[vmarks]

We've had a lot of discussion in the past few days, both over the number of civilians dead in Iraq, and in London.

At the same time, the thread on voting being apostasy was just closed because it lived out it's purpose, to discuss the attitude that voting is apostasy for Muslims.

With that history in mind, I bring you now the latest from Islamic law scholars:

The following are excerpts from interviews with the director of the Al-Maqreze Centre for Historical Studies, Dr. Hani Al-Siba'i. The first aired on Al-Jazeera TV on July 8, 2005; in it, Al-Siba'i discussed the London bombings. (To view this clip, visit http://memritv.org/search.asp?ACT=S9&P1=748 . ) It is followed by an interview he gave on AMB TV which aired on February 22, 2005. (To view this clip, visit http://memritv.org/search.asp?ACT=S9&P1=576 .)


Al-Siba'i: "The term 'civilians' does not exist in Islamic religious law. Dr. Karmi is sitting here, and I am sitting here, and I'm familiar with religious law. There is no such term as 'civilians' in the modern Western sense. People are either of Dar Al-Harb or not.

"These institutes, like the Islamic Association [of Britain], represent white-collar people, the effendis, people with 'prestige.' They only represent their own interests and do not mix in society. They don't know... Ask other Muslims... People see them only on their TV screens. They don't participate in the demonstrations for the poor. They are not interested in people's problems. We invite them, and they don't show up."

Host: "The Muslim Association of Britain represents 400 Islamic organizations..."

Al-Siba'i: "These are all interest groups. With all due respect, the Muslim Brotherhood and the Sheik Moududi group do business with one another."

Host: "Are you claiming they are not Muslims?"

Al-Siba'i: "They are behind all these movements. They promote some people nobody has heard of. Then they promote some journalists."

Host: "Excuse me, who do you want to promote? Those who want the banner of 'There is no god but Allah' over the Queen of England and Buckingham Palace? Those who want to establish a caliphate and turn the Queen of England into a captive? Those who say [England] is Dar Al-Harb and property there can be plundered? Are those the kind of people you want?"

Al-Siba'i: "These associations do not represent the Muslim public. They collaborate with the British police for certain interests. They want an 'English Islam,' and not the Islam that was sent to the Prophet Muhammad. If Al-Qa'ida indeed carried out this act, it is a great victory for it. It rubbed the noses of the world's eight most powerful countries in the mud. This victory is a blow to the economy..."


And on AMB, Al-Siba'i says " In our Islamic rules of war, one can be a 'combatant', a 'non-combatant', or 'protected by an agreement.' A person can be a combatant even if he does not carry a weapon. In other words, a person who came to wash and cook for the American soldiers in order to free them to fight – like the Nepalese – such a person is considered a combatant."


To sum up, for Al-Siba'i, the London bombing is a victory, there are no civilians, only the world of Islam, and the world of war, and anything not of the world of Islam can be taken or killed.

It is important to bring statements like these to light, so that we can see the views of those who take pride in the 'victory' of terrorists.

[SimpleLife]

Please remind us what is the purpose of extremist Islamic terrorism according to Islamic religious Law.

[TETENAL]

A truly deluded person.

[undotwa]

Originally Posted by vmarks

...

Your signature seems to suggest that you are Moslem. Is that true?

[Wiskedjak]

Does the term "civilians" exist in Christian or Jewish religious law?

[vmarks]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak

Does the term "civilians" exist in Christian or Jewish religious law?

The specific English word 'civilian' does not, only because English is not the language used to write the religious law of the Jews or Christians.

The concept as it is commonly understood today does exist in those religions.

The point Al-Siba'i makes is that the concept does not exist in Islam because the closest thing to it are non-combatants, and non-combatants must be so detached from combat as to not exist- also, combat is defined as the conflict between the world of Islam (under Sharia law) and the world of War, (anything that has resisted conversion to Islamic law thus far.)

[Taliesin]

Originally Posted by vmarks

...to discuss the attitude that voting is apostasy for Muslims.

You mean the attitude of extremists, ie. radical Islamists that think that voting is apostasy...

You are doing again and again the same mistake reporting the views of extremists and claiming that is the opinion of real Islam. Actually extremism in and of itself is unislamic as well as compulsory in religious matters.

You would do your own credibility a big favour if you make the distinction between Islam (and therein between Shia and Sunni) and Islamism or Wahabism.

But on topic, in the Quran it is clearly prohibited to kill anyone that doesn't fight, as well as it is prohibited to start a war, ie. only defensive wars are allowed or wars to free oppressed, if these people asked the muslims to free them and if they are oppressed because they believe in the one God all followers of the abrahamitic religions worship. But even when that defensive or liberating war is in process it is still prohibited to kill people that are not fighting. That's as close as you can get to the legal term of "civilians".

That said killing civilians of the warstarting-opponent is allowed in the eye-to-eye-retaliation-method, if the warstarting opponent has killed civilians among the own people, but it is suggested to do without it and to forgive and to trust in God.

Taliesin

[vmarks]

I mentioned the attitude, and I didn't specify that all Muslims held it. Clearly, the Muslims who voted in Afghanistan and Iraq are either apostates or the people claiming so are extremists.

The distinction over Shia, Sunni, and Wahab extremists becomes a distinction without a difference, when there are extremists from all the branches you named.

The war that the extremists claim they're fighting is one that is 1400 years old. Hence the goal to reclaim Spain and France as Muslim land. The people doing the fighting say that the Quran tells them that any Muslim who doesn't take up arms in a war they view as defensive is also sinning.

As for the One G-d issue, they also state that Muslims worship three gods, and sin by rejecting Islam. They also state that Jews are sons of monkeys and pigs, and have distorted the Torah. So much for that notion.

You saw what al-Siba'i said: He says that it is not prohibited to kill people who are not actively fighting, but do tasks that enable soldiers to fight. He cites the Nepalese who cook and clean so that the soldier does not have to.

But what strikes me most of all, is that you haven't said anything to argue against al-Siba'i, other than to blame me for pointing out what he said, and say 'he's wrong!' And then you vaguely admit that he's right, there are no civilians in Islamic law. Only non-combatants, which he addresses.

Can you point out where he gets his ideas from in Quran and Sunna, and then show us and him why he is wrong?

[Macrobat]

Interestingly enough, the very same Muslims who are so quick to jump on vmarks for this thread qualify for the definition of "white collar Muslims" that al-Siba'i criticizes in the interview.

"These institutes, like the Islamic Association [of Britain], represent white-collar people, the effendis, people with 'prestige.' They only represent their own interests and do not mix in society. They don't know... Ask other Muslims... People see them only on their TV screens. They don't participate in the demonstrations for the poor. They are not interested in people's problems. We invite them, and they don't show up."

So, I would submit, that they are just as "out of touch" with the goals and intentions of these people as any Christian, Hindu, Buddhist, Jew or atheist/agnostic - according to al-Siba'i, at least.

Perhaps that incite is a clue to the problem, as well.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by vmarks

The specific English word 'civilian' does not,

So, as with Islamic religious law, Christian and Jewish law don't have a term for "civilians" either.

[Macrobat]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak

So, as with Islamic religious law, Christian and Jewish law don't have a term for "civilians" either.

However, both Christianity and Judaisim do distinguish soldiers many times as different from the rest of the population.

But - you just keep on spinning and defending. It's like watching some weird ballet.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by Macrobat

However, both Christianity and Judaisim do distinguish soldiers many times as different from the rest of the population.

But - you just keep on spinning and defending. It's like watching some weird ballet.

It's not so much spinning as being aware of bias.

I'm not defending Islam, but am inquiring if the same statement being applied to Islam in this thread ("The term 'civilians' does not exist in Islamic religious law") can be applied to other religions as well ... specifically the ones claiming that Islam is inherently bad.

[Taliesin]

Originally Posted by vmarks

Can you point out where he gets his ideas from in Quran and Sunna, and then show us and him why he is wrong?

The Quran speaks for itself:

Sura 2:190-193:

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.

Sura 2:256:

02.256
YUSUFALI: Let there be no compulsion in religion: Truth stands out clear from Error: whoever rejects evil and believes in God hath grasped the most trustworthy hand-hold, that never breaks. And God heareth and knoweth all things.
PICKTHAL: There is no compulsion in religion. The right direction is henceforth distinct from error. And he who rejecteth false deities and believeth in God hath grasped a firm handhold which will never break. God is Hearer, Knower.
SHAKIR: There is no compulsion in religion; truly the right way has become clearly distinct from error; therefore, whoever disbelieves in the Shaitan and believes in God he indeed has laid hold on the firmest handle, which shall not break off, and God is Hearing, Knowing.

Sura 4:74-75

004.074
YUSUFALI: Let those fight in the cause of God Who sell the life of this world for the hereafter. To him who fighteth in the cause of God,- whether he is slain or gets victory - Soon shall We give him a reward of great (value).
PICKTHAL: Let those fight in the way of God who sell the life of this world for the other. Whoso fighteth in the way of God, be he slain or be he victorious, on him We shall bestow a vast reward.
SHAKIR: Therefore let those fight in the way of God, who sell this world's life for the hereafter; and whoever fights in the way of God, then be he slain or be he victorious, We shall grant him a mighty reward.
004.075
YUSUFALI: And why should ye not fight in the cause of God and of those who, being weak, are ill-treated (and oppressed)?- Men, women, and children, whose cry is: "Our Lord! Rescue us from this town, whose people are oppressors; and raise for us from thee one who will protect; and raise for us from thee one who will help!"
PICKTHAL: How should ye not fight for the cause of God and of the feeble among men and of the women and the children who are crying: Our Lord! Bring us forth from out this town of which the people are oppressors! Oh, give us from thy presence some protecting friend! Oh, give us from Thy presence some defender!
SHAKIR: And what reason have you that you should not fight in the way of God and of the weak among the men and the women and the children, (of) those who say: Our Lord! cause us to go forth from this town, whose people are oppressors, and give us from Thee a guardian and give us from Thee a helper.

Sura 4:89-91

004.089
YUSUFALI: They but wish that ye should reject Faith, as they do, and thus be on the same footing (as they): But take not friends from their ranks until they flee in the way of God (From what is forbidden). But if they turn renegades, seize them and slay them wherever ye find them; and (in any case) take no friends or helpers from their ranks;-
PICKTHAL: They long that ye should disbelieve even as they disbelieve, that ye may be upon a level (with them). So choose not friends from them till they forsake their homes in the way of God; if they turn back (to enmity) then take them and kill them wherever ye find them, and choose no friend nor helper from among them,
SHAKIR: They desire that you should disbelieve as they have disbelieved, so that you might be (all) alike; therefore take not from among them friends until they fly (their homes) in God's way; but if they turn back, then seize them and kill them wherever you find them, and take not from among them a friend or a helper.
004.090
YUSUFALI: Except those who join a group between whom and you there is a treaty (of peace), or those who approach you with hearts restraining them from fighting you as well as fighting their own people. If God had pleased, He could have given them power over you, and they would have fought you: Therefore if they withdraw from you but fight you not, and (instead) send you (Guarantees of) peace, then God Hath opened no way for you (to war against them).
PICKTHAL: Except those who seek refuge with a people between whom and you there is a covenant, or (those who) come unto you because their hearts forbid them to make war on you or make war on their own folk. Had God willed He could have given them power over you so that assuredly they would have fought you. So, if they hold aloof from you and wage not war against you and offer you peace, God alloweth you no way against them.
SHAKIR: Except those who reach a people between whom and you there is an alliance, or who come to you, their hearts shrinking from fighting you or fighting their own people; and if God had pleased, He would have given them power over you, so that they should have certainly fought you; therefore if they withdraw from you and do not fight you and offer you peace, then God has not given you a way against them.
004.091
YUSUFALI: Others you will find that wish to gain your confidence as well as that of their people: Every time they are sent back to temptation, they succumb thereto: if they withdraw not from you nor give you (guarantees) of peace besides restraining their hands, seize them and slay them wherever ye get them: In their case We have provided you with a clear argument against them.
PICKTHAL: Ye will find others who desire that they should have security from you, and security from their own folk. So often as they are returned to hostility they are plunged therein. If they keep not aloof from you nor offer you peace nor hold their hands, then take them and kill them wherever ye find them. Against such We have given you clear warrant.
SHAKIR: You will find others who desire that they should be safe from you and secure from their own people; as often as they are sent back to the mischief they get thrown into it headlong; therefore if they do not withdraw from you, and (do not) offer you peace and restrain their hands, then seize them and kill them wherever you find them; and against these We have given you a clear authority.

Sura 4:92-94

004.092
YUSUFALI: Never should a believer kill a believer; but (If it so happens) by mistake, (Compensation is due): If one (so) kills a believer, it is ordained that he should free a believing slave, and pay compensation to the deceased's family, unless they remit it freely. If the deceased belonged to a people at war with you, and he was a believer, the freeing of a believing slave (Is enough). If he belonged to a people with whom ye have treaty of Mutual alliance, compensation should be paid to his family, and a believing slave be freed. For those who find this beyond their means, (is prescribed) a fast for two months running: by way of repentance to God: for God hath all knowledge and all wisdom.
PICKTHAL: It is not for a believer to kill a believer unless (it be) by mistake. He who hath killed a believer by mistake must set free a believing slave, and pay the blood-money to the family of the slain, unless they remit it as a charity. If he (the victim) be of a people hostile unto you, and he is a believer, then (the penance is) to set free a believing slave. And if he cometh of a folk between whom and you there is a covenant, then the blood-money must be paid unto his folk and (also) a believing slave must be set free. And whoso hath not the wherewithal must fast two consecutive months. A penance from God. God is Knower, Wise.
SHAKIR: And it does not behoove a believer to kill a believer except by mistake, and whoever kills a believer by mistake, he should free a believing slave, and blood-money should be paid to his people unless they remit it as alms; but if he be from a tribe hostile to you and he is a believer, the freeing of a believing slave (suffices), and if he is from a tribe between whom and you there is a convenant, the blood-money should be paid to his people along with the freeing of a believing slave; but he who cannot find (a slave) should fast for two months successively: a penance from God, and God is Knowing, Wise.
004.093
YUSUFALI: If a man kills a believer intentionally, his recompense is Hell, to abide therein (For ever): And the wrath and the curse of God are upon him, and a dreadful penalty is prepared for him.
PICKTHAL: Whoso slayeth a believer of set purpose, his reward is hell for ever. God is wroth against him and He hath cursed him and prepared for him an awful doom.
SHAKIR: And whoever kills a believer intentionally, his punishment is hell; he shall abide in it, and God will send His wrath on him and curse him and prepare for him a painful chastisement.
004.094
YUSUFALI: O ye who believe! When ye go abroad in the cause of God, investigate carefully, and say not to any one who offers you a salutation: "Thou art none of a believer!" Coveting the perishable goods of this life: with God are profits and spoils abundant. Even thus were ye yourselves before, till God conferred on you His favours: Therefore carefully investigate. For God is well aware of all that ye do.
PICKTHAL: O ye who believe! When ye go forth (to fight) in the way of God, be careful to discriminate, and say not unto one who offereth you peace: "Thou art not a believer," seeking the chance profits of this life (so that ye may despoil him). With God are plenteous spoils. Even thus (as he now is) were ye before; but God hath since then been gracious unto you. Therefore take care to discriminate. God is ever Informed of what ye do.
SHAKIR: O you who believe! when you go to war in God's way, make investigation, and do not say to any one who offers you peace: You are not a believer. Do you seek goods of this world's life! But with God there are abundant gains; you too were such before, then God conferred a benefit on you; therefore make investigation; surely God is aware of what you do.

Sura 4:97-4:98:

004.097
YUSUFALI: When angels take the souls of those who die in sin against their souls, they say: "In what (plight) Were ye?" They reply: "Weak and oppressed Were we in the earth." They say: "Was not the earth of God spacious enough for you to move yourselves away (From evil)?" Such men will find their abode in Hell,- What an evil refuge! -
PICKTHAL: Lo! as for those whom the angels take (in death) while they wrong themselves, (the angels) will ask: In what were ye engaged? They will say: We were oppressed in the land. (The angels) will say: Was not God's earth spacious that ye could have migrated therein? As for such, their habitation will be hell, an evil journey's end;
SHAKIR: Surely (as for) those whom the angels cause to die while they are unjust to their souls, they shall say: In what state were you? They shall say: We were weak in the earth. They shall say: Was not God's earth spacious, so that you should have migrated therein? So these it is whose abode is hell, and it is an evil resort
004.098
YUSUFALI: Except those who are (really) weak and oppressed - men, women, and children - who have no means in their power, nor (a guide-post) to their way.
PICKTHAL: Except the feeble among men, and the women, and the children, who are unable to devise a plan and are not shown a way.
SHAKIR: Except the weak from among the men and the children who have not in their power the means nor can they find a way (to escape);
004.099
YUSUFALI: For these, there is hope that God will forgive: For God doth blot out (sins) and forgive again and again.
PICKTHAL: As for such, it may be that God will pardon them. God is ever Clement, Forgiving.
SHAKIR: So these, it may be, God will pardon them, and God is Pardoning, Forgiving.

... to be continued

Taliesin

[Taliesin]

...
Sura 5:33-34

005.033
YUSUFALI: The punishment of those who wage war against God and His Messenger, and strive with might and main for mischief through the land is: execution, or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides, or exile from the land: that is their disgrace in this world, and a heavy punishment is theirs in the Hereafter;
PICKTHAL: The only reward of those who make war upon God and His messenger and strive after corruption in the land will be that they will be killed or crucified, or have their hands and feet on alternate sides cut off, or will be expelled out of the land. Such will be their degradation in the world, and in the Hereafter theirs will be an awful doom;
SHAKIR: The punishment of those who wage war against God and His messenger and strive to make mischief in the land is only this, that they should be murdered or crucified or their hands and their feet should be cut off on opposite sides or they should be imprisoned; this shall be as a disgrace for them in this world, and in the hereafter they shall have a grievous chastisement,
005.034
YUSUFALI: Except for those who repent before they fall into your power: in that case, know that God is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.
PICKTHAL: Save those who repent before ye overpower them. For know that God is Forgiving, Merciful.
SHAKIR: Except those who repent before you have them in your power; so know that God is Forgiving, Merciful.

Sura 8:39:

008.039
YUSUFALI: And fight them on until there is no more tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in God altogether and everywhere; but if they cease, verily God doth see all that they do.
PICKTHAL: And fight them until persecution is no more, and religion is all for God. But if they cease, then lo! God is Seer of what they do.
SHAKIR: And fight with them until there is no more persecution and religion should be only for God; but if they desist, then surely God sees what they do.

Sura 8:61:

008.061
YUSUFALI: But if the enemy incline towards peace, do thou (also) incline towards peace, and trust in God: for He is One that heareth and knoweth (all things).
PICKTHAL: And if they incline to peace, incline thou also to it, and trust in God. Lo! He, even He, is the Hearer, the Knower.
SHAKIR: And if they incline to peace, then incline to it and trust in God; surely He is the Hearing, the Knowing.

Sura 9:13-14:

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.

Sura 9:29:

009.029
YUSUFALI: Fight those who believe not in God nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by God and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.
PICKTHAL: Fight against such of those who have been given the Scripture as believe not in God nor the Last Day, and forbid not that which God hath forbidden by His messenger, and follow not the Religion of Truth, until they pay the tribute readily, being brought low.
SHAKIR: Fight those who do not believe in God, nor in the latter day, nor do they prohibit what God and His Messenger have prohibited, nor follow the religion of truth, out of those who have been given the Book, until they pay the tax in acknowledgment of superiority and they are in a state of subjection.

Sura 22:39-40:

022.039
YUSUFALI: To those against whom war is made, permission is given (to fight), because they are wronged;- and verily, God is most powerful for their aid;-
PICKTHAL: Sanction is given unto those who fight because they have been wronged; and God is indeed Able to give them victory;
SHAKIR: Permission (to fight) is given to those upon whom war is made because they are oppressed, and most surely God is well able to assist them;
022.040
YUSUFALI: (They are) those who have been expelled from their homes in defiance of right,- (for no cause) except that they say, "our Lord is God". Did not God check one set of people by means of another, there would surely have been pulled down monasteries, churches, synagogues, and mosques, in which the name of God is commemorated in abundant measure. God will certainly aid those who aid his (cause);- for verily God is full of Strength, Exalted in Might, (able to enforce His Will).
PICKTHAL: Those who have been driven from their homes unjustly only because they said: Our Lord is God - For had it not been for God's repelling some men by means of others, cloisters and churches and oratories and mosques, wherein the name of God is oft mentioned, would assuredly have been pulled down. Verily God helpeth one who helpeth Him. Lo! God is Strong, Almighty -
SHAKIR: Those who have been expelled from their homes without a just cause except that they say: Our Lord is God. And had there not been God's repelling some people by others, certainly there would have been pulled down cloisters and churches and synagogues and mosques in which God's name is much remembered; and surely God will help him who helps His cause; most surely God is Strong, Mighty.

Sura 48:26:

048.026
YUSUFALI: While the Unbelievers got up in their hearts heat and cant - the heat and cant of ignorance,- God sent down His Tranquillity to his Messenger and to the Believers, and made them stick close to the command of self-restraint; and well were they entitled to it and worthy of it. And God has full knowledge of all things.
PICKTHAL: When those who disbelieve had set up in their hearts zealotry, the zealotry of the Age of Ignorance, then God sent down His peace of reassurance upon His messenger and upon the believers and imposed on them the word of self-restraint, for they were worthy of it and meet for it. And God is Aware of all things.
SHAKIR: When those who disbelieved harbored in their hearts (feelings of) disdain, the disdain of (the days of) ignorance, but God sent down His tranquillity on His Messenger and on the believers, and made them keep the word of guarding (against evil), and they were entitled to it and worthy of it; and God is Cognizant of all things.

Sura 60:7-9:

060.007
YUSUFALI: It may be that God will grant love (and friendship) between you and those whom ye (now) hold as enemies. For God has power (over all things); And God is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.
PICKTHAL: It may be that God will ordain love between you and those of them with whom ye are at enmity. God is Mighty, and God is Forgiving, Merciful.
SHAKIR: It may be that God will bring about friendship between you and those whom you hold to be your enemies among them; and God is Powerful; and God is Forgiving, Merciful.
060.008
YUSUFALI: God forbids you not, with regard to those who fight you not for (your) Faith nor drive you out of your homes, from dealing kindly and justly with them: for God loveth those who are just.
PICKTHAL: God forbiddeth you not those who warred not against you on account of religion and drove you not out from your homes, that ye should show them kindness and deal justly with them. Lo! God loveth the just dealers.
SHAKIR: God does not forbid you respecting those who have not made war against you on account of (your) religion, and have not driven you forth from your homes, that you show them kindness and deal with them justly; surely God loves the doers of justice.
060.009
YUSUFALI: God only forbids you, with regard to those who fight you for (your) Faith, and drive you out of your homes, and support (others) in driving you out, from turning to them (for friendship and protection). It is such as turn to them (in these circumstances), that do wrong.
PICKTHAL: God forbiddeth you only those who warred against you on account of religion and have driven you out from your homes and helped to drive you out, that ye make friends of them. Whosoever maketh friends of them - (All) such are wrong-doers.
SHAKIR: God only forbids you respecting those who made war upon you on account of (your) religion, and drove you forth from your homes and backed up (others) in your expulsion, that you make friends with them, and whoever makes friends with them, these are the unjust.

Taliesin

[vmarks]

Originally Posted by Taliesin

...


Sura 9:29:

009.029
YUSUFALI: Fight those who believe not in God nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by God and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.
PICKTHAL: Fight against such of those who have been given the Scripture as believe not in God nor the Last Day, and forbid not that which God hath forbidden by His messenger, and follow not the Religion of Truth, until they pay the tribute readily, being brought low.
SHAKIR: Fight those who do not believe in God, nor in the latter day, nor do they prohibit what God and His Messenger have prohibited, nor follow the religion of truth, out of those who have been given the Book, until they pay the tax in acknowledgment of superiority and they are in a state of subjection.

Taliesin

Which says, fight those who do not acknowledge Islam as the religion of Truth, even if they are Jews or Christians, until they pay a special tax for non-Muslims, and feel subdued, and acknowledge the superiority of Muslims.

So that's it, then: non-Muslims can either submit and acknowledge Islam as the religion of Truth and pay an oppressive tax, or expect to be fought to the death.

And you cited this to show where al-Sida'i was wrong, that he's extreme?

Brilliant.

[mitchell_pgh]

Originally Posted by vmarks

So that's it, then: non-Muslims can either submit and acknowledge Islam as the religion of Truth and pay an oppressive tax, or expect to be fought to the death.

That seems fair...

[vmarks]

Originally Posted by mitchell_pgh

That seems fair...

Don't ask me, Taliesin quoted it from the Holy Qur'an.

[Macrobat]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak

It's not so much spinning as being aware of bias.

I'm not defending Islam, but am inquiring if the same statement being applied to Islam in this thread ("The term 'civilians' does not exist in Islamic religious law") can be applied to other religions as well ... specifically the ones claiming that Islam is inherently bad.

vmarks probably would have been closer to his point if he had simply rephrased it to "The concept of "civilians" does not exist in Islamic law." Of course, since we all knew perfectly well that was his point, how is that job of picking nits going?

[eklipse]

Originally Posted by vmarks

Which says, fight those who do not acknowledge Islam as the religion of Truth, even if they are Jews or Christians, until they pay a special tax for non-Muslims, and feel subdued, and acknowledge the superiority of Muslims.

No, it doesn't. It commands one to fight against those who have strayed from the word of God. It's not talking about all People of the Scripture, only those that fail to abide by the teachings of the Scripture.

The 'Jizya' tax has been discussed before. It only applies in states implementing Islamic law and is not intended as a form of oppression. It is a tax that non-Muslims living in an Islamic state are expected to pay as a result of being exempt from other forms of taxation that are applicable only to Muslim citizens. Jews and Christians are not taxed disproportionately to Muslims.

[Taliesin]

Originally Posted by vmarks

Which says, fight those who do not acknowledge Islam as the religion of Truth, even if they are Jews or Christians, until they pay a special tax for non-Muslims, and feel subdued, and acknowledge the superiority of Muslims.

So that's it, then: non-Muslims can either submit and acknowledge Islam as the religion of Truth and pay an oppressive tax, or expect to be fought to the death.

And you cited this to show where al-Sida'i was wrong, that he's extreme?

Brilliant.

I knew that you would react in that way, and that's why this will be a good introduction into the concept of "context". If you take the time to read the one quote, yes you have to read my posting again, above the one you took for proving your point, you will find sura 9:13, right in the same sura as the quote you used, which clearly says:

"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."

9:29 just made clear that even when unbelievers (unbelieving according to their own standard and book) from among the "people of the book", which should normally be respected, are to be fought too in a war the polytheists of Mecca started, if they fought on the side of the warstarting polytheistic Mecca at that time.

In that sense it was brilliant that you reacted in that way as to expose exactly the logical and theological flaws of the islamistic and militant extremists, ie. a) the quoting of one sentence out of its textual and historical context and b) the exaggerated generalisations like "all people of the book" have to be fought, despite it saying clearly the unbelievers among the people of the book and only those that fought on the side of the polytheistic Mecca that started the war...

Qed.

Taliesin

[SimpleLife]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak

It's not so much spinning as being aware of bias.

I'm not defending Islam, but am inquiring if the same statement being applied to Islam in this thread ("The term 'civilians' does not exist in Islamic religious law") can be applied to other religions as well ... specifically the ones claiming that Islam is inherently bad.

vmarks sole point is that Islam is a religion of war. Nothing else. Consequently, if you're not Muslim, or do not follow the scripture to the letter, you're bound to be a casualty, period.

It is a trend. He says he has sympathy for Muslim who "behave", but once they follow scripture, they do correspond to the stereotype he is trying to make us swallow.

Of course, who says what would happen if we were to follow all religious scripture to the letter?

[loki74]

Originally Posted by eklipse

Jews and Christians are not taxed disproportionately to Muslims.

then why is it that they should feel subdued by the tax?

Perhaps not all of the Muslim religion and the Quran is dedicated to war... but it certainly is the most violent religion out of the big three, and it certainly advocates that violence.

[eklipse]

Originally Posted by loki74

then why is it that they should feel subdued by the tax?

Again, the passage describes People of the Scripture who have strayed from the law of God - they are the ones who must be 'subdued', not every Jew/Christian.

Even then, they are not supposed to become subdued as a direct result of taxation but rather through the recognition and acceptation of their transgressions.

[Taliesin]

Originally Posted by loki74

then why is it that they should feel subdued by the tax?

Perhaps not all of the Muslim religion and the Quran is dedicated to war... but it certainly is the most violent religion out of the big three, and it certainly advocates that violence.

Haven't you read the verse detailing it. It talks about people of the book that have allied themselves with the polytheists of Mecca and fought on their side in a war poytheistic Mecca has started.

As to the aspect of violence in Islam: The Quran has definitely not pacifistic ideals, but in many verses it talks about the importance of restraint, justice, not to transgress, only to lead defensive wars or for liberating people that are oppressed because of their belief in God and that have asked for help...

There is nothing to be said against that.

Taliesin

[vmarks]

Originally Posted by SimpleLife

vmarks sole point is that Islam is a religion of war. Nothing else. Consequently, if you're not Muslim, or do not follow the scripture to the letter, you're bound to be a casualty, period.

It is a trend. He says he has sympathy for Muslim who "behave", but once they follow scripture, they do correspond to the stereotype he is trying to make us swallow.

Of course, who says what would happen if we were to follow all religious scripture to the letter?

Nonsense. Now you're trying to paint me with your broad brush.

I said exactly what I meant when I posted this: that people like Al-Sida'i express a view we should pay attention to, because it's the view extremists are listening to.

Taliesin then chose to attack me rather than the arguments of Al-Sida'i. So I asked him to attack Al-Sida'i's views with support from the Qur'an. He then cited verses that are violent to those who reject Islam and refuse to submit to Islam's superiority.

Then he said I misinterpreted the context of those verses- But I simply quoted them and restated them without distortion.

For example, we are told that the jizya tax that is meant to subdue non-Muslims is only to subdue non-Muslims who have strayed from belief. But if that is true, then why is the wording there that says non-Muslims have to recognize the superiority of Islam?

Under what situation would a non-Muslim who was required to pay Jizya be removed from that condition? I submit to you that the only time such a thing has ever happened in history is upon the conversion of the non-Muslim to Islam.

You are intelligent readers and can see for yourself. I'll do it again, with even greater clarity.

YUSUFALI: Fight those who believe not in God nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by God and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.
PICKTHAL: Fight against such of those who have been given the Scripture as believe not in God nor the Last Day, and forbid not that which God hath forbidden by His messenger, and follow not the Religion of Truth, until they pay the tribute readily, being brought low.
SHAKIR: Fight those who do not believe in God, nor in the latter day, nor do they prohibit what God and His Messenger have prohibited, nor follow the religion of truth, out of those who have been given the Book, until they pay the tax in acknowledgment of superiority and they are in a state of subjection.

Fight those who believe not in Allah, nor the Last Day (Islam last day is when trees and rocks cry out to guide Muslims to kill Jews and Islam will cover the earth); nor acknowledge the religion of Truth (Islam), even if they are People of the Book (Jews and Christians), (fight them) until they pay the Jizya (tax paid by non-Muslims) which signifies their acknowledgement that Islam is superior and they are inferior.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by vmarks

Nonsense. Now you're trying to paint me with your broad brush.

... says the man holding the broad brush

[undotwa]

Originally Posted by vmarks

Nonsense. Now you're trying to paint me with your broad brush.

Forgive me, but those verses, rather than sounding like a doctrinal proclamation sound more like a rallying cry for war.

I must admit however, much of Qu'ran really confuses me with many seemingly contradictory statements. Are we to cherish the people of the book or to suppress and slaughter them? The Qu'ran seems to say both.

[Taliesin]

Originally Posted by undotwa

Forgive me, but those verses, rather than sounding like a doctrinal proclamation sound more like a rallying cry for war.

I must admit however, much of Qu'ran really confuses me with many seemingly contradictory statements. Are we to cherish the people of the book or to suppress and slaughter them? The Qu'ran seems to say both.

I have already given up hope on vmarks, despite having shown quite clearly and demonstrative that the Quran allows warfare only against those who fight against muslims, ie. those that start a war and those that allie and fight on their side, he clearly sticks to the opinion he had from the beginning of the thread, and which is the same distorted view as the radical islamists have.

The Quran is not that difficult to understand, people of the book were (and are still today) to be respected as they were (and are still today) also believers in God, except those from the people of the book that allied themselves with the polytheists of Mecca, which have to be fought just like they fight, until they surrender and pay the special subdueing tax.

Extremists and vmarks agrees with them therein turn those verses into a meaning it doesn't have, namely to fight all people of the book even if they are not warfaring.

The people of the book at the time of prophet Muhammad in Arabia allied themselves with the polytheistic Mecca, that started a war against prophet Muhammad and his followers, and fought in battles on their side, that's why the Quran has two sets of rule of dealing with the people of the book: a) fighting those that allied themselves with the polytheistic Mecca, which is proof of their deviation from faith in God, b) respecting and staying on friendly terms with the rest, since they are not warfaring and are as well believers in God, that have the same opportunity to gain paradise if they stick to their belief in God and the last day and commit good deeds.

And just to underline that point, here is something I have already posted above:

Sura 22:40

SHAKIR: Those who have been expelled from their homes without a just cause except that they say: Our Lord is God. And had there not been God's repelling some people by others, certainly there would have been pulled down cloisters and churches and synagogues and mosques in which God's name is much remembered; and surely God will help him who helps His cause; most surely God is Strong, Mighty.

Taliesin

[Big Mac]

I don't have a lot of time to right now, but I'll ask you the following, Taliesin: Instead of cutting it off at 9:29, why didn't you continue quoting the germane portion of the Sura?

[9.29]Fight those who do not believe in Allah, nor in the latter day, nor do they prohibit what Allah and His Apostle have prohibited, nor follow the religion of truth, out of those who have been given the Book, until they pay the tax in acknowledgment of superiority and they are in a state of subjection.
[9.30] And the Jews say: Uzair is the son of Allah; and the Christians say: The Messiah is the son of Allah; these are the words of their mouths; they imitate the saying of those who disbelieved before; may Allah destroy them; how they are turned away!
[9.31] They have taken their doctors of law and their monks for lords besides Allah, and (also) the Messiah son of Marium and they were enjoined that they should serve one God only, there is no god but He; far from His glory be what they set up (with Him).
[9.32] They desire to put out the light of Allah with their mouths, and Allah will not consent save to perfect His light, though the unbelievers are averse.
[9.33] He it is Who sent His Apostle with guidance and the religion of truth, that He might cause it to prevail over all religions, though the polytheists may be averse.

Okay, so here in 9:29 we have the sentiment that the Jew and Christian should be oppressed for not following the "religion of truth," which obviously refers to Islam. They are to pay a tax that acknowledges their state of subjection. Now, Taliesin, I assume you're going to tell me I'm missing some essential context to this excerpt. The only tenable conclusion I can draw is that the Jew and Christian should be subjugated as inferior for not accepting Mohammed's religion.

In 9:30 Mohammed claims my people refer to Ezra the Scribe as the "son of God." That always cracks me up. And he also alludes to his belief that one-third of the Christian deity is Mary. I'm sure Christians find that equally hilarious. The fact is, Mohammed is, at least in part, attributing his apparent enmity for Jews and Christians to these falsehoods - either those he willfully spread or erroneously believed. In the next verse, 9:31, Mohammed elaborates on those false notions.

In 9:32 Mohammed contends the people of the book conspire to take away the light of the Islamic deity. Finally, in 9:33, Mohammed declares the intent of Islam is to prevail over all religions, a statement which is seemingly inclusive of all faiths. Far preferable would it be for me to be able to say men like Yassir Arafat (yimach shmo) and Osama bin Laden do not truly represent your religion. The words of your holy book are, however, self-evident.

[Taliesin]

Originally Posted by vmarks

For example, we are told that the jizya tax that is meant to subdue non-Muslims is only to subdue non-Muslims who have strayed from belief. But if that is true, then why is the wording there that says non-Muslims have to recognize the superiority of Islam?

Under what situation would a non-Muslim who was required to pay Jizya be removed from that condition? I submit to you that the only time such a thing has ever happened in history is upon the conversion of the non-Muslim to Islam.

You are intelligent readers and can see for yourself. I'll do it again, with even greater clarity.

YUSUFALI: Fight those who believe not in God nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by God and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.
PICKTHAL: Fight against such of those who have been given the Scripture as believe not in God nor the Last Day, and forbid not that which God hath forbidden by His messenger, and follow not the Religion of Truth, until they pay the tribute readily, being brought low.
SHAKIR: Fight those who do not believe in God, nor in the latter day, nor do they prohibit what God and His Messenger have prohibited, nor follow the religion of truth, out of those who have been given the Book, until they pay the tax in acknowledgment of superiority and they are in a state of subjection.

Fight those who believe not in Allah, nor the Last Day (Islam last day is when trees and rocks cry out to guide Muslims to kill Jews and Islam will cover the earth); nor acknowledge the religion of Truth (Islam), even if they are People of the Book (Jews and Christians), (fight them) until they pay the Jizya (tax paid by non-Muslims) which signifies their acknowledgement that Islam is superior and they are inferior.

Eventhough I have no hope that you will even understand what I tell you, I will adress that one again because there are others who are willing to learn and understand, who can profit from this:
You are again taking one sentence out of its textual context, despite having you shown your mistake therein. The context as can be seen in the verse from the same sura, sura 9:13, which explains the historical context, namely is that the polytheistic Mecca has started a war against prophet Muhammad and his followers, expelled parts of them and oppressed and persecuted others. Against that polytheistic Mecca a defensive war was allowed by God.
There are parts of the people of the book that didn't believe in God (even unbelievers according to their own belief-systems and scriptures), that deviated from the faith in God and allied themselves with the polytheistic Mecca and fought on their side. The Quran gave allowance to fight those, too, in sura 9.29, until they surrender and pay the tax, that's all!

I think I'll have to go through verse 9.29 step by step, in order to help you overcome your confusion:
1. "Fight those who believe not in God nor the last day": Generally jews and christians definetly believe in God and judgment day and the hereafter, so..
2. "nor hold that forbidden which God and his messenger has forbidden": ie. not to kill innocents, not to steal, not to commit adultery, not to set aside other Gods beside God... basically the ten rules from Moses. Those parts of the people of the book that allied themselves with the polytheists in Mecca indeed had lost the faith in their own belief-system and have taken over pagan customs and practices of their Meccan-neighbours. "His messenger" means not only prophet Muhammad but also Moses, Jesus, Abraham...
3. "nor follow the religion of truth": the religion of truth is not just Islam, but also Judaism and christianity, which all call to believe in one God, to pray to Him, to keep in mind the judgment day, to commit good deeds as preparation for the hereafter, to reject evil... Those jews and christians that lost the belief in their own religion and allied with the warstarting polytheists in Mecca also claimed that Ezra was God's actual son and Jesus was God's actual son, ie. joined the Meccan's polytheism by turning Jesus and Ezra to independent gods beside God, as his independent sons for worshipping alongside the polytheistic gods in Mecca.
Faithful jews reject such notions and stick to their belief in the one God, while faithful christians believe also in only one God, though they think He is identical with Jesus.
4. "until they pay the jizya readily, being brought low": Who starts war and allies with polytheistic Mecca and has left the path of their own religion of truth, in order to follow customs and practices of their polytheistic neighbours in Mecca,can't expect any better when defeated.

By the way, just out of curiosity, are jews required to keep electricty, then also computers etc... off on sabath, ie . saturdays or not? If yes and you are keeping strict to that rule, then I guess I will see your answer tommorow or later.


Taliesin

[Taliesin]

Originally Posted by Big Mac

I don't have a lot of time to right now, but I'll ask you the following, Taliesin: Instead of cutting it off at 9:29, why didn't you continue quoting the germane portion of the Sura?


Okay, so here in 9:29 we have the sentiment that the Jew and Christian should be oppressed for not following the "religion of truth," which obviously refers to Islam. They are to pay a tax that acknowledges their state of subjection. Now, Taliesin, I assume you're going to tell me I'm missing some essential context to this excerpt. The only tenable conclusion I can draw is that the Jew and Christian should be subjugated as inferior for not accepting Mohammed's religion.

In 9:30 Mohammed claims my people refer to Ezra the Scribe as the "son of God." That always cracks me up. And he also alludes to his belief that one-third of the Christian deity is Mary. I'm sure Christians find that equally hilarious. The fact is, Mohammed is, at least in part, attributing his apparent enmity for Jews and Christians to these falsehoods - either those he willfully spread or erroneously believed. In the next verse, 9:31, Mohammed elaborates on those false notions.

In 9:32 Mohammed contends the people of the book conspire to take away the light of the Islamic deity. Finally, in 9:33, Mohammed declares the intent of Islam is to prevail over all religions, a statement which is seemingly inclusive of all faiths. Far preferable would it be for me to be able to say men like Yassir Arafat (yimach shmo) and Osama bin Laden do not truly represent your religion. The words of your holy book are, however, self-evident.

If your name is any hint at what you eat regularly, I'm not surprised that it has an adverse effect on your reading comprehension:

9:29 and the following ones talked exclusively about those people of the book that deviated from their own religion of truth and allied with the polytheists in Mecca and have overtaken the polytheistic practice and customs of their Meccan-neighbours and put Ezra and Jesus as independent gods beside all the thousands of "gods" that the polytheists have set up in the Kaabah at that time. The real christians and jews of that time and of this time have no polytheistic tendencies, despite the false notion of christians that Jesus is God.

Basically that part of the people of the book that was allied with Mecca became just as polytheistic as the Meccans at that time and fought in the same war on the side of Mecca to defeat monotheism that was represented by prophet Muhammad and his followers.

That part of the people of the book had to be fought just like the polytheists of Mecca they fought with in the war they started.

Taliesin

[Taliesin]

Originally Posted by Big Mac

In 9:32 Mohammed contends the people of the book conspire to take away the light of the Islamic deity. Finally, in 9:33, Mohammed declares the intent of Islam is to prevail over all religions, a statement which is seemingly inclusive of all faiths. Far preferable would it be for me to be able to say men like Yassir Arafat (yimach shmo) and Osama bin Laden do not truly represent your religion. The words of your holy book are, however, self-evident.

This one needs a special posting, since it is again proof and good lecture about the mistakes radical islamists are making as well as islamophobic westerners:

What the verse really says is that the messenger was sent with the religion of truth in order to prevail over all polytheistic religions in Arabia and espescially in Mecca, the economic and military center of polytheism at that time, and it was a prophecy which came true.

Again, true jews and christians are already part of the religion of truth, despite their integrity-problems with their scriptures; as long as they believe in the one God and the hereafter and commit good deeds, they will enter paradise, too.

Taliesin

[Big Mac]

What I see as patently obvious, you obviously do not. When the text unequivocally states "the Jews say x. . ." and "the Christians say y," and when the text says it is to prevail against "all religions," I still don't see how you can argue about context. I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree because this point of contention is at an impasse.

And yes - good call - I am indeed violating the Sabbath, which is one of the most serious violations. I'm finishing some important tasks and would have been on the computer anyway; I may as well be honest about it. May G-d continue to treat me mercifully.

[Taliesin]

Originally Posted by Big Mac

What I see as patently obvious, you obviously do not. When the text unequivocally states "the Jews say x. . ." and "the Christians say y," and when the text says it is to prevail against "all religions," I still don't see how you can argue about context. I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree because this point of contention is at an impasse.

And yes - good call - I am indeed violating the Sabbath, which is one of the most serious violations. I'm finishing some important tasks and would have been on the computer anyway; I may as well be honest about it. May G-d continue to treat me mercifully.

Well, when the verse right before it adressed these people of the book that don't believe in God and the last day, ie. those that allied with the polythesitic Mecca, why shouldn't it be clear that the next sentence talks about these? That's called textual context, I know it's a hard concept to understand for radical islamists, but you as a westerner with a full education should be able to recognize it.

As to the sabbath, that's interesting because I don't know much about it, is beyond the prohibition of using electricity also the use of fire prohibited, ie. no cooking on that day allowed?

Taliesin

[AKcrab]

Originally Posted by Taliesin

Extremists and vmarks agrees with them therein turn those verses into a meaning it doesn't have, namely to fight all people of the book even if they are not warfaring.

vmarks doesn't AGREE, he's QUOTING the director of the Al-Maqreze Centre for Historical Studies, Dr. Hani Al-Siba'i..

Originally Posted by Taliesin

If your name is any hint at what you eat regularly, I'm not surprised that it has an adverse effect on your reading comprehension:

Nice.

Again, true jews and christians are already part of the religion of truth, despite their integrity-problems with their scriptures; as long as they believe in the one God and the hereafter and commit good deeds, they will enter paradise, too.

"Integrity problems with their scriptures.."
Nope. None of those in your holy book. Obviously there is NO way to misinterpret the scripture. If that was true, this thread wouldn't exist.

I'm not Jewish or Christian, so I'm fair game?

[Taliesin]

Originally Posted by AKcrab

Obviously there is NO way to misinterpret the scripture. If that was true, this thread wouldn't exist.

I'm not Jewish or Christian, so I'm fair game?

Off course scripture can be misinterpreted also the Quran, espescially if people take single sentences, ignoring the rest of the sura, exagerrate and generalise, which the radical islamists are doing en masse.

What do you mean with fair game? Do you ask me if it is allowed for muslims to kill you because you are an atheist? If that's the question, the answer is: As long as you don't warfare against muslims nor oppress people, you are not allowed to be killed or be harmed in any way.

Besides eventhough you are an atheist, you are still part of the people of the book, albeit having become unbelieving.

The unbelievers talked about in the Quran, those from Mecca were not just simple atheists, but zealous polytheists, worshipping hundreds of gods, and bringing human sacrifices for them, sinning in every way possible from raping to stealing, to killing, torturing, kidnapping all those that tried to bring them to their senses and others that didn't belong to their tribe...

If you take the time to read all the verses of the Quran I quoted in this thread, you will find that it is prohibited for muslims to start a war or to fight anyone that hasn't started the fight nor oppresses anyone.

Taliesin

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by undotwa

I must admit however, much of Qu'ran really confuses me with many seemingly contradictory statements.

I find the same problem with most religious texts

[von Wrangell]

Shukran Taliesin for your words on this matter. Good that someone had time to lecture vmarks&co about their errors when it comes to comprehending the Holy Quran. You also do it in the correct way.

Narrated Masruq: "I asked (the Prophet Muhammad's wife) Aisha which (good) deed was most loved by the Prophet. She said: 'A deed done continuously.'"

Sahih Al-Bukhari, Volume 2, Hadith 232


Remain patient in adversity - for God’s promise always comes true. 40:55

No reason have we why we should not put our trust on Allah. Indeed He Has guided us to the Ways we (follow). We shall certainly bear with patience all the hurt you may cause us. For those who put their trust should put their trust on Allah. 14:12

To those weak of understanding Make not over your property, which Allah hath made a means of support for you, but feed and clothe them therewith, and speak to them words of kindness and justice. 4:5

It's just too obvious that the Holy Quran is only too complicated for those who 1) want it to support something they do and 2) those who are afraid of it.

This thread here is excellent proof of both.

O ye who believe! stand out firmly for justice, as witnesses to Allah, even as against yourselves, or your parents, or your kin, and whether it be (against) rich or poor: for Allah can best protect both. Follow not the lusts (of your hearts), lest ye swerve, and if ye distort (justice) or decline to do justice, verily Allah is well- acquainted with all that ye do. 4:135

[vmarks]

http://forums.macnn.com/showthread.p...th#post2507168

In that post, eklipse tells us that the Hadith and Bukhari are not worth anything.

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by Taliesin

Off course scripture can be misinterpreted also the Quran, espescially if people take single sentences, ignoring the rest of the sura, exagerrate and generalise, which the radical islamists are doing en masse.

What do you mean with fair game? Do you ask me if it is allowed for muslims to kill you because you are an atheist? If that's the question, the answer is: As long as you don't warfare against muslims nor oppress people, you are not allowed to be killed or be harmed in any way.

Besides eventhough you are an atheist, you are still part of the people of the book, albeit having become unbelieving.

The unbelievers talked about in the Quran, those from Mecca were not just simple atheists, but zealous polytheists, worshipping hundreds of gods, and bringing human sacrifices for them, sinning in every way possible from raping to stealing, to killing, torturing, kidnapping all those that tried to bring them to their senses and others that didn't belong to their tribe...

If you take the time to read all the verses of the Quran I quoted in this thread, you will find that it is prohibited for muslims to start a war or to fight anyone that hasn't started the fight nor oppresses anyone.

Taliesin

On March 1, 1944 the Mufti broadcasted from Berlin: "Arabs! Rise as one and fight for your sacred rights. Kill the Jews wherever you find them. This pleases God, history, and religion. This saves your honor."

Yadda, yadda, yadda! Enough with the interpretations of the scriptures. Some say it does, others say it doesn't...

My question is, "why, oh, why is it that the BIGGEST JEW HATERS and the ones with the BIGGEST CHIPS ON THEIR SHOULDERS and who want to kill all the infidels are the ones who make it to the top of your organizations and governments????"

If there is a question as to which way the Quran can be interpreted it seems the guy with the MOST violent interpretation is the one who somehow manages to win the hearts and minds of such a peace loving people.

Hmph!

Amin al-Husayni
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Mohammad Amin al-Husayni (ca. 1895-July 4, 1974, امين الحسيني, also spelt al-Husseini or el-Husseini, also known as Al-Hajj Amin or Haj Amin), was a Palestinian Arab nationalist and Muslim religious leader. A member of Jerusalem's most prominent family, his most important positions were as Mufti of Jerusalem and President of the Supreme Muslim Council.
Known as the "Grand Mufti of Jerusalem", he received this title in 1921 after the death of his father (the Mufti of Jerusalem) under the auspices of the then High Commissioner, Sir Herbert Samuel. He played a major role in Arab resistance to Zionist political ambitions in Palestine and recruiting Muslims to fight in the German army during World War II. He became very close to the Nazi leading circle and conducted radio broadcasts and recruitment operations on their behalf during the war.

More about the "MUFTI!" He's just one of a series of Muslim "Holy Men" who don't seem that holy to this man. Oh, and before you try to explain HIS being an exception, why not start now to prepare a case defending ALLLLLLLLLLL the other Muslim leaders who just happened to ALSO be HATERS, playa!

At the Nuremberg Trials in July 1946, Wisliceny testified:
"The Mufti was one of the initiators of the systematic extermination of European Jewry and had been a collaborator and adviser of Eichmann and Himmler in the execution of this plan... He was one of Eichmann's best friends and had constantly incited him to accelerate the extermination measures. I heard him say, accompanied by Eichmann, he had visited incognito the gas chamber of Auschwitz."

Wisliceny also testified that after the Mufti's arrival in Germany he had paid visit to Himmler and shortly afterwards (late in 1941 or early in 1942) had visited Eichmann in his Berlin office at Kürfurstrasse, 116. According to Wisliceny, Eichmann told him that he had brought the Mufti to a special room where he showed him maps illustrating the distribution of the Jewish population in various European countries and delivered a detailed report on the solution of the Jewish problem in Europe.

When the Red Cross offered to mediate with Adolf Eichmann in a trade prisoner-of-war exchange involving the freeing of German citizens in exchange for 5,000 Jewish children being sent from Poland to the Theresienstadt death camp, Husseini directly intervened with Himmler and the exchange was cancelled.

Among the sabotage al-Husayni organized was an attempted chemical warfare assault on the Jewish community in Tel Aviv. Five parachutists were sent with a toxin to dump into the water system. The police caught the infiltrators in a cave near Jericho, and according to Jericho district police commander Fayiz Bey Idrissi, "The laboratory report stated that each container held enough poison to kill 25,000 people, and there were at least ten containers." ([1], Source: The Quest for the Red Prince by Michael Bar-Zohar and Eitan Haber, 1983, ISBN 1585747394)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amin_al-Husayni

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by von Wrangell

Shukran Taliesin for your words on this matter. Good that someone had time to lecture vmarks&co about their errors when it comes to comprehending the Holy Quran. You also do it in the correct way.

It's just too obvious that the Holy Quran is only too complicated for those who 1) want it to support something they do and 2) those who are afraid of it.

This thread here is excellent proof of both.

I don't think many others are that impressed. Btw, I've already heard the Muslim contention that the Koran may only be understood in Arabic, so if you were going to raise that as another justification of your views, I've saved you the trouble.

[undotwa]

Originally Posted by Taliesin

The people of the book at the time of prophet Muhammad in Arabia allied themselves with the polytheistic Mecca, that started a war against prophet Muhammad and his followers, and fought in battles on their side, that's why the Quran has two sets of rule of dealing with the people of the book: a) fighting those that allied themselves with the polytheistic Mecca, which is proof of their deviation from faith in God, b) respecting and staying on friendly terms with the rest, since they are not warfaring and are as well believers in God, that have the same opportunity to gain paradise if they stick to their belief in God and the last day and commit good deeds.

That is precisely what I thought before. This thread merely confused me.

The inconsistencies in the Christian scriptures is understandable, as we understand them as a gradual revelation. But for a prophet who is to be the be-all-end-all, how does Islam justify the apparent contradictions.

[undotwa]

Originally Posted by Big Mac

In 9:30 Mohammed claims my people refer to Ezra the Scribe as the "son of God." That always cracks me up. And he also alludes to his belief that one-third of the Christian deity is Mary. I'm sure Christians find that equally hilarious. The fact is, Mohammed is, at least in part, attributing his apparent enmity for Jews and Christians to these falsehoods - either those he willfully spread or erroneously believed. In the next verse, 9:31, Mohammed elaborates on those false notions.

It's understandable to me, why Mohammed thought this way. The early Christian church had a particularly strong devotion to Mary. To an outsider, it could easily look like the Christians were actually worshiping Mary (which perhaps some Christians who were confused of their faith may have done so).

[von Wrangell]

Originally Posted by vmarks

http://forums.macnn.com/showthread.p...th#post2507168

In that post, eklipse tells us that the Hadith and Bukhari are not worth anything.

Your point?

[von Wrangell]

Originally Posted by undotwa

That is precisely what I thought before. This thread merely confused me.

The inconsistencies in the Christian scriptures is understandable, as we understand them as a gradual revelation. But for a prophet who is to be the be-all-end-all, how does Islam justify the apparent contradictions.

There are none. The only reason some find "contradictions" is because they are desperately searching for them and not understanding the context.

And should I take your comments about the Bible as you believe there are inconsistencies and contradictions in it? How is that possible if it's the divine word of God?

[von Wrangell]

Originally Posted by Big Mac

I don't think many others are that impressed. Btw, I've already heard the Muslim contention that the Koran may only be understood in Arabic, so if you were going to raise that as another justification of your views, I've saved you the trouble.

It's hard to impress people hellbent on finding "proof" of the evilness™ of Islam.

[mojo2]

Try impressing me with how your Ayahtollah, Bhutto, Aidid, OBL, Zawahiri, Zarqawi and any of the other names in the news who have become HEROES in the Muslim world for oppressing, stealing, kidnapping, killing and wounding not just the Great Satans, not just westerners and not just apostate Muslims but ANYBODY, ANYTHING and EVERYBODY (military, government, civillians, businesspersons, women, the elderly, infirmed and children) who stands in their way...(takes deep breath), try impressing me with HOW and WHY THESE guys are heroes and how the beauty, love, justice, or whatever of the Koran is immaterial to this global issue!

If your 'guys' can do what they do and not only be forgiven for it but receive recognition and praise, then talking about the Koran when discussing Global suicide terrorism is about as pertinent as your talking about our Bill of Rights when it comes to the WoT.

I'm saying this...

Using ones' Muslim beliefs to escape verbal or literary criticism over what some crazed people who you don't support and can't control is one thing, but the Muslim faith has zilch to do with the WoT except that because the Muslims secretly idolize these "HEROES" many more MUSLIMS are dying at EVERYONES hands.

The MUSLIM suicide terrorists are killing Muslims. The Muslim Iraqi government forces are killing MUSLIM terrorists. The US and Coalition forces are killing MUSLIMS because the MUSLIM terrorists are shooting and bombing us and other MUSLIMS. Then, in Israel MUSLIMS are killing themselves and taking innocents with them, so the IDF is killing MUSLIMS. In the Balkans the Christians were killing the MUSLIMS so much they called it ethnic cleansing. That is, until the US and Coalition forces started bombing the crap out of the people who were killing the MUSLIMS.

So, lets look at what we've got here.

The MUSLIMS are being killed and persecuted all over the place for no reason at all. EVERYBODY sees a MUSLIM and automatically wants to kill them. The MUSLIMS aren't doing ANYTHING but calmly and patiently reading the Koran and saying their prayers five times a day.

Right.

Yeah. "It's hard to impress people hellbent on finding "proof" of the evilness™ of Islam."

Oh, by the way...

The Grand Mufti, the head MUSLIM Holy man in Jerusalem at the time, who was best friends with Hitler and nixed the prisoner exchange which would have saved 5,000 Jewish children because he wanted ALL Jews to die...even kids, well he had a famous nephew whose name was...

Well, you read it for yourself...

Haj Amin al-Husseini eventually died in exile in 1974. He never returned to Jerusalem after his 1937 departure. His place as leader of the radical, nationalist Palestinian Arabs was taken by his nephew Mohammed Abdel-Raouf Arafat As Qudwa al-Hussaeini, better known as Yasser Arafat. In August 2002, Arafat gave an interview in which he referred to "our hero al-Husseini" as a symbol of Palestinian Arab resistance.

http://www.palestinefacts.org/pf_man...rand_mufti.php

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by undotwa

It's understandable to me, why Mohammed thought this way. The early Christian church had a particularly strong devotion to Mary. To an outsider, it could easily look like the Christians were actually worshiping Mary (which perhaps some Christians who were confused of their faith may have done so).

As we've seen in this thread, Muslims are taught to revile and label as corrupted the holy books and beliefs of the religions that preceded Islam and served as the templates for the latter. Now if one wants to say Mohammed was personally ignorant or willfully dismissive of the truth, that could be argued. But Mohammed's followers offer his testimony as divine, inerrant and the final word. That is why Taleisin defensively alleged there were Jews who fit Mohammed's description.

The fact is, Judaism is predicated on a central truth, on which the entire faith is based: the oneness of the sole supreme being, without form, without consort. Any Jew who did not believe that central tenet was excised from his or her community. So for Mohammed to say "the Jews" worship an image or incarnation of any sort, let alone a fellow Jew, is the most egregious accusation anyone could ever make. Equally horrendous is the Islamic belief that the Hebrew Scriptures have been corrupted by the Jewish people.

So much of the Koran is an admixture of Judaism, Christianity, and commentary/tradition from both faiths. But despite their considerable influence on his thought, Mohammed eventually vilified and defamed both religions - mostly due to Jewish rejection of his claim to prophecy. (The manifold substantive reasons for the rejection of Mohammed by the Jews is a subject best left for another thread.) Before his rejection, Mohammed had only claimed to be a prophet to the Arabs, acknowledging Jews and Christians had their own holy books; afterward, he proclaimed that his religion was the end all be all for all of humanity. Before his rejection, Mohammed had established that worshipers should pray in the direction of Jerusalem; afterward, Mohammed changed the direction of prayer to Mecca, so that Muslims would have their backs toward Jerusalem. After his rejection, Mohammed inserted all of the vitrolic language toward his new enemies. At the same time, he failed to erase the various positive references to them, which is why the book is rife with internal contradiction.

Mohammed taught his people to believe Jews and Christians were the lowest scum of the earth - for only the most evil creatures of creation would wilfully alter divine teachings. (But it was apparently perfectly fine for Mohammed to redact his holy book to suit his purposes.) These Koranic claims about Judaism and Christianity are, simply stated, repulsive. Such is the doctrine of hatred that permeates the Koran. But please realize I am not saying the Koran is uniformally hateful or anti-Jewish/Christian, for it is most definitely not. There is a lot of virtuous material contained in the Koran. Yet, those passages of hate cannot be overlooked, reconciled or explained away through exegetical acrobats. Just as the goodness in the Koran inspires Talesin and von Wrangel to champion it as a religion of peace, the evilness in the Koran inspires bin Laden to champion it as a religion of bloodshed and global domination. Both sides overlook the internal contradictions that serve as mutual invalidations of their respective interpretations. Anyway, I'm doing my very best to phrase the truth as diplomatically as possible. I don't hate anyone and don't wish to inspire hatred in turn. I seek only to relate the truth and defend my religion. I've done my best to abstain from the PL since these discourses are often counter-productive, but if I have, at the very least, given one person food for thought I have accomplished a great amount.

__________________
B'Ahavat Yisrael
Am Yisrael Chai Vekayam

[von Wrangell]

The only thing worth spending time on in that post is this line:

Mohammed changed the direction of prayer to Mecca, so that Muslims would have their backs toward Jerusalem.

A person in Egypt facing Mecca does not turn his back towards Jerusalem. A person in Damascus who faces Mecca doesn't turn his back towards Jerusalem. This claim is just highlighting the ignorance shown by the Islamophobes and anti-Islamic bigots.

If anything that was the only thing you were able to accomplish. Thanks for making it so simple for me to point that out

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by von Wrangell

The only thing worth spending time on in that post is this line:

A person in Egypt facing Mecca does not turn his back towards Jerusalem. A person in Damascus who faces Mecca doesn't turn his back towards Jerusalem. This claim is just highlighting the ignorance shown by the Islamophobes and anti-Islamic bigots.

If anything that was the only thing you were able to accomplish. Thanks for making it so simple for me to point that out

It seems your interpreation is at variance with so many of your co-religionists:
in this article,
and this article,
and this article,
and this article,
and in this discussion, to name a few sources. But perhaps you misunderstood the point of my original statement.
__________________
B'Ahavat Yisrael
Am Yisrael Chai Vekayam