda that take verses out of their historical and textual context can come to such blatantly wrong and hyperbolic conclusions.

Taliesin

[Wiskedjak]

Are there not passages in the Bible where the Christian god kills or commands the death of those with different beliefs?

The great flood, Jericho, and Sodem and Gamora come to mind.

[Sayf-Allah]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

Are there not passages in the Bible where the Christian god kills or commands the death of those with different beliefs?

The great flood, Jericho, and Sodem and Gamora come to mind.

Or the jewish commandment to commit genocide and ethnic cleansing.

But lets ignore that and instead focus on twisting the words of the Quran shall we? This is MacNN remember.

[Atheist]

Originally Posted by Sayf-Allah 

Or the jewish commandment to commit genocide and ethnic cleansing.

But lets ignore that and instead focus on twisting the words of the Quran shall we? This is MacNN remember.

My knowledge of Judaism and Islam is rather limited. I'm anxious to hear more about this Jewish commandment and the context in which it exists.

So is this "sura 9" the source of most wacko militants? Or do they base their hatred on other parts of the Qur'an taken out of context?

[DLQ2006]

Originally Posted by Sayf-Allah 

Or the jewish commandment to commit genocide and ethnic cleansing.

But lets ignore that and instead focus on twisting the words of the Quran shall we? This is MacNN remember.

I'm not interesting in defending Christianity or Judiasm. I'm interested in focusing on Islam because there are large groups of Muslims dedicated to killing Christians and Jews and they justify this by reference to the Islamic scriptures. Either these scriptures back up their actions, or the scriptures have been perverted by those that teach Islam to its followers. If there were large groups of Jews or Christians going around killing Muslims in the name of God and and the bible, then I would want to get to the bottom of that also.

Whatever the Torah and New Testament says is irrelevant in terms of today's followers of Judiasm and Christianity because for whatever reason, those groups are not inspired to, encouraged to, or hell bent on shedding an enourmous amount of bloodshed in the name of their religions.

I'm sorry if I have a hard time being neutral on this but it is those that follow Islam that are cutting the heads off of captured civilians, that behead Christian schoolchildren in the name of Allah, that riot and kill over cartoons but not over Islamic schools keeping young girls inside burning buildings because their heads weren’t properly covered, that stone to death girls for being raped, that force their women to wear burlap bodybags and throw acid in their faces or brand them whores if they don't, that teach their children it is noble to self-implode among as many women and children as possible, that are threatening nuclear annihilation of Israel, that have been slaughtering innocent civilians as often as they can because they are pissed about the fall of the Caliphate, and that are willing to shed and unending amount of bloodshed for the pure thrill of killing infidels in the name of allah.

Sorry if I don't understand the logic that says that if only we were non-confrontational and neutral towards this type of mentality, jihadists wouldn't be created.

[DLQ2006]

by taliesin
"The historic context is important, the war started by polytheistic Mecca neared its end",

What evidence do you have that it was this polytheistic Jewish sect that provoked the hostilities, that would account for Muhammad's commands to kill them? I just have a hard time following the logic that this particular sect was violent, so.............kill them all. Do you really not see the irony in that?

[DLQ2006]

The Quran has developed the idea of a just war in defense and for liberation from persecution. It prohibits uncalled for violence, and allows only fighting those that fight against one and calls for making peace when the enemy wants peace...

Doesn't the Qur'an seem to indicate that war should continue until the world is Islam, or under the hegemony of Islamic law when it:

1) Says "Slay the idolaters wherever ye find them" (Qur'an 9:5)

2) Says that Allah can change or cancel what he says to Muslims and this Islamic doctrine of Abrogation is one in which the later verses abrogate the earlier ones because they were revealed later in Muhammad's prophetic career and it is the violent verses of the ninth Sura that abrograte the earlier peaceful ones.

3) Says "fight them until persecution is no more and religion is for Allah" (Qur'an 2:190-193).


So again I ask........wouldn't a true prophet be able to foresee his followers thinking that Muslims are to exist in a state of perpetual war until the "world is for Allah", and therefore give more specific instructions to kill off only all of the idolators and polytheisitic groups of Mecca and only over a specific time period?

Furthermore, if the verses calling for Muslims to "slay the idolators wherever ye find them" was only referring to those idolators at the time, then that is still not much of a message of a Mericful God. It is one thing to subdue your enemy until they no longer threaten you, and quite another to kill them all. Do you think that if when the U.S. first invaded Iraq, had their been no resistance and no insurgents, that we would have just killed all the people of Iraq? That we would still be at war over there? What if every last jihadist layed down their swords tomorrow and declared that they wanted to live in peace with all non-Muslims forever more? The war on terror would be over is what would happen and we wouldn't be out to kill every last one of them when they no longer posed a threat to killing us first or threatening our way of life.

[Taliesin]

Originally Posted by DLQ2006 

by taliesin
"The historic context is important, the war started by polytheistic Mecca neared its end",

What evidence do you have that it was this polytheistic Jewish sect that provoked the hostilities, that would account for Muhammad's commands to kill them? I just have a hard time following the logic that this particular sect was violent, so.............kill them all. Do you really not see the irony in that?

The problem here is we are talking besides each other: There is no command to kill jews in the Quran. Where did you get that idea from?

The only thing that comes close to it is a single verse in sura 9, where it says that prophet Muhammad and his followers should fight those from the jews and christians that didn't believe in God and the last day, until they were militarily subdued and paid the jizja-tax. The differentiation between "jews/christians" and "jews/christians that didn't believe in God and the last day" is of key-importance: Those that didn't believe in God and the last day, ie. judgment day/ressurection... allied themselves with polytheistic Mecca and financed and fought as warriors together with the warriors of Mecca.
That and only that explains the next part of the sentence, namely to militarily subdue them, until they paid the jizja-tax. That way prophet Muhammad and his followers could establish peace and law and order without having to kill their enemies.

Historic context is very important, cause you are projecting today's society into the past. Today, societies have developed the idea of monopolised violence in the hand of the state, the citizens are usually prohibited the use of violence, police and army are the only ones allowed to use violence, and even these are strongly regulated to prevent abuse and excesses.

But back then, that was not the case in Arabia, it was a tribal society, where nearly every man was a potential source of violence, nearly every man, that could afford it had some sort of weapon, with which he could defend himself and his family. There was no police and no army and logically also no state and no courts, instead the tribes used revenge-killings and feuds to secure their rights.

Please try to be more precise, cause precision and context is important, when dealing with holy scriptures.

Taliesin

[Sayf-Allah]

Originally Posted by Atheist 

My knowledge of Judaism and Islam is rather limited. I'm anxious to hear more about this Jewish commandment and the context in which it exists.

598 on this list. I don't have time (nor the will to dig up more).

613 mitzvot - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So is this "sura 9" the source of most wacko militants? Or do they base their hatred on other parts of the Qur'an taken out of context?

Surah 9 is probably 95% of what they "base" on the Quran. Then they throw in some hadiths, most often weak hadiths, to justify their twisted version of Islam.

Feel free to ask more if you wish.

[Taliesin]

Originally Posted by DLQ2006 

Doesn't the Qur'an seem to indicate that war should continue until the world is Islam, or under the hegemony of Islamic law when it:

1) Says "Slay the idolaters wherever ye find them" (Qur'an 9:5)

2) Says that Allah can change or cancel what he says to Muslims and this Islamic doctrine of Abrogation is one in which the later verses abrogate the earlier ones because they were revealed later in Muhammad's prophetic career and it is the violent verses of the ninth Sura that abrograte the earlier peaceful ones.

3) Says "fight them until persecution is no more and religion is for Allah" (Qur'an 2:190-193).

There is no abrogation inside the Quran, every part of the Quran is as essential as the other. Those who advocate the doctrine of abrogation are instrumentalising the Quran for selfish political goals.

Fighting was allowed in the Quran during an already ongoing war for the purpose of establishing peace and law and order. So that peace and law and order could prevail, fighting was necessary, in order to create a state, ie. a monopoly on violence. The idolaters were though totally averse to such an authority and cherished their potential violence-options, and as such they were enemies of peace and law and order. That's why the Quran called prophet Muhammad and his followers to fight the idolaters until they repented, established worship and paid the poor-due.

That way the idolaters had the option to stop fighting, to repent and to become peaceful lawabiding brothers of the believers.

Originally Posted by DLQ2006 

So again I ask........wouldn't a true prophet

You don't believe that prophet Muhammad was indeed sent by God, nor do you believe in any of the previous prophets, from Jesus-Adam, nor do you believe in God's existence, so why are you using that formulation to frame your question?

Originally Posted by DLQ2006 

be able to foresee his followers thinking that Muslims are to exist in a state of perpetual war until the "world is for Allah", and therefore give more specific instructions to kill off only all of the idolators and polytheisitic groups of Mecca and only over a specific time period?

Muhammad was a messenger of God, he didn't have any prophetic abilities to foresee the future on his own, only the message that God gave him, and that is the Quran. The Quran is very specific about the whole subject of the just war and makes it clear that the fight was a historic fight of prophet Muhammad and his coexisting followers for the purpose of survival of the message and the establishment of peace and law and order, in an arabic society at a time when these concepts were still unfamiliar.

To quote verses from the Quran out of its textual context, and also out of its historical context, means to redicule the spirit and message of the Quran.

Originally Posted by DLQ2006 

Furthermore, if the verses calling for Muslims to "slay the idolators wherever ye find them" was only referring to those idolators at the time, then that is still not much of a message of a Mericful God. It is one thing to subdue your enemy until they no longer threaten you, and quite another to kill them all. Do you think that if when the U.S. first invaded Iraq, had their been no resistance and no insurgents, that we would have just killed all the people of Iraq? That we would still be at war over there? What if every last jihadist layed down their swords tomorrow and declared that they wanted to live in peace with all non-Muslims forever more? The war on terror would be over is what would happen and we wouldn't be out to kill every last one of them when they no longer posed a threat to killing us first or threatening our way of life.

Exactly (of course not including your first sentence), and that's what the goal of the fight was, that was portrayed in the Quran. With our narrow understanding of today, the verse "slay the idolaters wherever you find them" means to kill every idolater, no matter if fighting, armed or not, if woman, man, elderly or child. But that is a wrong understanding, that gets revealed when you read a bit more of the same sura:

009.001
YUSUFALI: A (declaration) of immunity from God and His Messenger, to those of the Pagans with whom ye have contracted mutual alliances:-
PICKTHAL: Freedom from obligation (is proclaimed) from God and His messenger toward those of the idolaters with whom ye made a treaty.
SHAKIR: (This is a declaration of) immunity by God and His Messenger towards those of the idolaters with whom you made an agreement.

009.002
YUSUFALI: Go ye, then, for four months, backwards and forwards, (as ye will), throughout the land, but know ye that ye cannot frustrate God (by your falsehood) but that God will cover with shame those who reject Him.
PICKTHAL: Travel freely in the land four months, and know that ye cannot escape God and that God will confound the disbelievers (in His Guidance).
SHAKIR: So go about in the land for four months and know that you cannot weaken God and that God will bring disgrace to the unbelievers.

009.003
YUSUFALI: And an announcement from God and His Messenger, to the people (assembled) on the day of the Great Pilgrimage,- that God and His Messenger dissolve (treaty) obligations with the Pagans. If then, ye repent, it were best for you; but if ye turn away, know ye that ye cannot frustrate God. And proclaim a grievous penalty to those who reject Faith.
PICKTHAL: And a proclamation from God and His messenger to all men on the day of the Greater Pilgrimage that God is free from obligation to the idolaters, and (so is) His messenger. So, if ye repent, it will be better for you; but if ye are averse, then know that ye cannot escape God. Give tidings (O Muhammad) of a painful doom to those who disbelieve,
SHAKIR: And an announcement from God and His Messenger to the people on the day of the greater pilgrimage that God and His Messenger are free from liability to the idolaters; therefore if you repent, it will be better for you, and if you turn back, then know that you will not weaken God; and announce painful punishment to those who disbelieve.

009.004
YUSUFALI: (But the treaties are) not dissolved with those Pagans with whom ye have entered into alliance and who have not subsequently failed you in aught, nor aided any one against you. So fulfil your engagements with them to the end of their term: for God loveth the righteous.
PICKTHAL: Excepting those of the idolaters with whom ye (Muslims) have a treaty, and who have since abated nothing of your right nor have supported anyone against you. (As for these), fulfil their treaty to them till their term. Lo! God loveth those who keep their duty (unto Him).
SHAKIR: Except those of the idolaters with whom you made an agreement, then they have not failed you in anything and have not backed up any one against you, so fulfill their agreement to the end of their term; surely God loves those who are careful (of their duty).

009.005
YUSUFALI: 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 God is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.
PICKTHAL: Then, when the sacred months have passed, slay the idolaters wherever ye find them, and take them (captive), and besiege them, and prepare for them each ambush. But if they repent and establish worship and pay the poor-due, then leave their way free. Lo! God is Forgiving, Merciful.
SHAKIR: 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 God is Forgiving, Merciful.

009.006
YUSUFALI: If one amongst the Pagans ask thee for asylum, grant it to him, so that he may hear the word of God; and then escort him to where he can be secure. That is because they are men without knowledge.
PICKTHAL: And if anyone of the idolaters seeketh thy protection (O Muhammad), then protect him so that he may hear the Word of God, and afterward convey him to his place of safety. That is because they are a folk who know not.
SHAKIR: And if one of the idolaters seek protection from you, grant him protection till he hears the word of God, then make him attain his place of safety; this is because they are a people who do not know.

009.007
YUSUFALI: How can there be a league, before God and His Messenger, with the Pagans, except those with whom ye made a treaty near the sacred Mosque? As long as these stand true to you, stand ye true to them: for God doth love the righteous.
PICKTHAL: How can there be a treaty with God and with His messenger for the idolaters save those with whom ye made a treaty at the Inviolable Place of Worship? So long as they are true to you, be true to them. Lo! God loveth those who keep their duty.
SHAKIR: How can there be an agreement for the idolaters with God and with His Messenger; except those with whom you made an agreement at the Sacred Mosque? So as long as they are true to you, be true to them; surely God loves those who are careful (of their duty).

009.008
YUSUFALI: How (can there be such a league), seeing that if they get an advantage over you, they respect not in you the ties either of kinship or of covenant? With (fair words from) their mouths they entice you, but their hearts are averse from you; and most of them are rebellious and wicked.
PICKTHAL: How (can there be any treaty for the others) when, if they have the upper hand of you, they regard not pact nor honour in respect of you? They satisfy you with their mouths the while their hearts refuse. And most of them are wrongdoers.
SHAKIR: How (can it be)! while if they prevail against you, they would not pay regard in your case to ties of relationship, nor those of covenant; they please you with their mouths while their hearts do not consent; and most of them are transgressors.

009.009
YUSUFALI: The Signs of God have they sold for a miserable price, and (many) have they hindered from His way: evil indeed are the deeds they have done.
PICKTHAL: They have purchased with the revelations of God a little gain, so they debar (men) from His way. Lo! evil is that which they are wont to do.
SHAKIR: They have taken a small price for the communications of God, so they turn away from His way; surely evil is it that they do.

009.010
YUSUFALI: In a Believer they respect not the ties either of kinship or of covenant! It is they who have transgressed all bounds.
PICKTHAL: And they observe toward a believer neither pact nor honour. These are they who are transgressors.
SHAKIR: They do not pay regard to ties of relationship nor those of covenant in the case of a believer; and these are they who go beyond the limits.

009.011
YUSUFALI: But (even so), if they repent, establish regular prayers, and practise regular charity,- they are your brethren in Faith: (thus) do We explain the Signs in detail, for those who understand.
PICKTHAL: But if they repent and establish worship and pay the poor-due, then are they your brethren in religion. We detail Our revelations for a people who have knowledge.
SHAKIR: But if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, they are your brethren in faith; and We make the communications clear for a people who know.

009.012
YUSUFALI: But if they violate their oaths after their covenant, and taunt you for your Faith,- fight ye the chiefs of Unfaith: for their oaths are nothing to them: that thus they may be restrained.
PICKTHAL: And if they break their pledges after their treaty (hath been made with you) and assail your religion, then fight the heads of disbelief - Lo! they have no binding oaths - in order that they may desist.
SHAKIR: And if they break their oaths after their agreement and (openly) revile your religion, then fight the leaders of unbelief-- surely their oaths are nothing-- so that they may desist.

009.013
YUSUFALI: Will ye not fight people who violated their oaths, plotted to expel the Messenger, and took the aggressive by being the first (to assault) you? Do ye fear them? Nay, it is God Whom ye should more justly fear, if ye believe!
PICKTHAL: Will ye not fight a folk who broke their solemn pledges, and purposed to drive out the messenger and did attack you first? What! Fear ye them? Now God hath more right that ye should fear Him, if ye are believers
SHAKIR: What! will you not fight a people who broke their oaths and aimed at the expulsion of the Messenger, and they attacked you first; do you fear them? But God is most deserving that you should fear Him, if you are believers.

009.014
YUSUFALI: Fight them, and God will punish them by your hands, cover them with shame, help you (to victory) over them, heal the breasts of Believers,
PICKTHAL: Fight them! God will chastise them at your hands, and He will lay them low and give you victory over them, and He will heal the breasts of folk who are believers.
SHAKIR: Fight them, God will punish them by your hands and bring them to disgrace, and assist you against them and heal the hearts of a believing people.

009.015
YUSUFALI: And still the indignation of their hearts. For God will turn (in mercy) to whom He will; and God is All-Knowing, All-Wise.
PICKTHAL: And He will remove the anger of their hearts. God relenteth toward whom He will. God is Knower, Wise.
SHAKIR: And remove the rage of their hearts; and God turns (mercifully) to whom He pleases, and God is Knowing, Wise.

Do you now see the historic context, a historic fight of prophet Muhammad and his followers that were called to help him to establish peace and law and order?

There is also a textual context, that clearly outlines what is meant with the word "idolaters", ie. groups of armed polytheists enforcing people to stray away from God's path, ie. to return to polytheism and its barbaric rituals.

The way that monotheism and polytheism played out in the arabic society, it was logically a religious fight. Polytheism stood for barbaric rituals, tribal society, lack of law and order and prevalence of individual violence and oppression, while monotheism stood for peace, law and order, freedom, monopolised use of violence for the protection of peace and law and order...

Taliesin

[ebuddy]

I think it is important to outline three key points;

1) Most Muslims are peaceful and interpret their scriptures as peaceful doctrine and a means of peaceful coexistence not unlike Judaism and Christianity.
2) A minority of Muslims adhere to a more rigid interpretation of the Quran and likely either facilitate or perform violence on its behalf.
3) If using even the most conservative figure; this minority constitutes millions of radicals. This is the minority that gets media attention and rightfully so, they're making a right mess of things and causing a significant degree of instability in many places.

IMO, violence in the Middle East is not a product of Islam any more than violence in your inner-city is a product of the prominent religions therein. Poor socio-economic conditions beg for common enemy. In these cases, using the prominent religion of the area (Islam), they are able to demonize the West, the Jew, and generally those of other faiths. Having an enemy, other than the one truly oppressing you, is commonplace in these poor conditions. I won't get into it in detail here as I have in numerous other places in the past, but this is one of the primary reasons why I advocate the spreading of democracy throughout the Middle East. I believe democracy provides prosperity and a focus on one own's personal contributions over bringing someone else's down. I believe the Muslim people are the perfect candidates for this reform. I believe the Islamic religion is in need of a Martin Luther, a strong and charismatic figure that can get attention away from the hate-mongers and the oppressed, bring much needed reform not by pushing up from the rear, but in pulling from the front-a position of influential leadership.

[Sayf-Allah]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I think it is important to outline three key points;

1) Most Muslims are peaceful and interpret their scriptures in a more rigid way which means a peaceful coexistence not unlike Judaism and Christianity.
2) A minority of Muslims adhere to a more "liberal" interpretation of the Quran and likely either facilitate or perform violence on its behalf.
3) If using even the most conservative figure; this minority constitutes millions of radicals out of the 1.5-2 billion Muslims in this world. This is the minority that gets media attention and rightfully so, they're making a right mess of things and causing a significant degree of instability in many places.

Fixed.

IMO, violence in the Middle East is not a product of Islam any more than violence in your inner-city is a product of the prominent religions therein. Poor socio-economic conditions beg for common enemy. In these cases, using the prominent religion of the area (Islam), they are able to demonize the West, the Jew, and generally those of other faiths. Having an enemy, other than the one truly oppressing you, is commonplace in these poor conditions. I won't get into it in detail here as I have in numerous other places in the past, but this is one of the primary reasons why I advocate the spreading of democracy throughout the Middle East. I believe democracy provides prosperity and a focus on one own's personal contributions over bringing someone else's down. I believe the Muslim people are the perfect candidates for this reform. I believe the Islamic religion is in need of a Martin Luther, a strong and charismatic figure that can get attention away from the hate-mongers and the oppressed, bring much needed reform not by pushing up from the rear, but in pulling from the front-a position of influential leadership.

Mostly agreed. But who the "one truly oppressing them" I guess we both agree and disagree on.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by ebuddy

1) Most Muslims are peaceful and interpret their scriptures as peaceful doctrine and a means of peaceful coexistence not unlike Judaism and Christianity.
2) A minority of Muslims adhere to a more rigid interpretation of the Quran and likely either facilitate or perform violence on its behalf.
3) If using even the most conservative figure; this minority constitutes millions of radicals. This is the minority that gets media attention and rightfully so, they're making a right mess of things and causing a significant degree of instability in many places.

Reset.

rigid is inflexible and does not allow for understanding or context. Liberal is flexible to account for some understanding and context. There was no need to "fix" something that wasn't broken.

Originally Posted by Sayf-Allah

Mostly agreed. But who the "one truly oppressing them" I guess we both agree and disagree on.

The Jew is oppressing no one in Iran, Afghanistan, or Syria. One can be liberal in the written word, but rigid in action. You may be a radical, I couldn't know.

[DLQ2006]

[QUOTE=Taliesin;3231805]

The problem here is we are talking besides each other: There is no command to kill jews in the Quran. Where did you get that idea from?

Before I respond to this and other replys, I do want to say thanks for taking the time to answer my questions because I had asked them before and for all I know, you took time to answer them and I never got back to that thread.

If the Qur'an does not specifically say to kill Jews, then it seems as though the reason they were killed is because as you've said, they were aligned with the polytheistic meccans. What I had asked is what evidence you have that they really were and what evidence do you have that they provoked the hostilities?

The only thing that comes close to it is a single verse in sura 9, where it says that prophet Muhammad and his followers should fight those from the jews and christians that didn't believe in God and the last day, until they were militarily subdued and paid the jizja-tax. The differentiation between "jews/christians" and "jews/christians that didn't believe in God and the last day" is of key-importance: Those that didn't believe in God and the last day, ie. judgment day/ressurection... allied themselves with polytheistic Mecca and financed and fought as warriors together with the warriors of Mecca.
That and only that explains the next part of the sentence, namely to militarily subdue them, until they paid the jizja-tax. That way prophet Muhammad and his followers could establish peace and law and order without having to kill their enemies.

You are still justifying the Muslims engaging in war with these Polytheistic Meccans, without explaining how a Merciful God would want them all killed. Why would God give Muhammad the message "slay the idolators wherever ye find them"? If Muhammad was the messenger of God, and God surely would know the amount of bloodshed that would be spilled for what we know has amounted to more than 1000 years so far, why wouldn't God's messages to Muhammad be to give much more specific, detailed and unambiguous messages? Something as important as killing and war is something that I would think God would not want to be taken the wrong way. An awful lot of innocents have suffered and been killed over these commandments and I can't believe that people actually believe any merciful God would want this.

I also have a problem with the way this Jizja tax seems to always be presented as not really a big deal like some sort of simple poll tax or something. The way is has played out in reality is that non-muslims in Muslim lands have been subjugated and treated terribly. They aren't allowed to worship freely and can be killed for owning a bible. They've been made into outcasts and have had to endure all kinds of humiliated, berating, and cruel treatment. Is this something God wanted too?

Please try to be more precise, cause precision and context is important, when dealing with holy scriptures.

But the scriptures themselves don't have the quality of being precise so it's pretty hard to ask precise questions regarding them. The very fact that the Qur'an isn't written in chronological order but rather according to length of scripture, but that they are divided into the meccan and Medinan periods makes it cumbersome enough.

[DLQ2006]

[QUOTE=Taliesin;3231832]

There is no abrogation inside the Quran, every part of the Quran is as essential as the other. Those who advocate the doctrine of abrogation are instrumentalising the Quran for selfish political goals

.

Then how do you explain (Qur'an 2: 106)? "None of our revelations do we abrogate or cause to be forgotten, but we SUBSTITUTE something better or similar: Knowest thou not that allah hath power over all things"? This seems like a rather contradictory statement. Lets just call it substitution then. Are you saying that latter verses in the Qur'an that council war are NOT to be taken as substitutions?

While you make the claim that the Qur'an is clear about how it councils war, the amount of disagreement between Islamic theologians and other authorities is not demonstrative of such clarity.

You don't believe that prophet Muhammad was indeed sent by God, nor do you believe in any of the previous prophets, from Jesus-Adam, nor do you believe in God's existence, so why are you using that formulation to frame your question?

Where did you get the Idea that I do not believe in God's existence? I do believe in God. I do not believe in any of the organized religions. You do realize the difference don't you?

Whether I believe in Prophets or not is irrelevant when trying to understand the logic of those who do believe Muhammad was a prophet. I don't have to believe what someone else does in order to understand how they get from point A to point B based on their logic of Point A.

Muhammad was a messenger of God, he didn't have any prophetic abilities to foresee the future on his own, only the message that God gave him, and that is the Quran. The Quran is very specific about the whole subject of the just war and makes it clear that the fight was a historic fight of prophet Muhammad and his coexisting followers for the purpose of survival of the message and the establishment of peace and law and order, in an arabic society at a time when these concepts were still unfamiliar.

Well, I have to say that you have done a good job of giving me your take on all of this and you've made some salient points although I still disagree with some of the justifications for violence given. It's one thing to subdue an enemy in war unti they no longer pose a threat to your survival and quite another to advocate the killing of them simply because they have not converted to Islam. How about something less violent to get the message to people? like through talking and ministering to them for example? Sending missionaries to convert, not warriors with swords. I understand you are talking about historical context but I would think that peaceful means of conversion would transcend time if we are dealing with a merciful God.

To quote verses from the Quran out of its textual context, and also out of its historical context, means to redicule the spirit and message of the Quran.

Historical context in this case does not answer the quetion of how a mericful God would instruct his messenger to tell his followers to "slay the idolators wherever ye find them" so
I'm not sure of how else I could have questioned this revelation without pointing out specific scriptures.

Exactly (of course not including your first sentence), and that's what the goal of the fight was, that was portrayed in the Quran. With our narrow understanding of today, the verse "slay the idolaters wherever you find them" means to kill every idolater, no matter if fighting, armed or not, if woman, man, elderly or child. But that is a wrong understanding, that gets revealed when you read a bit more of the same sura:

Again.........these Suras or scriptures are self-contradictory. There should be no place for such self-contradiction when it comes to God using a messenger to council killing. Prophets should be held to atleast the same standard that we would hold ourselves too and if they really are prophets, then they should be held to much higher standards. As just an ordinary person with no special powers from God, I can't imagine writing something down that would be so self-contradictory and lead to so much confusion when it comes to instructions such as killing an entire group of people. The point can't be made too often that it's justified to kill people bent on killing you before they get a chance to. However, that is a far cry from killing them simply because of their beliefs about God, the last day, et cetera.

Polytheism stood for barbaric rituals, tribal society, lack of law and order and prevalence of individual violence and oppression, while monotheism stood for peace, law and order, freedom, monopolised use of violence for the protection of peace and law and order...

I'm sorry if I find it hard to believe that God chose Muslims to kill a bunch of violent, barbarian, tribalists that oppressed others when Islam itself has been producing more of these types of people for the last 1400 years than any other religion or belief system has. So these peaceful Muslims that just wanted the subdue the barbarians were chosen by God, when Islam hasn't hardly changed in 1400 years? It stands to reason that at the very least, many Muslims were atleast as barbaric back then as they are now. If these polytheistic meccans and idolators were a bunch of savages, then it sounds like one group of savages fighting another group of savages to me.

[DLQ2006]

Taliesin;3231832]\

Fighting was allowed in the Quran during an already ongoing war for the purpose of establishing peace and law and order. So that peace and law and order could prevail, fighting was necessary, in order to create a state, ie. a monopoly on violence.

If this is true, then I'm having trouble getting past the verse that says "fight them until persecution is no more and religion is for Allah" (Qur'an 2:190-193). This command is not saying that Muslims should only use killing in war for self-defense. It is also commanding them to kill in war for religious conversion.

Killing in war for self-preservation and for the preservation of your countries survival is justified. Advocating the killing in war for religous conversion goes against basic human decency and the Qur'an advocates this when it says "And religion is for Allah". (ie, they've been converted to Islam or are living in submission to Islam. If you want to continue defending a man that preached and a theology that preaches it is necessary to kill in war for religious conversion, that is something you will have to explain to God one day. I woudn't want to be in your shoes when that day comes.

How should we view this one?

"when you meet the unbelievers in the battlefield, strike off their heads and, when you have laid them low, bind your captives firmly" (Qur'an 47:4)?

Does this not only also suggest killing for religious conversion of the "unbelievers" but also slavery "Bind your captives firmly"? I don't care if this is to be taken in the context of history. Religious conversion was still part of the command and has caused an untold amount of violence and death because of it.

If you want a good example of an incredible amount of mercy toward an enemy, look at the fact that the U.S has had more of our own countrymen in the military killed trying to help the Iraqi people rebuild better lives for themselves, than we lost in toppling Iraq. We could have went in and killed all of the people and started pumping all their oil to have for ourselves, the way a truly hegemonic force would do and the way we would have if we were the hegemonic force we've been accused of being. Can you imagine the world condemnation by not just those outside of our country but from those within it if we went over there with the ideology that we were to kill until they were subdued, and then Bind our captives firmly? Yet this is what the Qur'an called for in the battle against these polytheistic meccans.

[Taliesin]

Originally Posted by DLQ2006 

Before I respond to this and other replys, I do want to say thanks for taking the time to answer my questions because I had asked them before and for all I know, you took time to answer them and I never got back to that thread.

If the Qur'an does not specifically say to kill Jews, then it seems as though the reason they were killed is because as you've said, they were aligned with the polytheistic meccans. What I had asked is what evidence you have that they really were and what evidence do you have that they provoked the hostilities?

You are on a wrong train here, there is no command to kill jews nor christians in the Quran, quite to the contrary. Like already said, the only part of the Quran that threatens violence to parts of jews and christians, ie. those that didn't believe in God and the last day and chose to ally with polytheistic Mecca becoming polytheists in the process, is a single verse in a single sura, namely sura 9, the only sura without the title "In the name of God, the merciful, the forgiving". There it was ordered to fight these special christians and jews, until they were militarily subdued and paid the jizja-tax.

If what you thought were true, there would never have been jews nor christians surviving in islamic countries.

It seems to me, like you have read from sources that are inherently islamophobic, mixing truths with lies.

Originally Posted by DLQ2006 

You are still justifying the Muslims engaging in war with these Polytheistic Meccans, without explaining how a Merciful God would want them all killed. Why would God give Muhammad the message "slay the idolators wherever ye find them"? If Muhammad was the messenger of God, and God surely would know the amount of bloodshed that would be spilled for what we know has amounted to more than 1000 years so far, why wouldn't God's messages to Muhammad be to give much more specific, detailed and unambiguous messages? Something as important as killing and war is something that I would think God would not want to be taken the wrong way. An awful lot of innocents have suffered and been killed over these commandments and I can't believe that people actually believe any merciful God would want this.

Indeed I'm justifying the fight of prophet Muhammad and his followers, and I'm thankful that they put it onto their shoulders, otherwise the message of God would have not survived and the arabs would still be polytheists today.

The Quran is very specific about violence and war, and when it may be permissible and how it has to be restrained. The reason why it is included is because of God's mercy. You seem to think that God's mercy has to be pacifistic, but in the case of Arabia pacifism would have achieved nothing, quite to the contrary. Because God had mercy with prophet Muhammad and his followers He allowed them to fight against the warriors of polytheistic Mecca and its allies.

Jewish prophets and their followers were likewise allowed to fight for their survival.

By the way, humans are violent, no matter what, the Quran merely directed it into restrained routes. Just look at what happened with christianity: Eventhough the New Testament doesn't mention violence at all, the christian world has been the most violent one on this planet, way bloodier, oppressive and more destructive than the islamic world ever was.

Originally Posted by DLQ2006 

I also have a problem with the way this Jizja tax seems to always be presented as not really a big deal like some sort of simple poll tax or something. The way is has played out in reality is that non-muslims in Muslim lands have been subjugated and treated terribly. They aren't allowed to worship freely and can be killed for owning a bible. They've been made into outcasts and have had to endure all kinds of humiliated, berating, and cruel treatment. Is this something God wanted too?

The jizja-tax was a concept already existing and wellknown in Arabia, it was a symbolic act by which one tribe could acknowledge that it lost a war, and allowed therefore the losing tribe to survive.
Look how the Quran doesn't explain what a jizja-tax is, it was known in Arabia back then and wellaccepted.

Of course God didn't want that any discrimination or humiliating behaviour against minorities, this is clearly a sinful human practice by parts of a majority against parts of minorities.

The Quran itself condemns any wrongdoing against anyone.



Taliesin

[Taliesin]

Originally Posted by DLQ2006 

Then how do you explain (Qur'an 2: 106)? "None of our revelations do we abrogate or cause to be forgotten, but we SUBSTITUTE something better or similar: Knowest thou not that allah hath power over all things"? This seems like a rather contradictory statement. Lets just call it substitution then. Are you saying that latter verses in the Qur'an that council war are NOT to be taken as substitutions?

Exactly, there are neither substitutions nor abrogations, all of the Quran is equally essential and has to be analysed as a whole. The Quran itself warns against taking one part of the Quran and ignoring another. The substitution that is talked about in the verse you quote is meant in relation to Torah->Gospel->Quran. Between these God abrogated in order to formulate His message according to the new times and needs and situations, but not within the Quran.

Originally Posted by DLQ2006 

While you make the claim that the Qur'an is clear about how it councils war, the amount of disagreement between Islamic theologians and other authorities is not demonstrative of such clarity.

That's the magic of holy scriptures, they can be interpreted and misinterpreted, abused and instrumentalised, this is not a problem of the Quran alone.

Originally Posted by DLQ2006 

Where did you get the Idea that I do not believe in God's existence? I do believe in God. I do not believe in any of the organized religions. You do realize the difference don't you?

I realize it, I apologise for accusing you of atheism. May I ask a question: Do you believe that God will cause the world to end and to ressurect all of humanity to receive judgment, and to then either become punished in hell forever or rewarded in paradise forever?

Originally Posted by DLQ2006 

Whether I believe in Prophets or not is irrelevant when trying to understand the logic of those who do believe Muhammad was a prophet. I don't have to believe what someone else does in order to understand how they get from point A to point B based on their logic of Point A.

Absolutely correct.

Originally Posted by DLQ2006 

Well, I have to say that you have done a good job of giving me your take on all of this and you've made some salient points although I still disagree with some of the justifications for violence given. It's one thing to subdue an enemy in war unti they no longer pose a threat to your survival and quite another to advocate the killing of them simply because they have not converted to Islam. How about something less violent to get the message to people? like through talking and ministering to them for example? Sending missionaries to convert, not warriors with swords. I understand you are talking about historical context but I would think that peaceful means of conversion would transcend time if we are dealing with a merciful God.

Well, once the s*** hit the fan, there was not much of a choice. In the situation in Arabia, when a war was already waging, a war started by the polytheists of Mecca and its allies, against prophet Muhammad and his followers, fighting was necessary to let the monotheistic message to survive. If prophet Muhammad and his followers were not allowed by God to fight, the polytheists would have forced prophet Muhammad and his followers to decide between death and return to polytheism.

I think you are trying to compare with the situation of Jesus in the jewish part of the roman empire, but that would be really comparing apples with oranges. In the case of Jesus, the people he preached to were already monotheists, ie. jews, living under the protection of a state with law and order, where polytheism was not enforced.

Originally Posted by DLQ2006 

Historical context in this case does not answer the quetion of how a mericful God would instruct his messenger to tell his followers to "slay the idolators wherever ye find them" so
I'm not sure of how else I could have questioned this revelation without pointing out specific scriptures.

Historical and textual context is always key to understand holy scriptures, no matter which.

Originally Posted by DLQ2006 

Again.........these Suras or scriptures are self-contradictory. There should be no place for such self-contradiction when it comes to God using a messenger to council killing. Prophets should be held to atleast the same standard that we would hold ourselves too and if they really are prophets, then they should be held to much higher standards. As just an ordinary person with no special powers from God, I can't imagine writing something down that would be so self-contradictory and lead to so much confusion when it comes to instructions such as killing an entire group of people. The point can't be made too often that it's justified to kill people bent on killing you before they get a chance to. However, that is a far cry from killing them simply because of their beliefs about God, the last day, et cetera.

It's neither selfcontradictory nor does the Quran mean what you think it means. Prophet Muhammad didn't write anything down, he voiced the revelations that God gave him, nothing more and nothing less.

Taking snippets of the Quran out of historical and textual context only distorts its meaning.

"Slaying the idolaters" meant nothing other than to fight and kill the warriors of the polytheists, so that the war they started could end and peace and law and order set in.
Even the polytheistic warrior had an option to repent, to stop fighting, by worship of God alone, ie. by refraining from polytheism, and paying a poor-tax.

Originally Posted by DLQ2006 

I'm sorry if I find it hard to believe that God chose Muslims to kill a bunch of violent, barbarian, tribalists that oppressed others when Islam itself has been producing more of these types of people for the last 1400 years than any other religion or belief system has. So these peaceful Muslims that just wanted the subdue the barbarians were chosen by God, when Islam hasn't hardly changed in 1400 years? It stands to reason that at the very least, many Muslims were atleast as barbaric back then as they are now. If these polytheistic meccans and idolators were a bunch of savages, then it sounds like one group of savages fighting another group of savages to me.

Again, you get it wrong, God didn't choose the muslims to fight against the polytheists, the war was started against prophet Muhammad and his followers, and God instructed prophet Muhammad and his followers what to do to bring an end to the war and to establish peace and law and order.

The changes that Islam brought to Arabia in contrast to polytheistic Arabia are too numerous to mention, going from restraining slavery, to giving women rights, to establishing a state of law and order transcending the tribal system, to abolishing polytheism and its rituals, like human sacrifices, burying female babies alive, revenge-feuds...

That some elements of the polytheistic past have survived in the arabic culture, and rear their head wherever confusion and desperation makes the day, should be of no surprise.

Your point of view regarding muslims is islamophobic and ignorant.

Taliesin

[Taliesin]

Originally Posted by DLQ2006 

If this is true, then I'm having trouble getting past the verse that says "fight them until persecution is no more and religion is for Allah" (Qur'an 2:190-193). This command is not saying that Muslims should only use killing in war for self-defense. It is also commanding them to kill in war for religious conversion.

Killing in war for self-preservation and for the preservation of your countries survival is justified. Advocating the killing in war for religous conversion goes against basic human decency and the Qur'an advocates this when it says "And religion is for Allah". (ie, they've been converted to Islam or are living in submission to Islam.

If you are unable to read in historic context, which I can understand since you are not familiar with the history, but at least read in textual context, there is no excuse for taking out of textual context. The snippet you took out of textual context is included here:

002.190
YUSUFALI: Fight in the cause of God those who fight you, but do not transgress limits; for God loveth not transgressors.
PICKTHAL: Fight in the way of God against those who fight against you, but begin not hostilities. Lo! God loveth not aggressors.
SHAKIR: And fight in the way of God with those who fight with you, and do not exceed the limits, surely God does not love those who exceed the limits.

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.

002.192
YUSUFALI: But if they cease, God is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.
PICKTHAL: But if they desist, then lo! God is Forgiving, Merciful.
SHAKIR: But if they desist, then surely God is Forgiving, Merciful.

002.193
YUSUFALI: And fight them on until there is no more Tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in God; but if they cease, Let there be no hostility except to those who practise oppression.
PICKTHAL: And fight them until persecution is no more, and religion is for God. But if they desist, then let there be no hostility except against wrong-doers.
SHAKIR: And fight with them until there is no persecution, and religion should be only for God, but if they desist, then there should be no hostility except against the oppressors.

The meaning should be clear, to fight those that fight and start hostilities, until oppression and persecution stops and religion is for God alone. What does the latter part mean?

Does it mean that muslims should fight until the whole world only has one religion? No, it meant clearly to fight until those that had faith in God alone could freely worship God alone. The historic context was that the polytheists of Mecca enforced polytheism and rituals, so fighting was allowed until the oppression and enforcement of polytheism stopped.

Originally Posted by DLQ2006 

If you want to continue defending a man that preached and a theology that preaches it is necessary to kill in war for religious conversion, that is something you will have to explain to God one day. I woudn't want to be in your shoes when that day comes.

Sorry, I'm not responsible for your misinterpretations and projections. But at least your formulation shows that you believe in God and ressurection.

Originally Posted by DLQ2006 

How should we view this one?

"when you meet the unbelievers in the battlefield, strike off their heads and, when you have laid them low, bind your captives firmly" (Qur'an 47:4)?

Does this not only also suggest killing for religious conversion of the "unbelievers" but also slavery "Bind your captives firmly"? I don't care if this is to be taken in the context of history. Religious conversion was still part of the command and has caused an untold amount of violence and death because of it.

You are joking, right? What do you think happens in a war on the battlefield between warriors? Of course slaying and taking captive had to happen on the battlefield in a raging war.

What truly amazes me is how you are reading religious conversion into this.

Oh, and the term unbeliever is misleading. The word kuffar means much more than merely unbeliever, but that would be a topic of its own.

Originally Posted by DLQ2006 

If you want a good example of an incredible amount of mercy toward an enemy, look at the fact that the U.S has had more of our own countrymen in the military killed trying to help the Iraqi people rebuild better lives for themselves, than we lost in toppling Iraq. We could have went in and killed all of the people and started pumping all their oil to have for ourselves, the way a truly hegemonic force would do and the way we would have if we were the hegemonic force we've been accused of being. Can you imagine the world condemnation by not just those outside of our country but from those within it if we went over there with the ideology that we were to kill until they were subdued, and then Bind our captives firmly? Yet this is what the Qur'an called for in the battle against these polytheistic meccans.

Nonesense, the Quran called to fight in defense on the battlefield during an already raging war started by polytheistic Mecca, and it called for fighting and killing the enemy-warriors, until they repented and opted for peace.

Write "terrorist" for "unbeliever" and "enemy-soldier" for "idolater" and you might get a glimpse of a hint. Imagine the US going onto the battlefield and not killing a single terrorist, enemy-warriors and taking noone captive. LOL.

Taliesin

[Super Mario]

If my car didn't work after 1 month I would need it to be repaired.

Islam hasn't worked for 1400 years so it has to be faulty. God cannot be so imperfect. God's message would be so powerfully convincing every enlightened person would follow it not just illiterate people.

Conclusion is that God has never spoken to humanity. These are myths for politics and mind control.

[Taliesin]

Originally Posted by Super Mario 

If my car didn't work after 1 month I would need it to be repaired.

Islam hasn't worked for 1400 years so it has to be faulty. God cannot be so imperfect. God's message would be so powerfully convincing every enlightened person would follow it not just illiterate people.

Conclusion is that God has never spoken to humanity. These are myths for politics and mind control.

Islam has worked, polytheism was abolished and the concept of charity for the poor and needy gained hold in the islamic world. That were two of the most important goals of God's message to the arabs.

The rest like the political, legal and economic models used in the islamic world throughtout its history are human models and like anything human can work very good and very bad. At times the islamic world legal, economic and political models worked very good, at least much better than other human models used in the christian world. Nowadays the legal, political and economic model of the west seems to work better than the middle-age-models of the islamic world, but the price was very high: industrialisation, which led to abuse of the nature, revolutions in societies, imperialism, colonialism, ww1 and ww2, nationalism, holocaust, secularism bordering on atheism...



Taliesin

[Super Mario]

Originally Posted by Taliesin 

Islam has worked, polytheism was abolished and the concept of charity for the poor and needy gained hold in the islamic world.
Taliesin

1. Polytheism was abolished. So what? You follow one man made god or ten million man made gods it makes no difference. They are all anthromorphic and defined by people. Allah has 99 names for each attribute. If I make an image for each attribute does Allah became polytheistic like Hindusim that does that?

2. Charity. Islam advocates slavery. There is nothing to condemn it in Islam but the Quran mentions slavery as a normal thing. Islam advocates higher taxes on non-Muslims and no charity for non-Muslims. Islamic charity has failed. They have the most illiteracy in the world in Islamic countries. The only place where Islamic society is succeeding is in a secular place like Dubai where the economy employs Americans, Europeans, Indians and Chinese to invest their money there and to design and build buildings and business. Every attempt to create a pure Islamic society has been doomed because the nature of monotheistic theocracies causes groups to come about who attack each other because their religion has a schizophrenic god who can be interpreted differently by different people.

Allah gets an F.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by DLQ2006 

I'm not interesting in defending Christianity or Judiasm. I'm interested in focusing on Islam because there are large groups of Muslims dedicated to killing Christians and Jews and they justify this by reference to the Islamic scriptures. Either these scriptures back up their actions, or the scriptures have been perverted by those that teach Islam to its followers. If there were large groups of Jews or Christians going around killing Muslims in the name of God and and the bible, then I would want to get to the bottom of that also.

Whatever the Torah and New Testament says is irrelevant in terms of today's followers of Judiasm and Christianity because for whatever reason, those groups are not inspired to, encouraged to, or hell bent on shedding an enourmous amount of bloodshed in the name of their religions.

I'm sorry if I have a hard time being neutral on this but it is those that follow Islam that are cutting the heads off of captured civilians, that behead Christian schoolchildren in the name of Allah, that riot and kill over cartoons but not over Islamic schools keeping young girls inside burning buildings because their heads weren’t properly covered, that stone to death girls for being raped, that force their women to wear burlap bodybags and throw acid in their faces or brand them whores if they don't, that teach their children it is noble to self-implode among as many women and children as possible, that are threatening nuclear annihilation of Israel, that have been slaughtering innocent civilians as often as they can because they are pissed about the fall of the Caliphate, and that are willing to shed and unending amount of bloodshed for the pure thrill of killing infidels in the name of allah.

Sorry if I don't understand the logic that says that if only we were non-confrontational and neutral towards this type of mentality, jihadists wouldn't be created.

So, in actuality, you aren't so much concerned about religions "that believe in killing others because of their religious beliefs or that believe in a God that would want this", since both Christianity and Judaism have examples of this in their doctrine.

Your true concern appears to be about people in the modern world who follow these calls and examples from God to kill those who hold different beliefs.

[DLQ2006]

[QUOTE=Taliesin;3233669]

Just look at what happened with christianity: Eventhough the New Testament doesn't mention violence at all, the christian world has been the most violent one on this planet, way bloodier, oppressive and more destructive than the islamic world ever was.

That is completely wrong. While the Crusades were often needlessly bloody, you can say the exact same thing about the period of Islamic expansionism. Christianity was in retreat 300 years prior to the first crusade being called up and it was called up in defense of Islamic expansionism. A resistance that I am very grateful for since I am an heir to a society that is not an Islamic, third world country because of it. All of us not living under Islamic law should thank our lucky stars for the crusades!

You believe that the Muslims have been victims and have been fighting defensive wars against Christian aggression for the last 1400 years, yet which religion today is the one that is killing for religious conversion? It's pretty hard to make that argument considering that it does not reflect the realities of today. Furthermore, it is the realities of today that I much more concerned about.

As to the rest of the things I have to say on this whole subject, it will have to be when I am not nodding off because I'm falling asleep at the keyboard here.

[Super Mario]

Bravo, DLQ, bravo. The apologiser in question has nothing to stand on but Islamist rewriting of history. It's all hogwash messages from the sky nonsense. Bogeyman beliefs keeping a sixth of the world in poverty and anger and racism against those who have moved forward.

[Taliesin]

Originally Posted by Super Mario 

1. Polytheism was abolished. So what? You follow one man made god or ten million man made gods it makes no difference. They are all anthromorphic and defined by people. Allah has 99 names for each attribute. If I make an image for each attribute does Allah became polytheistic like Hindusim that does that?

The problem with polytheism, at least in the case of arabian polytheism, was that every additional idol allowed another form of sinning. The idols in Arabia served as supposed intermediators to the one all-powerful God, the polytheists thought that they could sin in whatever way they wanted since they had their idols that could petition for them before God and guarantee forgivance for them, they just needed some blood-sacrifice, depending on the severity of the sin it could also be a human sacrifice, to bring to the idols to achieve that.

I don't know if that can be called polytheism in the truest sense of the word, because even the arabs believed in only one creator, one all-powerful God, and the idols they viewed as subgods or halfgods.

Originally Posted by Super Mario 

2. Charity. Islam advocates slavery. There is nothing to condemn it in Islam but the Quran mentions slavery as a normal thing.

Of course the Quran mentions slavery as a normal thing, just like the Torah did, cause it was a normal thing, but neither the Quran nor the Torah endorsed slavery, they merely accepted the reality and offered instructions to improve the situation of slaves, in addition the Quran declared the freeing up of slaves as a good deed, ie. through buying free. On top of that the Quran instructed that any slave who seeked freedom should be granted freedom and numerous other elements in the Quran implicitly advocating against slavery.

Originally Posted by Super Mario 

Islam advocates higher taxes on non-Muslims and no charity for non-Muslims. Islamic charity has failed. They have the most illiteracy in the world in Islamic countries.

Islam's doctrine is mostly based on a dichotomy of believer and unbeliever and often identifying the beliefer with the muslims and the unbeliever with anyone else. Given that categorical differentiation these islamic doctrines regulated everything according to it, also the institution of charity. But, and this is a big but, there were different opinions about it and different implementations throughout the islamic history, and another big but, is that the Quran makes no differentiation between a needy and poor non-muslim and a needy and poor muslim.

What you probably don't get is that I'm not defending Islam's doctrine, cause religious doctrines are always mostly human ideologies, policies and systems, and therefore not only fallible but also outrightly wrong on many fronts.

Instead I'm defending the Quran since it is one of God's messages to humanity.

That said, what has charity to do with literacy? Oh, and you're wrong about linking Islam with illiteracy: As can be seen here, the relation has nothing to do with religion, but only with economy, ie. which economic world the country is leveled on:
List of countries by literacy rate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Originally Posted by Super Mario 

The only place where Islamic society is succeeding is in a secular place like Dubai where the economy employs Americans, Europeans, Indians and Chinese to invest their money there and to design and build buildings and business. Every attempt to create a pure Islamic society has been doomed because the nature of monotheistic theocracies causes groups to come about who attack each other because their religion has a schizophrenic god who can be interpreted differently by different people..

Like already said I'm not defending Islam, but the Quran, and I'm certainly not advocating a theocracy as a solution for economic problems, quite to the contrary.
The message of God in the Quran is a spiritual one, dealing with how to liberate the soul from the grip and seductions of the devil, how to find the path of God, how to live a righteous life, what awaits one after death...

Politics and economy are human endeavours, and regardless of how good or how bad Islam fares or fared in these, it has no meaning toward the message of the Quran.

That said, the success of the islamic world in political and economic arenas changed considerably in its history, at times being very successful, at other times not...

To judge the islamic world in these terms nowadays, after it experienced a few hundred years under the oppression of the ottoman empire, after it completely missed the development of the modern world, only a few decades after they gained independence is more than rediculous.

Originally Posted by Super Mario 

God gets an F.

LOL.

God is enabling the success and failure of all humans and countries on this planet!

Taliesin

[Taliesin]

Originally Posted by DLQ2006 

That is completely wrong. While the Crusades were often needlessly bloody, you can say the exact same thing about the period of Islamic expansionism. Christianity was in retreat 300 years prior to the first crusade being called up and it was called up in defense of Islamic expansionism. A resistance that I am very grateful for since I am an heir to a society that is not an Islamic, third world country because of it. All of us not living under Islamic law should thank our lucky stars for the crusades!

No, it was completely right and a fact: Despite the non-existence of violent passages in the New Testament, the christian world has been way more bloody, violent, destructive and oppressive than the islamic world has ever been!

It's true, the islamic empire also expanded and conquered, just like any other empire before and after it, but you completely miss the point why the islamic empire could expand so easily: The christian eastern-roman-empire, the western roman part of the empire was in trouble because of the socalled barbars, was a bloodily oppressive regime first enforcing christianity violently inside its empire and then later enforcing even the doctrines of the catholic church. The other churches, espescially those from North-Africa, welcomed the expanding islamic empire, because it freed them from the oppression.
Sure, they became only second-class-citizens and had to pay tribute (they already paid tribute to the roman empire), but the major advantage was that they could continue to follow their church and doctrine without fear.

The oppression and violence in the christian world started as soon as christianity gained political power and it didn't stop until the secular movement took political power away from christian control, or did it stop? No, the christian secular movement was not much better and violence and oppression continued and sometimes even intensified in the time of colonialism, worldwars, holocaust...

Just to illustrate the legal reality in the christian-roman-world, espescially for jews, but also for anyone not being an orthodox christian:

Jewish History Sourcebook:
Jews and the Later Roman Law 315-531 CE

[Marcus Introduction] The Middle Ages, for the Jew at least, begin with the advent to power of Constantine the Great (306-337). He was the first Roman emperor to issue laws which radically limited the rights of Jews as citizens of the Roman Empire, a privilege conferred upon them by Caracalla in 212. As Christianity grew in power in the Roman Empire it influenced the emperors to limit further the civil and political rights of the Jews. Most of the imperial laws that deal with the Jews since the days of Constantine are found in the Latin Codex Theodosianius (438) and in the Latin and Greek code of Justinian (534). Both of these monumental works are therefore very important, for they enable us to trace the history of the progressive deterioration of Jewish rights.

...
The laws of Constantius (337-361), the second selection, forbid intermarriage between Jewish men and Christian women. A generation later, in 388, all marriages between Jews and Christians were forbidden. Constantius also did away with the right of Jews to possess slaves. This prohibition to trade in and to keep slaves at a time when slave labor was common was not merely an attempt to arrest conversion to Judaism; it was also a blow at the economic life of the Jew. It put him at a disadvantage with his Christian competitor to whom this economic privilege was assured.

The third selection, a law of Theodosius II (408-410), prohibits Jews from holding any advantageous office of honor in the Roman state. They were compelled, however, to assume those public offices which entailed huge financial losses and almost certain ruin, and they were not even granted the hope of an ultimate exemption. This Novella (New Law) III of Theodosius II also makes a direct attack on the Jewish religion by reenacting a law which forbade the building of new Jewish synagogues. This prohibition was known a generation before this. It was reenacted now, probably to pacify the aroused Christian mob in the Eastern Empire which desired to crush the religious spirit of the Jews who were massing at Jerusalem and confidently looking forward to the coming of a Messianic redeemer in 440. This disability, later taken over by some Muslim states, was reenunciated by the Church which sought to arrest the progress of Judaism, its old rival.

A Latin law of Justinian (527-565), the final selection, does not allow a Jew to bear witness in court against an orthodox Christian. Thus as early as the sixth century the Jews were already laboring under social, economic, civil, political, and religious disabilities.

I. Laws of Constantine the Great, October 18, 315: Concerning Jews, Heaven-Worshippers,* And Samaritans

We wish to make it known to the Jews and their elders and their patriarchs that if, after the enactment of this law, any one of them dares to attack with stones or some other manifestation of anger another who has fled their dangerous sect and attached himself to the worship of God [Christianity], he must speedily be given to the flames and burn~ together with all his accomplices.

Moreover, if any one of the population should join their abominable sect and attend their meetings, he will bear with them the deserved penalties.

*Heaven-Worshippers were a sect closely allied to Judaism.

II. Laws of Constantius, August 13, 339:Concerning Jews, Heaven-Worshippers, And Samaritans

This pertains to women, who live in our weaving factories and whom Jews, in their foulness, take in marriage. It is decreed that these women are to be restored to the weaving factories. [Marriages between Jews and Christian women of the imperial weaving factory are to be dissolved.]

This prohibition [of intermarriage] is to be preserved for the future lest the Jews induce Christian women to share their shameful lives. If they do this they will subject themselves to a sentence of death. [The Jewish husbands are to be punished with death.]

...

III. A Law of Theodosius 11, January 31, 439: Novella III: Concerning Jews, Samaritans, Heretics, And Pagans

Wherefore, although according to an old saying [of the Greek Hippocrates, the "father" of medicine] "no cure is to be applied in desperate sicknesses," nevertheless, in order that these dangerous sects which are unmindful of our times may not spread into life the more freely, in indiscriminate disorder as it were, we ordain by this law to be valid for all time:

No Jew - or no Samaritan who subscribes to neither [the Jewish nor the Christian] religion - shall obtain offices and dignities; to none shall the administration of city service be permitted; nor shall any one exercise the office of a defender [that is, overseer] of the city. Indeed, we believe it sinful that the enemies of the heavenly majesty and of the Roman laws should become the executors of our laws - the administration of which they have slyly obtained and that they, fortified by the authority of the acquired rank, should have the power to judge or decide as they wish against Christians, yes, frequently even over bishops of our holy religion themselves, and thus, as it were, insult our faith.

Moreover, for the same reason, we forbid that any synagogue shall rise as a new building. [Fewer synagogues meant less chance of Christians becoming Jews.] However, the propping up of old synagogues which are now threatened with imminent ruin is permitted. To these things we add that he who misleads a slave or a freeman against his will or by punishable advice, from the service of the Christian religion to that of an abominable sect and ritual, is to be punished by loss of property and life. [That is, the Jew who converts any one to Judaism loses life and property.]

On the one hand, whoever has built a synagogue must realize that he has worked to the advantage of the Catholic church [which will confiscate the building]; on the other hand, whoever has already secured the badge of office shall not hold the dignities he has acquired. On the contrary, he who worms himself into office must remain, as before, in the lowest rank even though he will have already earned an honorary office. And as for him who begins the building of a synagogue and is not moved by the desire of repairing it, he shall be punished by a fine of fifty pounds gold for his daring. Moreover, if he will have prevailed with his evil teachings over the faith of another, he shall see his wealth confiscated and himself soon subjected to a death sentence.
...

IV. A Law Of Justinian, July 28, 531: Concerning Heretics And Manichaeans And Samaritans

Since many judges, in deciding cases, have addressed us in need of our decision, asking that they be informed what ought to be done with witnesses who are heretics, whether their testimony ought to be received or rejected, we therefore ordain that no heretic, nor even they who cherish the Jewish superstition, may offer testimony against orthodox Christians who are engaged in litigation, whether one or the other of the parties is an orthodox Christian. [But a Jew may offer testimony on behalf of an orthodox Christian against some one who is not orthodox.]

...

Source: Jewish History Sourcebook: Jews and the Later Roman Law 315-531 CE

Originally Posted by DLQ2006 

You believe that the Muslims have been victims and have been fighting defensive wars against Christian aggression for the last 1400 years, yet which religion today is the one that is killing for religious conversion? It's pretty hard to make that argument considering that it does not reflect the realities of today. Furthermore, it is the realities of today that I much more concerned about.

You are projecting here, I don't believe that the islamic expansion happened in defense. I think that the islamic empire acted most of the time like any other empire in history, conquering and expanding for secular reasons and worldly riches. But I also think that many peoples that became part of the islamic empire welcomed the change of authority due to the oppressiveness and brutality of the christian world.

You want to talk about the realities of today? The reality is that we have seen the end of the coldwar, and we have now to clean up the side-effects of the coldwar.

Taliesin

[DLQ2006]

Originally Posted by Super Mario 

If my car didn't work after 1 month I would need it to be repaired.

Islam hasn't worked for 1400 years so it has to be faulty. God cannot be so imperfect. God's message would be so powerfully convincing every enlightened person would follow it not just illiterate people.

Conclusion is that God has never spoken to humanity. These are myths for politics and mind control.

I went to respond to Taliesin but then read this and it pretty much sums it up in a nutshell. It all boils down to the fact that the Qur'an, much like other religious scriptures are very ambiguous. I happen to believe that God wants life to be a mystery. That the true test for humankind is simply what the goodness or darkness is of each individual soul.

If one relgion had the answers, then the motivation for people to be good would be due to what it is they believe will be their certain reward for being so. In the same sense, their motivation for not being bad to others would be driven by a fear of a certain punishment for it. That is not a true test of the spirit. Islam teaches about a God that is so jealous that he would first make his message incredibly ambiguous, and then have this huge amount of blooshed over the misinterpretation of it.

Even considering that the Qur'an is to be interpreted within in the context of time (And Taliesin has made a very salient arguement for this), then people today and since the times the Qur'an was written are still left with a bunch of medieval stories in which we have no way of proving to be accurate. Each religion believes that things went down the way their scriptures tell them they did. People alive today have no way of really knowing who is correct or how it really happened. Stories in our time get distorted over a relatively short period of time, and we have the advantage of modern methods of communication and record keeping.

I cannot fathom a God that would punish people so severely for not taking a leap in faith in some religion that they are told is true by others, that is refuted by various other religious groups based on the same grounds and logic, and that is not only not provable by other historical documents, but that is marginally more believable than mythological stories from the past. This is why I left Christianity (which was a long, and painful process) and also why I cannot be swayed by any other religion.

[DLQ2006]

Taliesin;

No, it was completely right and a fact: Despite the non-existence of violent passages in the New Testament, the christian world has been way more bloody, violent, destructive and oppressive than the islamic world has ever been!

You keep saying this and while many historians contradict this, how do you account for the fact that Islam STILL Treats non-muslims in Muslim countries as second class citizens? Why is it that Muslims live with more freedom, liberty, rights, and prosperity in countries founded on Judeo-Christian principals than they do in countries founded on Islamic ones?

We can dispute history all day, but then how do you account for the fact that Islam today is the religion that still defends the stoning of aldulterers, while no other religion does? What is it in history that we are not aware of that turned all these barbaric Christians into humanitarians, but why it is that Islam has barely evolved beyond barbarism over the last 1400 years?

Could it be that just maybe, people in general used to be much more barbaric but that some religions and cultures have been far more conducive to socially evolving beyond that?

And this Dhimmi status is more than a simple tax. The Jews and Christians living in Muslim lands have never been able to worship freely. While they may not have been killed for it, life was made so miserable that converting to Islam was about the only way to not live a life of complete poverty, humiliation, and enslavement. Anybody who does any looking into the status of Dimmitude under Islam can see that it just about doesn't get any more oppressive than that. So, we are to believe that the expansion of Islam took place because so many people prefered oppression under Islam, than oppression under Christianity? Yet, Jewish people and Christians have been flocking to the west for hundreds of years now. Even Muslims are coming here while Christians and Jews aren't flocking to Islamic lands for some reason.

If what you say is true........what historical event turned the tide of change in the direction where free people do not choose to leave behind Western democracies in search of a life under a religious tyranny, but many of those living under such tyrannies are flocking to western countries?

[Super Mario]

Originally Posted by Taliesin 

The problem with polytheism, at least in the case of arabian polytheism, was that every additional idol allowed another form of sinning.

Asia has 2 billion polytheists right now. Why are they peaceful compared to Muslims who kill each other so much?

Instead I'm defending the Quran since it is one of God's messages to humanity.

God isn't a person who can send messages. That is an anthropic concept and is man made.

God is enabling the success and failure of all humans and countries on this planet!

Therefore God is enabling the success of Americans and Europeans by giving them the brains and intelligence to create every great thing we have today.

[Taliesin]

Originally Posted by DLQ2006 

Taliesin;



You keep saying this and while many historians contradict this,

I keep saying this because it's historical fact.

Originally Posted by DLQ2006 

how do you account for the fact that Islam STILL Treats non-muslims in Muslim countries as second class citizens? Why is it that Muslims live with more freedom, liberty, rights, and prosperity in countries founded on Judeo-Christian principals than they do in countries founded on Islamic ones?
We can dispute history all day, but then how do you account for the fact that Islam today is the religion that still defends the stoning of aldulterers, while no other religion does? What is it in history that we are not aware of that turned all these barbaric Christians into humanitarians, but why it is that Islam has barely evolved beyond barbarism over the last 1400 years?

Modernity, secularism... relativism... , free speech, free expression, monopoly of violence, modern state, representative democracy based on a constitution and secured by a court-system... which still are not convincingly established in the islamic world, are responsible for what you cherish in the western world.

These concepts were developed in a fight against the oppressive political christianity. Ironically, the reason why the islamic world hasn't developed these things, too, at about the same time, is that there was never the one big religious oppressive mosque-organisation to fight against.

Ironically, too, what caused the christian world to accelerate development was the incredible amount of violence and bloodshed within christianity itself.

But on the other hand, the islamic world has still about six hundred years to come to an even. Given the fact that the islamic world developed from an arabic world that was based on a nearly lawless tribal system, they developed relatively well and quick, considering the fact that the christian world started on the back of the roman empire, that already developed much of the legal and political institutions before christianity came up.

And lastly, the christian world received inspiration, knowledge, ideas, engineering and scientific method, from the islamic world's golden age.

Originally Posted by DLQ2006 

Could it be that just maybe, people in general used to be much more barbaric but that some religions and cultures have been far more conducive to socially evolving beyond that?

No, barbarism means that the stronger one can enforce his interests due to his strength, while the weaker one has no rights. So, in the end what differentiates a society from barbarism is not if they institute a punishment on the basis of emprisonment or a punishment based on executions, hand-cutting, whipping..., but if they have some common law that protects the weak against the strong and that judges not on the basis of strength or money but only on truth and justice.

The western world has developed a set of legal and political institutions on the basis of the roman republic's institutions, as a way to get free from the oppression of political christianity.

Through these institutions they could monopolise violence in the hand of the state, and the technology of modern weapons and their constant development secured that monopoly since it became ever more difficult for average people to engineer competitive things. So in the end, what secured modernity was industriliasation and what made it possible: Division of workforce, rational use of ressources, a competition in ideas, published in magazines and books, made possible through the bookprint with moving types...

It's a multitude of developments that have nothing to do with religion nor culture that brought the change. If you were religious you could say it was fate, if not, a happy coincidence.

Oh, not to forget that it was always violence that went with the development, the modern states were able to eventually establish a monopoly on violence and establish law and order within the states, but on the other hand they directed the violent potential to the outside. The modern states were nearly always in a state of war with each other, only sometimes remedied through alliances and pacts, wars came about in a nearly constant stream, and the states forced development in order to gain a competitive edge against their neighbouring countries in terms of weapon-systems and war-capabilities.

To nourish that state-system, ressources were in dire need, and after getting low in local ressources, colonialism was the solution to gain additional ones.

You might be proud about the western system now, but it went first through horrible and destructive times to come to this phase.

I can only hope that the islamic world doesn't have to run through the same to get even.

Originally Posted by DLQ2006 

And this Dhimmi status is more than a simple tax. The Jews and Christians living in Muslim lands have never been able to worship freely. While they may not have been killed for it, life was made so miserable that converting to Islam was about the only way to not live a life of complete poverty, humiliation, and enslavement. Anybody who does any looking into the status of Dimmitude under Islam can see that it just about doesn't get any more oppressive than that.


So, we are to believe that the expansion of Islam took place because so many people prefered oppression under Islam, than oppression under Christianity? Yet, Jewish people and Christians have been flocking to the west for hundreds of years now. Even Muslims are coming here while Christians and Jews aren't flocking to Islamic lands for some reason.

1. The Quran doesn't endorse a dhimmi-status and the discrimination and humiliation that it embodied in some parts and some times of the islamic world (the situation of dhimmis varied hugely depending on which islamic empire was in power). Islam has developed many wrong doctrines... but on the other hand at times there were christian and jewish communities in the islamic world that could legally leave the dhimmi-status without converting to Islam. Regardless, it's a human model and development, the Quran's mentioning of subdueing "those of the christians and jews that didn't believe in God and the last day" was meant militarily and specifically reserved for those polytheistic christian and jewish tribes that allied themselves with polytheistic Mecca.
It was a wrong development to extend that special verse to all christians and jews, if they believed in God and the last day or not, if they fought on the side of polytheists or not...

2. Despite the discrimination through the dhimmi-status, it was still way better for many christians, those that were not in line with the catholic church, and jews than the situation they had to endure in the christian world.

3. Nowadays the situation has reversed, now the situation for christian and jews is better in the western world, and also for non-orthodox muslims. Free speech and free worship aside, there is another motivation for people to flock to the western world: economic possibilities.

Originally Posted by DLQ2006 

If what you say is true........what historical event turned the tide of change in the direction where free people do not choose to leave behind Western democracies in search of a life under a religious tyranny, but many of those living under such tyrannies are flocking to western countries?

See above. People are always flocking to a place they can live more freely and can survive and where the economic possibilities are better, in the past the islamic world was a relatively better place to live in than the christian world, nowadays it's the other way around.

But all in all, given all the circumstances, the islamic world still has done pretty well, even today, and when considering that the christian world had six hundred years more time and the roman republic-system to build upon, it's no surprise either.

I hope though, if God wills, that the islamic world will make its way to modernity without copying the destructive phases the christian world went through.

Taliesin

[Taliesin]

Originally Posted by Super Mario 

Asia has 2 billion polytheists right now. Why are they peaceful compared to Muslims who kill each other so much?

History my friend is key to understanding. Radical islamism is driving the violence in the islamic world, and the reason why the islamic world has developed such a violent fundamentalism is because it was enflamed (not invented, mind you), supported and instrumentalised by the US during the coldwar for the purpose of defeating the Soviet-Union and keeping out the ideology of communism and communists from the strategically important and ressource-rich middle-east.

Originally Posted by Super Mario 

God isn't a person who can send messages. That is an anthropic concept and is man made.

There is nothing that God can't do, and if He can create us and the universe, He can surely send messages.

Originally Posted by Super Mario 

Therefore God is enabling the success of Americans and Europeans by giving them the brains and intelligence to create every great thing we have today.

That's what I said, God is enabling the success and failure of everyone on this planet, so it would be rediculous to judge God based on the temporary economic failure of parts of humanity, ie. thirdworld.

Taliesin

[Super Mario]

Originally Posted by Taliesin 

History my friend is key to understanding. Radical islamism is driving the violence in the islamic world, and the reason why the islamic world has developed such a violent fundamentalism is because it was enflamed (not invented, mind you), supported and instrumentalised by the US during the coldwar for the purpose of defeating the Soviet-Union and keeping out the ideology of communism and communists from the strategically important and ressource-rich middle-east.
Taliesin

Bogus. Violent Islamism is centuries old and has existed perpetually since its earliest days. It always finds excuses for its continued existence by blaming everyone else for its failure. Other religions evolved faster because they did not have global imperialist ambitions as part of their belief system and so only had themselves to blame.

Quran is manmade. Deal with it. All religions are.

[Taliesin]

Originally Posted by Super Mario 

Bogus. Violent Islamism is centuries old and has existed perpetually since its earliest days. It always finds excuses for its continued existence by blaming everyone else for its failure. Other religions evolved faster because they did not have global imperialist ambitions as part of their belief system and so only had themselves to blame.

Quran is manmade. Deal with it. All religions are.

It's a hobby of western islamophobes to mix modern islamism with the history of the islamic world, and to claim it's all just one and the same trip, but it's not only dishonest, it's rediculous, but on the other hand they are not alone to blame, radical islamists themselves are painting themselves as being that.

Otherwise I agree, religions are manmade and fallible, but I think and believe that the torah, the gospel and the Quran are indeed God's message to humanity.

Taliesin

[Taliesin]

Originally Posted by DLQ2006 

I cannot fathom a God that would punish people so severely for not taking a leap in faith in some religion that they are told is true by others, that is refuted by various other religious groups based on the same grounds and logic, and that is not only not provable by other historical documents, but that is marginally more believable than mythological stories from the past. This is why I left Christianity (which was a long, and painful process) and also why I cannot be swayed by any other religion.

I hear that a lot from atheists, that they cannot imagine God punishing people eternally in hell, even if these people were evil and had all their life to change their ways and to repent, but didn't do it. Therefore according to them God isn't real, or at least that God never sent (a) message(s) to humanity.

God created us all and provided us with the means to live, air to breath, water to drink and meat/vegetables/fruits to eat, He gave us life, spirit, love and family.

What He asks of us is to believe in Him/to love/thank Him and to refrain from murdering, stealing, adultering, giving false witness, idolatry..., and instead to love the next like yourself, to do good, to help the poor and needy, to respect, love and care for the parents, and to stand up against evil, injustice and oppression.

For those that do so in their life and repented their sins and asked for forgivance and changed for the better, He promises after ressurection and judgment day an eternal blissful life in His presence, while He warns of an eternal punishment in hell for the worst of the others, for the murderers, the rapists, the greedy thiefes, the idolators and cheaters, anyone who didn't repent and changed their evil ways in this life.

While I myself and personally find it hard for even the evil people to burn in hell forever, it's not my business and I trust God that He knows what He does.

Taliesin

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by Super Mario 

Bogus. Violent Islamism is centuries old and has existed perpetually since its earliest days. It always finds excuses for its continued existence by blaming everyone else for its failure. Other religions evolved faster because they did not have global imperialist ambitions as part of their belief system and so only had themselves to blame.

Quran is manmade. Deal with it. All religions are.

I have no opinion either way on the subject being debated in here, but I'd just like to point out that "violent Islamism" has not existed perpetually since its earliest days. Islam was a remarkably peaceful and stable empire for quite a few centuries before 1000 AD and for close to a century after this.

It should be noted that the flourishing of natural philosophy and all that good Greek stuff that they then passed on to the Christian peoples was precisely because of this peaceful regime. When Islam started experiencing trouble at its borders and more conservative leaders came to power in the centuries after 1000 AD, this sort of "free thought" started becoming depressed.

greg

[Super Mario]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

I have no opinion either way on the subject being debated in here, but I'd just like to point out that "violent Islamism" has not existed perpetually since its earliest days. Islam was a remarkably peaceful and stable empire for quite a few centuries before 1000 AD and for close to a century after this. greg

That is wrong.

The invasions across North Africa were met with battles and chroniclers who wrote about the invasion were killed and their writings burned.

The invasion into central and south Asia began immediately and is recorded as being highly violent and suppressive. Records could not be suppressed because there were too many Hindus and Buddhists to control.

It's a hobby of western islamophobes to mix modern islamism with the history of the islamic world

Taliesin... please be so kind to tell us when history ended and modern Islamism began. Tell the year or decade or generation when one began and the other ended. In other cultures it is possible to pin point when new movements began and ended.

[Taliesin]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

I have no opinion either way on the subject being debated in here, but I'd just like to point out that "violent Islamism" has not existed perpetually since its earliest days. Islam was a remarkably peaceful and stable empire for quite a few centuries before 1000 AD and for close to a century after this.

It should be noted that the flourishing of natural philosophy and all that good Greek stuff that they then passed on to the Christian peoples was precisely because of this peaceful regime. When Islam started experiencing trouble at its borders and more conservative leaders came to power in the centuries after 1000 AD, this sort of "free thought" started becoming depressed.

greg

Empires are inherently dynamic entities, they get founded, expand, come to a still, and then get conquered by other empires. The islamic empires were no different.

To link the peaceful times of an empire with "free/liberal thought" and the expanding times of an empire with "conservative circles" is a stretch, and more like a coincidence than a causal link.

Taliesin

[Taliesin]

Originally Posted by Super Mario 

That is wrong.

The invasions across North Africa were met with battles and chroniclers who wrote about the invasion were killed and their writings burned.

I think you don't have understood what ShortcutToMoncton has written.

The expansion of the first islamic empire across North-Africa was done militarily, but to claim chroniclers were killed and their writings burned, is a paradox and even contradictory statement, don't you think?

Originally Posted by Super Mario 

The invasion into central and south Asia began immediately and is recorded as being highly violent and suppressive. Records could not be suppressed because there were too many Hindus and Buddhists to control.

Suppressed records? What a joke, muslim historians are the main-source for the history of the conquest in India. Today's fundamentalist hindus use these islamic historians to complement their propaganda.

You have a strangely distorted view of history.

The first invasion and raids happened under the ummayyad-dynasty during the seventh century, the first real sustained conquest of parts of India or Hindustan happened a few centuries later by the newly created Ghaznavid-empire, that was established by turkish slave-generals, but that eventually got conquered by the Ghori-dynasty...

What can be gathered from this is that whenever an empire got established it expanded, until it broke down or got conquered again by another empire.

This went on like this until the mongols/tartars under the leadership of Timur, a descendant of Dschingis Khan, came up and established their empire conquering the islamic empires and destroying Bagdad. Eventually though these mongols converted to Islam and one descendant of Timur conquered much of India and established an empire there, that wasn't dismantled until the British empire colonised India or Hindustan (ie. including today's Pakistan).

I'm pretty sure that there have been massacres committed against hindus by muslims from these mentioned empires, including destruction of hindu-temples, but these incidents varied hugely from empire to empire, there was never a sustained effort to genocide polytheists and to let live the converts, otherwise there would be no hindus today.

Massacres are always a shame for humanity, regardless under which religion they were committed.

Originally Posted by Super Mario 

Taliesin... please be so kind to tell us when history ended and modern Islamism began. Tell the year or decade or generation when one began and the other ended. In other cultures it is possible to pin point when new movements began and ended.

"to tell us"? Do you consist of multiple personalities?

Read it up for yourself: Islamism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Taliesin

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by Super Mario

That is wrong.

The invasions across North Africa were met with battles and chroniclers who wrote about the invasion were killed and their writings burned.

The invasion into central and south Asia began immediately and is recorded as being highly violent and suppressive. Records could not be suppressed because there were too many Hindus and Buddhists to control.

You're confusing "empire stability" with "empire expansion." I think there is warfare at the fringes of every empire in history; that's how they become empires, by conquering an every-expanding piece of land. That being said, the Islamic empire itself (again, apart from the expansion at the edges) was quite stable and peaceful within the empire itself during my stated time period.

Originally Posted by Taliesin 

Empires are inherently dynamic entities, they get founded, expand, come to a still, and then get conquered by other empires. The islamic empires were no different.

To link the peaceful times of an empire with "free/liberal thought" and the expanding times of an empire with "conservative circles" is a stretch, and more like a coincidence than a causal link.

Taliesin

But the growth of natural philosophy through modern history has been linked with free/liberal thought, which comes most often when empires or civilizations are relatively stable – or, in other words, relatively comfortable, rich, and indulgent enough to overlook anything that might be considered "sketchy." Natural philosophy by definition involves questioning what is "right." Increasingly conservative and/or religious leadership generally views such questioning of established theology as not a good thing – especially as some of the "established religious beliefs" of the day involving the world could be relatively easily shown to be inconsistent, if not clearly wrong. Whether you use Rome or Islam or the Middle Ages, this trend can be clearly seen.

According to most History of Science historians, it certainly had a strong influence on the stagnation and eventual death of Islamic science. This is from the book "A History of Science in Society: From Philosophy to Utility, by Andrew Ede and Lesley B. Cormack (both of whom - and Cormack in particular - are quite well-known and respected in the field):

The interest in natural philosophy that grew during the Islamic Renaissance faded as the Islamic world became fractured and in general more conservative. The hakim were often brilliant individual thinkers, but for the most part they failed to reach a kind of critical mass that would make research in natural philosophy a desirable commodity. The natural philosophers were also victims of their own success, for, having created a model of idea Arabic natural philosophy (particularly in areas like medicine and astronomy), the schools slowly shifted from active research to perpetuation of established work. The failure to create an enduring research ethic was the result of a number of factors such as the political turmoil that disrupted all aspects of society and the swings from a high level of religious tolerance to strict fundamentalism that occurred almost overnight when leadership changed hands, making it potentially dangerous to engage in work that suddenly might be deemed unacceptable. It may also have reflected the level of respect according to the work of the great thinkers, which made new work more difficult to disseminate as the old work became increasingly unchallengable.

Cultural and religious changes also affected the place of natural philosophy. Mysticism on one hand and more doctrinaire Islam on the other rose as the dominant religious forces in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries. The Islamic Empire was increasingly under threat militarily, with incursions by the Mongols in the east, the reconquest of Spain in the west, and infighting among the kingdoms within the empire itself. Islamic law increasingly defined the proper sphere for human creativity; this did not include skepticism, nor any real place for personal opinion or secular corporate identity. In parts of the Muslim world world pictures of people or nature were banned because it was thought they were idolatrous. This placed rather severe limits on certain kinds of investigations such as botany and hampered the communication of observations through texts. The rulers of religious states were also concerned that philosophy of any kind would conflict with theology, and so they were less willing to support work by scholars interested in those topics. There may also have been an element of psychological superiority that came from the power and glory of the richest Islamic states. In the early days of Islam, Greek knowledge and Roman power were still part of common knowledge, but 500 years after the fall of Rome and the end of the Byzantine empire, the old world had clearly been surpassed by the new. Why then waste time and effort in studying the remnants of a failed (and pagan) society?

Even the appearance of the barbarous and ill-educated knights of western Europe seemed of little threat to the power of the Islamic world.

Where do you get your differing opinion? Again, I dabble in the History of Science, and I've heard and read about this connection with a "conservative/religious" rise and the stagnation or suppression of natural philosophy many times.

greg

[Taliesin]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

But the growth of natural philosophy through modern history has been linked with free/liberal thought, which comes most often when empires or civilizations are relatively stable – or, in other words, relatively comfortable, rich, and indulgent enough to overlook anything that might be considered "sketchy." Natural philosophy by definition involves questioning what is "right." Increasingly conservative and/or religious leadership generally views such questioning of established theology as not a good thing – especially as some of the "established religious beliefs" of the day involving the world could be relatively easily shown to be inconsistent, if not clearly wrong. Whether you use Rome or Islam or the Middle Ages, this trend can be clearly seen.

According to most History of Science historians, it certainly had a strong influence on the stagnation and eventual death of Islamic science. This is from the book "A History of Science in Society: From Philosophy to Utility, by Andrew Ede and Lesley B. Cormack (both of whom - and Cormack in particular - are quite well-known and respected in the field):



Where do you get your differing opinion? Again, I dabble in the History of Science, and I've heard and read about this connection with a "conservative/religious" rise and the stagnation or suppression of natural philosophy many times.

greg

I think the golden age of Islam can be attributed not to the peaceful nature of the empire, but due to the internal fracture of power, competing claims on leadership with the ummayads in Spain and the abbasids in Iraq/Iran. The internal problems of authority provided the basis for the competition of new ideas and thinking. It was a creative time not in spite but because of the problems. It was a time where major philosophical discussions were made, what it meant to do God's will, who can rightfully claim leadership, what culture and administration is the ideal one, the arabic one, the byzantine one, the persian one.
All that provided for an atmosphere of competing ideas, that was very fruitful and tolerant.

But eventually the abbasids were able to get the internal problems under control when they had the idea of creating a slave-military-force, the mamluks, from newly arrived and converted turkish tribes from East-Asia.

That was not only an ironic twist in history, when viewing the next centuries in hindsight, cause these and similar turkish tribes would eventually, beginning with the mamluks, continuing with the seljuks... form the ottomanic empire, dethroning the arabs and persians, but also an important watershed on the field of theology.

Sunnism was fractured in many different schools and strains, but eventually they developed the idea that the turmoil and problems of the islamic world as seen during the times of the ummayads and abbasids, were occuring because of the fractured theology. Slowly but surely they consolidated a sort of peaceful theology, that would allow for different schools of thought to be part of one big umbrella of sunnitic theology, with the goal of preventing any real conflicts between them. The major idea was to postpone judgment until judgment day and to never call any muslim a heretic or apostate who views himself as a muslim and is part of one of the sunnitic schools of thought.

But not all schools of thought were under the umbrella of sunnism, there were the shiites, and most important there were the liberals/modernists/rationalists, all competing for influence in the abbasid empire.

I think the most critical time was the phase in which Al-Mamun and his successors were caliphs, who were favouring the liberals/rationalists so much, that they wanted their theology and point of view to become the one defacto standard. For that purpose they instituted a sort of inquisition that questioned the elites upon their point of view regarding faith and theology, with the possible punishment of death.

That oppression of traditionalist theology and their representatives gradually achieved the opposite, the average people grew sympathies with the persecuted ones in the prisons and their at face-value theology of the Quran and hadith, until a later abbasid caliph had no other opportunity but to switch sides and to embrace the tradionialists and their theology.

The liberals/rationalists lost their influence with the power-structures and the newly freed traditionalists gained momentum and triumph.

Slowly but surely the liberals/rationalists lost their ground and retreated with the last nail in their coffin being hammered in during the 13th century, when a desendant of Dshingis Khan expanded the Khan-empire to the islamic world, laying siege to Bagdad and completey destroying it and killing all its inhabitants. The mongols had a tactic of letting towns that immediately surrendered to live and exist unharmed, while completely destroying towns and killing all its inhabitants, that rejected immediate surrender.
That way, and with Bagdad serving as illustration, some islamic towns surrendered, including Damaskus, shias were even fighting in the army of the Khans due to fear of being massacred.

The first organized and successful resistance was achieved in Egypt under the mamluks, and the mongols were repelled from that area.

But that is leading too far, so in summary, one can say that the confusing and turbulent times during the abbasid caliphate created an athmosphere where free thought, ideas, inventions... could blossom, until its decline started when the abbasid caliphs started to enforce liberalism/rationalism and oppressing the traditional strain of sunnism, which caused the opposite effect and after the triumphalistic victory of the tradionalists turned the tides ending with the complete destruction of Bagdad, one of the main-bases of liberalists/rationalists as a sort of divine fanal.

Taliesin

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

Are there not passages in the Bible where the Christian god kills or commands the death of those with different beliefs?

The great flood, Jericho, and Sodem and Gamora come to mind.

What does this have to do with the topic? Whenever anyone questions Islam, someone has to bring up Christianity as if it matters in this discussion.

And it's not done to further along the discussion.

DLQ2006 probably mentioned he had no religious affiliation for this reason.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Sayf-Allah 

Or the jewish commandment to commit genocide and ethnic cleansing.

But lets ignore that and instead focus on twisting the words of the Quran shall we? This is MacNN remember.

Oh please the OT and NT get slammed in here just as much.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Super Mario 

If my car didn't work after 1 month I would need it to be repaired.

Islam hasn't worked for 1400 years so it has to be faulty. God cannot be so imperfect. God's message would be so powerfully convincing every enlightened person would follow it not just illiterate people.

Conclusion is that God has never spoken to humanity. These are myths for politics and mind control.

What a bizarro spin. Islam hasn't done these things. Man has.

Man uses anything he can for mind control and spin. Not religion.

But since that would put you too in the fray, you use a scapegoat to make yourself feel more superior.

You suck just as badly as the rest of us.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

What does this have to do with the topic? Whenever anyone questions Islam, someone has to bring up Christianity as if it matters in this discussion.

And it's not done to further along the discussion.

DLQ2006 probably mentioned he had no religious affiliation for this reason.

Exactly. Based upon what DLQ2006 said in his original post ("I would rather be aligned with a group of polytheistic Jews than to be aligned with a religion that believes in killing others because of their religious beliefs or that believe in a God that would want this"), it seems to me that he is more concerned about people in the modern world who follow the calls and examples from their God(s) to kill those who hold different beliefs then he is about Islam's calls to kill those who hold different beliefs,

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

Exactly. Based upon what DLQ2006 said in his original post ("I would rather be aligned with a group of polytheistic Jews than to be aligned with a religion that believes in killing others because of their religious beliefs or that believe in a God that would want this"), it seems to me that he is more concerned about people in the modern world who follow the calls and examples from their God(s) to kill those who hold different beliefs then he is about Islam's calls to kill those who hold different beliefs,

No, he was clearly questioning the Quran.

Originally Posted by DLQ2006 

I'm not interesting in defending Christianity or Judiasm. I'm interested in focusing on Islam because there are large groups of Muslims dedicated to killing Christians and Jews and they justify this by reference to the Islamic scriptures.

Anytime it is, the same jokers come in here, knee-jerk and start being snarky about other religions in the process derailing the thread.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by Taliesin 

I think the golden age of Islam can be attributed not to the peaceful nature of the empire, but due to the internal fracture of power, competing claims on leadership with the ummayads in Spain and the abbasids in Iraq/Iran.

That's very interesting. I don't know a high level of detail on Islam, besides the books I've read that detail a chapter or so on the subject...do you have any sort of literature you can recommend to flesh out your explanation?

greg

[Taliesin]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

That's very interesting. I don't know a high level of detail on Islam, besides the books I've read that detail a chapter or so on the subject...do you have any sort of literature you can recommend to flesh out your explanation?

greg

It can't be too difficult to find english-language books about the history of the abbasid empire. Go to your local unversity-library and do some research.

My posting merely summed up conventional wisdom and nothing out of the ordinary.

It's true, the abbasid empire was the first firmly established empire, with a real infastructure and an efficient organisation/administration, and thus providing the peaceful basis for an exchange of ideas and knowledge within the empire.

So, your point has clearly a sound basis.

But I think that there is another dimension, and that is the fractured political power, the absence of an established religious doctrine and the consequence of many different religious and secular strains of thought trying to gain influence in the abbasid empire that created a fruitful environment.

Taliesin

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

Anytime it is, the same jokers come in here, knee-jerk and start being snarky about other religions in the process derailing the thread.

It's not derailing. The only way to discuss whether one thing is noteworthy is by comparing it to other things of the same nature. Since Christianity is the best known of other things of the same nature as Islam (religions), among the general population of readers of this board as well as the original poster in this thread, it is natural to explain aspects of Islam in terms of their comparison to Christianity. Imagine trying to explain an electric car without mentioning anything about internal combustion cars, or trying to understand monkeys without ever referring to something about humans. Comparison against the more familiar in order to understand the less familiar is an essential conversational tool. Get used to to it.