We recently discussed how rabbis have issued warnings to hotels and other businesses not to display Christmas trees as offensive to Jewish values, even threatening to pull the kosher certification from businesses. Now, a leading Muslim authority has declared that even wishing neighbors a “Merry Christmas is worse than murder. It is “haram” or forbidden. The view of Dr. Zakir Naik is not new (and he stated this view years earlier), but there is an interesting alternative take on the issue in The New York Times by a Muslim writer on the shared traditions between Christianity and Islam.
Dr. Zakir Naik warned on his Twitter account @DrZakirNaikFC that
“Wishing Merry Christmas to Christians is worse evil, worse than fornication or murder.”
“Please avoid it my dear Muslims. It’s a big sin. Retweet and spread the message.
“I hope no Muslim wishes or updates any status on Christmas because celebrating Christmas is against Islam, against Allah, against Prophet Mohammed [saw] so be aware of that very big sin.”
It is an odd position. I wish my Muslim neighbors best wished on Islamic holidays like Eid and I have enjoyed breaking the fast with Muslim friends. They do not think that I am converting to Islam but showing my respect and affection for them and their traditions. It is this type of intolerance that fuels the interfaith conflicts around the world as religious leaders seek to isolate their followers (and in doing so increase their control over their congregations). The commentator in the New York Times shows a more tolerant view and one shared by many Muslims.
I am not going to keep bandying words with you po. You simply can not or will not be honest about the text of the quran.
“Allah ‘s Apostle said, ” I have been ordered to fight with the people till they say, ‘None has the right to be worshipped but Allah,’ and whoever says, ‘None has the right to be worshipped but Allah,’ his life and property will be saved by me except for Islamic law, and his accounts will be with Allah, (either to punish him or to forgive him.)”
Wouldn’t that hadith go against the various instances in the quran where God tells Muhamad AS the opposite? ”
No, it doesn’t. Not if you accept the mainstream Islamic doctrine of abrogation. And if you as sAdon’t accept the theory of abrogation then you’re a heretic. And that is, by the way, the verdict of the Ulema, not mine. Because Allah as he repeatedly reminds Muslims throughout the Quran is the master of all things. Know you not that Allah is Able to do all things? As absolute sovereign of creation, if he wants to change his commands for Muslims, he can do so at will. If you don’t accept the mainstream doctrine of abrogation, po, you’re saying that Allah can’t do whatever he wants. You’re arguing with Allah about what he can do and can’t do, and that makes you a heretic. Referring once again to an actual, recognized Quranic authority, and not just some guy on the internet playing one. The Tafsir of ibn Kathir on the verses of abrogation. First 2:106.
“(106. Whatever a verse (revelation) do Nansakh (We abrogate) or Nunsiha (cause to be forgotten), We bring a better one or similar to it. Know you not that Allah is Able to do all things) (107. Know you not that it is Allah to Whom belongs the dominion of the heavens and the earth And besides Allah you have neither any Wali (protector or guardian) nor any helper.)
Ibn Abi Talhah said that Ibn `Abbas said that, …
(Whatever a verse (revelation) do Nansakh) means, “Whatever an Ayah We abrogate.” Also, Ibn Jurayj said that Mujahid said that, …
(Whatever a verse (revelation) do Nansakh) means, “Whatever an Ayah We erase.” Also, Ibn Abi Najih said that Mujahid said that, …
(Whatever a verse (revelation) do Nansakh) means, “We keep the words, but change the meaning.” He related these words to the companions of `Abdullah bin Mas`ud. Ibn Abi Hatim said that similar statements were mentioned by Abu Al-`Aliyah and Muhammad bin Ka`b Al-Qurazi. Also As-Suddi said that…
(Whatever a verse (revelation) do Nansakh) means, “We erase it.” Further, Ibn Abi Hatim said that it means, “Erase and raise it, such as erasing the following wordings (from the Qur’an), `The married adulterer and the married adulteress: stone them to death,’ and, `If the son of Adam had two valleys of gold, he would seek a third.”’
Ibn Jarir stated that, …
(Whatever a verse (revelation) do Nansakh) means, “Whatever ruling we repeal in an Ayah by making the allowed unlawful and the unlawful allowed.” The Nasakh only occurs with commandments, prohibitions, permissions, and so forth. As for stories, they do not undergo Nasakh. The word, `Nasakh’ literally means, `to copy a book’. The meaning of Nasakh in the case of commandments is removing the commandment and replacing it by another. And whether the Nasakh involves the wordings, the ruling or both, it is still called Nasakh.
Allah said next, …
(or Nunsiha (cause it to be forgotten)). `Ali bin Abi Talhah said that Ibn `Abbas said that, …
(Whatever a verse (revelation) do Nansakh or Nunsiha) means, “Whatever Ayah We repeal or uphold without change.” Also, Mujahid said that the companions of Ibn Mas`ud (who read this word Nansa’ha) said that it means, “We uphold its wording and change its ruling.” Further, `Ubayd bin `Umayr, Mujahid and `Ata’ said, `Nansa’ha’ means, “We delay it (i.e., do not abrogate it).” Further, `Atiyyah Al-`Awfi said that the Ayah means, “We delay repealing it.” This is the same Tafsir provided by As-Suddi and Ar-Rabi` bin Anas. `Abdur-Razzaq said that Ma`mar said that Qatadah said about Allah’s statement, …
(Whatever a verse (revelation) do We abrogate or cause to be forgotten) “Allah made His Prophet forget what He willed and He abrogated what He will.”
Allah’s said, …
(We bring a better one or similar to it), better, relates to the benefit provided for the one it addresses, as reported from `Ali bin Abi Talhah that Ibn `Abbas said, …
(We bring a better one) means, “We bring forth a more beneficial ruling, that is also easier for you.” Also, As-Suddi said that,…
(We bring a better one or similar to it) means, “We bring forth a better Ayah, or similar to that which was repealed.” Qatadah also said that, …
(We bring a better one or similar to it) means, “We replace it by an Ayah more facilitating, permitting, commanding, or prohibiting.” …”
End of the exegesis of verse 106; ibn Kathir then moves on to 107.
There has been zero dispute over what 2:106 is referring to. Abrogating ayat or verses in the Quran. But what nonsense do you come up with?
“A great many Muslims and scholars do not believe in abrogation. Many have made the case that abrogation as spoken about in the quran actually applies to the previous messages, Torah and Bible. The laws in those were abrogated though the essence was not. As for the verses of the quran, anyone knowledgeable with the quran can tell that those verses were not abrogated, rather they were either refined or evolved, but still applicable in some/all instances.”
You’re just making that up, po. It just isn’t true that a great many Muslims and scholars do not believe in abrogation. For the reason I told you earlier. In this verse of abrogation, Allah talks about his ability to abrogate his commands and asks “know you not Allah is able to do all things?” And the Muslims who don’t believe in abrogation tell Allah, “No, you’re not able to do all things.” Right, there are a great many Muslims and scholars who are willing to do that. Not. There hasn’t been much in the way of serious controversy about the doctrine of abrogation for centuries.I notice you say things like “a great many Muslim scholars do not believe in abrogation” but you never name one single one. And unlike me you don’t cite them. Again you’re just making this up, hoping that people won’t look into it. Hoping that people will just take your word.
The practical takeaway is this; don’t believe when the PC types tell us that moderate Muslims are our first line of defense. That we can’t afford to alienate moderate muslims, like Trump with his rhetoric, because, well, then where would we be? As a Naval intel officer who has been looking at Islam as the motivating ideology of both Shia and Sunni fundamentalist groups for 30 years now I can tell you where we would be. We would be a lot better off. Because people like po, who will insist we interpret a verse that begins “fight those who do not believe” as “fight those who attack you first, but if they leave you alone then leave them alone” just muck up the analysis.
And I can guarantee you that the Ayatolllahs and the “emirs” of AQ and IS is reading a verse that begins “fight those who do not believe” as meaning “fight those who do not beleive.””
Where people like po really hurt us in terms of national security is that, while they’re muddying the waters so clear commands don’t actually appear so clear, the fundamentalist Islamic terrorists of all stripes are studying us. And if they see we’re so gullible as to buy the “moderate Muslim” formulation that as long as we don’t attack them first, they aren’t allowed to fight us. The Islamic terrorists look at each other and smile, as we’ve been groomed to be manipulated by their propaganda.
Meanwhile, when they talk among themselves they can’t believe their good luck. We’re stupid enough to ignore the plain language of the text. They can be quite vocal about it. They aren’t fighting us because of our foreign policy or because of colonialism or because of healthcare or because of global income inequality or because we’re fighting them. They’re fighting us because we believe in other than Allah. But po doesn’t want us to know that. Thanks, po! But despite your best efforts to confuse the issue, and that of all of your friends, I found out anyway.
Cops will tell you much the same thing. They never get useful information from people like Imams at mosques. If I can I’ll dig up some stories of such Imams volunteering to be police informants, but it turned out they only wanted to be on the inside to find out if the cops were searching for any of their congregants so they can tip the suspects off so they can hide.
Some of these people are very open about this. If they help the cops they will definitely lose their positions at the Mosque and could very well be in danger. I everyone is aware that Hamas-linked Muslim Brotherhood front group CAIR, which masquerades as a civil rights organization, tells Muslims not to cooperate with police/FBI investigations.
But when the cops do make a terrorism bust, CAIR and other local Muslim representatives demand to be on the stage when the police hold the press conference. They want it to appear to the public that they somehow assisted with the bust when the exact opposite is the case. The did everything they could to derail the investigation.
Zakir Naik is very influential, just as Anwar al-Awlaki once was. It’s why the Saudis bankroll him. A large percentage of he people who’ve been caught trying to sneak into Syria said they did so because of Zakir Naik’s influence. We can’t dismiss him lightly, as moderate Muslim po would have us do, as a “misunderstanderer” of Islam.
.
I am not going to keep bandying words with you po. You simply can not or will not be honest about the text of the quran.
“Allah ‘s Apostle said, ” I have been ordered to fight with the people till they say, ‘None has the right to be worshipped but Allah,’ and whoever says, ‘None has the right to be worshipped but Allah,’ his life and property will be saved by me except for Islamic law, and his accounts will be with Allah, (either to punish him or to forgive him.)”
Wouldn’t that hadith go against the various instances in the quran where God tells Muhamad AS the opposite? ”
No, it doesn’t. Not if you accept the mainstream Islamic doctrine of abrogation. And if you as sAdon’t accept the theory of abrogation then you’re a heretic. And that is, by the way, the verdict of the Ulema, not mine. Because Allah as he repeatedly reminds Muslims throughout the Quran is the master of all things. Know you not that Allah is Able to do all things? As absolute sovereign of creation, if he wants to change his commands for Muslims, he can do so at will. If you don’t accept the mainstream doctrine of abrogation, po, you’re saying that Allah can’t do whatever he wants. You’re arguing with Allah about what he can do and can’t do, and that makes you a heretic. Referring once again to an actual, recognized Quranic authority, and not just some guy on the internet playing one.
We are in a very odd age where the islamic scholars are the non-Muslims! This is amazing. Steve, will you really teach me my religion, and tell me what I can and can’t believe???!!!!!! Reminds me of the quran, when God asks the idolators, were you therë when I created you? Did you have a part in creation? How do you get to tell me what I can and can’t do?””
Do you realize that whatever ulemas say involves only he and those who follow him? DO you realize there is no pope in Islam? No unified doctrine that is enforceable on the whole? That there has always been various schools whose jurisprudence and intellectual/theological legacy was built exactly on their interpretation of the quranic verses?
The fact Ibn Kathir believes in abrogation does not require me to believe in it. There are a thousand different points of contentions between Ibn Khatir and every other scholar that ever has been. Even the hadith collections of Bukhari is not unanimously accepted. Why did Muslim write his own when he was a student of bukhari? The number of books written about islam, teh quran and theology are countless, and you won’t find 2 that agree on every single thing, sometimes even about the natuer of God, the nature of prophecy, the nature of man…
One believes in abrogation when one thinks that the verses contradict each other, and God clearly states in the quran that the verses do not contradict one another. Additionally, when one is attuned to the structure of the quran, one can see that nothing in it is random, and that therefore everything in it is purposeful, therefor there is no need for abrogation as everything applies in some measure.
Obviously this requires one to believe that the quran is divinely revealed first. But if one does not, then every deriving debate is purposeless.
I asked you, do you believe the quran is a divine message? Why won’t you answer that?
As a Naval intel officer who has been looking at Islam as the motivating ideology of both Shia and Sunni fundamentalist groups for 30 years now I can tell you where we would be. We would be a lot better off. Because people like po, who will insist we interpret a verse that begins “fight those who do not believe” as “fight those who attack you first, but if they leave you alone then leave them alone” just muck up the analysis.
No wonder, Steve, that our foreign policy sucks so… with such faulty analysis as you offer, it all makes sense now. Sunni and shia conflict did not really start until 1979, and I have shown why.
Additionally, as I keep saying, there is not one single “violent”verse of the quran that isn’t qualified either by the verses before it or the ones after it. It is that simple to ascertain, read the quran! Every single “violent”verse you would offer, I will respond with the qualifying verses showing exactly the who, why, how and when.
If you don’t want to accept that challenge, your right, but please have the decency to stop claiming that those verses are what you claim they are.
Finally, as God himself predicted in the quran, the Islam that started with one man, then 2, then 3, then women and the young, the poor and the slaves, that islam would be triumphant, as it was. And it will keep being triumphant until the end of times. You are wasting your time against it, no force can counter the divine will.
But since you really want a scholar to face off against Dr Naik, let me offer you this video that supports much of what I said. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KSO7VIhZoho
Speaking of Isis…http://thefreethoughtproject.com/4-minutes-cbs-news-anchor-explains-created-isis/
Speaking of Iran and Christmas…https://twitter.com/sahouraxo/status/814586855693893632
The days of intolerant religion should be well over by now. I am sure there is a laundry list of other issues that would seem to orbit around these groups. Child abuse, women’s rights, medieval punishment and procedure, you name it. A modern and progressing ( note not progressive ) society has to be able to be secular in many ways just not just when dealing with what god people believe in. I personally want nothing to do with people who act this way, their groups or political operations. We see this now in the political arena in regards to free speech and other funny acts like banning certain voters form service. Would if I believe in the fact that cell phones can cause cancer. Would it not be OK for me to ban or jam them in my business? Probably not. How about banning all things I do not believe in.
This insanity is why so many people voted for the Donald. We already have enough crazed religious fanatics ranging from Farrakhan to Joel Osteen. So vet any others coming in to add to the toxic brew….
The Quran states well over 100 times to argue gently with the people of the Book, i.e, Jews and Christians.
It does. It also states countless times to leave each with his religion, and that when we return to Him, He will tell us who really was rightly guided.
Those verses were abrogated according to over a thousand years of the prevailing view of Islamic scholarship.
Surah 2:106 Al-Baqarah (The Cow)
“We do not abrogate a verse or cause it to be forgotten except that We bring forth [one] better than it or similar to it. Do you not know that Allah is over all things competent?”
Surah 16:101 An-Nahl (The Bee)
“And when We substitute a verse in place of a verse – and Allah is most knowing of what He sends down – they say, “You, [O Muhammad], are but an inventor [of lies].” But most of them do not know.”
These verses are from the Meccan period and have never been abrogated.
You can see how abrogation works when you look at the evolution of the Quran’s prohibition of alcohol. Later verses abrogate earlier verses, as the Quran itself clearly states. As I said earlier, the Quran provides the key to how it is to be interpreted or exegeted.
Verse 2:219 says that there is great sin and some utility in both “strong drink” and gambling, but the sin outweighs the benefit. This was not understood as a blanket prohibition. Later in verse 4:43 the Quran simply tells Muslims not to show up for prayers at the Mosque drunk. It’s clear that the prophet did not have a blanket prohibition of alcohol as part of his original program. No doubt because he didn’t attract very many followers merely by preaching in Mecca. But finally he had had enough and categorically prohibited imbibing in alcoholic beverages at all in verses 5:90-91.
The vast majority of pagan Meccans saw this sort of thing; on day it’s OK to drink wine, the next day it’s not. So they accused Muhammad of simply claiming this was divine revelation when in fact he was simply making it up as he was going along. Hence verse 16:101 was response to that accusation.
The Quran isn’t organized in chronological order, but the final substantive verse Muhammad was supposed to have received before he died at the end of Madinan period is Surah 9. Commonly known asThe Sword Verse. It’s important to note that The Sword Verse doesn’t contain all 149 sword verses found in the Quran but it does constitute the final marching orders for Muslims. And it does NOT preach tolerance for other religions.
Surah 9:14 At-Tawbah (The Repentance)
“Fight them; Allah will punish them by your hands and will disgrace them and give you victory over them and satisfy the breasts of a believing people”
Surah 9:28-33
“O you who have believed, indeed the polytheists are unclean, so let them not approach al-Masjid al-Haram after this, their [final] year. And if you fear privation, Allah will enrich you from His bounty if He wills. Indeed, Allah is Knowing and Wise. Fight those who do not believe in Allah or in the Last Day and who do not consider unlawful what Allah and His Messenger have made unlawful and who do not adopt the religion of truth from those who were given the Scripture – [fight] until they give the jizyah willingly while they are humbled. The Jews say, “Ezra is the son of Allah “; and the Christians say, “The Messiah is the son of Allah .” That is their statement from their mouths; they imitate the saying of those who disbelieved [before them]. May Allah destroy them; how are they deluded? They have taken their scholars and monks as lords besides Allah , and [also] the Messiah, the son of Mary. And they were not commanded except to worship one God; there is no deity except Him. Exalted is He above whatever they associate with Him. They want to extinguish the light of Allah with their mouths, but Allah refuses except to perfect His light, although the disbelievers dislike it. It is He who has sent His Messenger with guidance and the religion of truth to manifest it over all religion, although they who associate others with Allah dislike it.”
Surah 9:74
“They swear by Allah that they did not say [anything against the Prophet] while they had said the word of disbelief and disbelieved after their [pretense of] Islam and planned that which they were not to attain. And they were not resentful except [for the fact] that Allah and His Messenger had enriched them of His bounty. So if they repent, it is better for them; but if they turn away, Allah will punish them with a painful punishment in this world and the Hereafter. And there will not be for them on earth any protector or helper.”
The key to understanding what’s going on here is of course verses 28-33. This is after Muhammad conquered Mecca without firing a shot. And he was merciful to the Meccans. He told them they were free to live their lives. Until a year later when he came back and told them they had a few months to either convert to Islam or flee the city. After the time was up he’d come back to Mecca and kill anyone he found who had not converted. And the Muslim Meccans were to prohibit the polytheists from worshiping at the Kabaa. This really worried the Meccans as they made their living trading with people who came to worship at the Kabaa. How were they going to live now? Muhammad said, don’t worry, we’re simply going to start extorting the Christians and the Jews. Of course the Muslims had to invite them to join Islam (this is why terrorist states such as Al Qaeda or terrorist states like Iran always first invite Americans or American Presidents to Islam when they issue fatwas or write letters; it’s a necessary precursor to declaring war). If they do accept, then they’ll have to pay the zakat, or tithe. If they refuse, invite them to accept subjugated status under Muslim rule, pay the zakat (protection money, essentially) and accept humiliating social disabilities (so they will “feel themselves subdued”), and they will be allowed to live. But Allah will punish them in this world and the next. How will he punish them in this world? The Muslims will be his instrument of punishment.
Note that verses 28-33 says that Jews and Christians assign partners to God. No Jew has ever said Ezra is the son of God. And Surah 5:116 shows the Quran has, shall we say, a curious understanding of the Trinity:
“‘And [beware the Day] when Allah will say, ‘O Jesus, Son of Mary, did you say to the people, ‘Take me and my mother as deities besides Allah ?””
I’m not aware of even a heretical Christian group in 7th Century Arabia ever said that Mary was a deity, nor that the Trinity consists of three separate deities. But this is why many Muslims insist Christians (and Jews) are polytheists and assign partners to Allah. This is the ultimate, unforgivable sin of Shirq. And public displays of Shirq definitely fall into the category of fitnah. Fitnah translated a number of ways such as “temptation” and “discord.” If you read the above verses Jewish and christian fitnah spreads discord by attempting to extinguish the light of of Allah “with their mouths.” And it could tempt Muslims to turn away from the straight path. This is why in multiple Quran verses it says fitnah is worse than killing (i.e. 2:191).
It’s why Zakir Naik put out that tweet it’s inline with mainstream Muslim thought. Maybe not in the West, but in Muslim majority countries. I can go back to the 1300s to ibn Taymiyah and find him saying the same thing; it would be better to have somebody build a tavern selling wine to build a church. Both would be fitnah, but the first is merely sinful, the latter is shirq.
It’s why I said at the beginning of December that I looked forward to CAIR issuing a statement condemning “Islamophobic backlash against peaceful Muslims following upcoming Christmas Eve bombing of Coptic Church in Cairo.” You can practically set your watch by it. But I was wrong. The suicide bombing of St. Mark’s Coptic Cathedral was on the 11th. I guess they thought security was going to be so tight on Christmas Eve they wouldn’t be able to get away with it if they waited. It’s why the suspected IS-inspired murderer drove that truck into that Berlin Christmas market. Because fitnah is worse than killing. It’s also why last Easter someone bombed a large group of Christians gathered in a park in Lahore, Pakistan, killing 74 and wounding 369. All Christian worship is fitnah in the view of every school of Sharia, but celebrating the birth of Christ and His resurrection is particularly beyond the pale.
I believe you’re sincere, po. So was Mahmoud Mohammad Taha, who also had a peaceful, egalitarian view of Islam. He didn’t believe that the later violent verses such as those in Surah 9 had in fact abrogated the earlier, peaceful Meccan verses. But as I said earlier that’s why he was executed as a heretic. Taha still has followers in the Sudan, Europe, and the US. They don’t see much hope that his ideas will catch on in the core Islamic countries of the Arabian Peninsula, most of adjoining North Africa, the Levant, and Southwest Asia. But they do think they see signs his ideas may develop a following in the fringe areas of the Islamic world such as Southeast Asia and perhaps southern Africa. Unfortunately it’s hard to compete with Saudi petrodollars spreading Wahabbism, which produces their Salafist Frankenstein monsters, on a budget. Almost no young Sudanese has heard of Taha, let alone Muslims in the wider Islamic world. But they have heard of ibn abd al Wahhab, Hassan al-Banna, Sayyid Qutb, who was the godfather of even more famous intellectual progeny such as Ayman al-Zawahiri, Osama bin Laden, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, Anwar al-Awlaki, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, et al.
Steve57
It is interesting that in one breath you speak of the variety of islamic thought in order to make your point and the next you speak of the universalism of islamic thought in order to make another point. How many islamic schools of thoughts are they? How many have there been? With each school its philosophy, its insights, its interpretations and its jurisprudence. And often within a school one finds variety of ideas based on a variety of scholars. so you cannot speak of islamic though as it relates to any concept as if fully agreed upon. That simply is untrue.
Let’s start with abrogations. A great many Muslims and scholars do not believe in abrogation. Many have made the case that abrogation as spoken about in the quran actually applies to the previous messages, Torah and Bible. The laws in those were abrogated though the essence was not. As for the verses of the quran, anyone knowledgeable with the quran can tell that those verses were not abrogated, rather they were either refined or evolved, but still applicable in some/all instances. This is also lost on many muslims, including scholars but a careful study of any of those so called abrogated verses shows that they still apply to a narrow subset of the population that still falls under the original circumstances. Islam is a religion of evolution, just as one can say that the divine message is one of evolution, coming to a core and spreading out, coming to leniecyt and spreading into the restricted as the target builds the muscle.
So if anyone came to islam and used to drink, it is obvious that they are not required to stop drinking cold turkey, they would be expected to progress to no longer drinking. Islam is a religion of leniency anyway so that makes a great deal of sense. But take a look at the verse you claimed prohibits alcohol…”O you who have believed, indeed, intoxicants, gambling, [sacrificing on] stone alters [to other than Allah], and divining arrows are but defilement from the work of Satan, so avoid it that you may be successful.” and see that the so called prohibition is not categorical. So where is the abrogation?
As for the order of the quran, it is obviously lost on you that the order is not random. There is a very logical order in there, that reveals itself to the person as she reads it often. Every categorical statement is explained in detail subsequently, and every subsequent verse reinforces, enhances or restricts the original one. So when the quran states the women and food of Christians and Jews are permitted to Muslims, then later on it speaks of believing wives and pure food, it is going from the most lenient, targeting regular muslims (anyone who submits though not necessarily practicing perfectly) to the most idealistic targeting the believers, the righteous, the truthful. That is also lost on many, including many muslims that the quran speaks to different categories of people, and the tenets apply to them differently. So where one may think a verse abrogates another, that verse now speaks to a higher degree of follower, and urges a more righteous level of behavior.
AS for the verses of sword, it is necessary to note that wherever they are are, they are either preceded or followed by the constraints of who is targeted, why they are targeted, when is that targeting applicable, and how much of that targeting is legitimate. So it matters little where and when those verses are listed in the quran, it matters that each time they are framed by the same set of qualifiers which are defined by this” attack those fight you, but when they stop, stop.”
As for Mecca, and “Until a year later when he came back and told them they had a few months to either convert to Islam or flee the city. After the time was up he’d come back to Mecca and kill anyone he found who had not converted., again, I am asking for a source for that. It feels like you are filling a lot of blanks with your own conclusions, conclusion which I must point out are not the conclusion of most islam, when they aren’t yours simply. But, simply by referring to the quranic edict which has been reiterated often in the quran that Muhamas was simply a warner and not an enforcer, and that there is no compulsion in faith, it is easy to see that your facts and conclusions are erroneous. The only people who were targeted by Muhamad As were people who were aggressive towards the Muslims and/or broke their pact. Everyone else wasn’t.
Another mistake you make is to affirm your ignorance as proof of your beliefs. Obviously you are not an islamic scholar, whatever you know about Islam came from orientalists and other islamophobes. But you are attempting to define a 1500 years history, hundreds of societies, millions of people by the extremes of their group. As we all know, there is no theological head of Islam, every scholar is allowed to derive his own logical conclusions from his own process, and whatever makes up islam is the conclusion acceptable to most scholars. This means that no matter how erroneous or extreme the stance of a school, there would be followers adopting it. Which is the same thing found in Judaism and Christianity. So if some extremists decide to wage jihad based on the understanding of one scholar or two, it solely engages them and their group, not 1500 years, hundred of societies, thousands of differing scholarship, one book proven to have remained unchanged for 1500 years, I say it only engages them.
As for mainstream muslim thought and Christmas, Christmas is celebrated in most Muslim majority countries…including Iran. And most Muslims have no issues with it, same as for most islamic scholars….
As I keep saying, whatever you can say about islam that is problematic, is that something that afflicts a minority of islamic countries, a minority of Muslims and a minority of scholars. I think that is pretty good.
“AS for the verses of sword, it is necessary to note that wherever they are are, they are either preceded or followed by the constraints of who is targeted, why they are targeted, when is that targeting applicable, and how much of that targeting is legitimate. So it matters little where and when those verses are listed in the quran, it matters that each time they are framed by the same set of qualifiers which are defined by this ‘attack those fight you, but when they stop, stop.'”
This is simply not true. There is no constraint on who is targeted, nor are there constraints This is where the violence in the Old Testament is radically different from the violence in the Quran. The Old Testament does speak of specific peoples such as Canaanites or Amorites. All the people named are polytheists, but never do your read of Yahweh God commanding the Isrealites to kill all polytheists. Nor are they to kill them everywhere, just within the confines of Israel. And once the Israel. They aren’t supposed to go outside the borders and keep killing Canaanites. The Quran speaks in broad, general terms. Polytheists, Jews, Christians, hypocrites, etc.
Fight those who attack Muslims? Where do you see anything about anyone attacking Muslims in verse 9:29?
“Fight those who do not believe in Allah or in the Last Day and who do not consider unlawful what Allah and His Messenger have made unlawful and who do not adopt the religion of truth from those who were given the Scripture – [fight] until they give the jizyah willingly while they are humbled.”
Muslims are commanded to fight and violently subjugate Christians and Jews (“those who were given the Scripture”) because of their unbelief. There’s nothing in their about fighting Christians and Jews because the Christians and Jews attacked them.
The Ahadith make this very clear as well.
Sahih al-Bukhari – Book of Fighting for the Cause of Allah (Jihaad) – (102) Chapter: The invitation of the Prophet saws to embrace Islam
” Narrated Anas:
Whenever Allah’s Messenger (ﷺ) attacked some people, he would never attack them till it was dawn. If he heard the Adhan (i.e. call for prayer) he would delay the fight, and if he did not hear the Adhan, he would attack them immediately after dawn. We reached Khaibar at night.
Reference : Sahih al-Bukhari 2943
In-book reference : Book 56, Hadith 155
USC-MSA web (English) reference : Vol. 4, Book 52, Hadith 193
(deprecated numbering scheme)”
” Narrated Abu Huraira:
Allah ‘s Apostle said, ” I have been ordered to fight with the people till they say, ‘None has the right to be worshipped but Allah,’ and whoever says, ‘None has the right to be worshipped but Allah,’ his life and property will be saved by me except for Islamic law, and his accounts will be with Allah, (either to punish him or to forgive him.)”
Reference : Sahih al-Bukhari 2946
In-book reference : Book 56, Hadith 158
USC-MSA web (English) reference : Vol. 4, Book 52, Hadith 196
(deprecated numbering scheme)”
You see, you have it backwards, po. Muhammad was attacking people because they believed something other than Islam. Every one of the six canonical hadith collections has a chapter or volume on Jihad, and this is the theme throughout. There is nothing in Islam about only defending yourself against attackers. I daresay I’m more of a scholar than you because I can at least read words off a page and understand the plain meaning of it. And what restriction in terms of who is to be targeted in the word “people?” That applies to the entire human race. Again in the Old Testament mentions specific specific peoples by name. Never does the Old Testament speak in such broad terms.
When did the Hindus attack Muslims, by the way? In 1000AD the Muslims attacked the collection of Hindu kingdoms and principalities in what is now Afghanistan. It was also a center of Buddhism. The Muslims wiped out the entire population, either through slaughter or by enslaving them. The mountain range in northern Pakistan, Afghanistan, into China once had a Hindu name that doesn’t matter much anymore. But now it’s the Hindu Kush. Kush means variably death, kill, slaughter. It literally means “Kills the Hindus,” “Hindu Killer,” “Slaughter of the Hindus.” In other words, it was named by the conquerors to commemorate their mass slaughter of the losers. Most likely because so many Hindus taken as slaves died crossing that range, although it may also have been intended as a threat and a taunt aimed at the other Hindus the Muslims intended to attack. All in all the Muslims killed tens of millions of Indians; Hindus, Sikhs, and Buddhists. Approximately 80 million from the 11th century and the 16the century, and possibly as high as 100 million. Why did the Muslims do this? Because the term “unbelievers” or “unbelievers and polytheists” did not just apply to the pagans Muhammad was fighting in and in the vicinity of Mecca. It applies to unbelievers and polytheists everywhere in the world, for all time. The entirety of Islamic history proves this.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UmgMEu_9n1s
“Islamic Holocaust of India (Part 1)”
There are a lot of textbooks on the subject not available on the internet but this is a nicely done video. If you really need me to provide you a source that there is a mountain range called the Hindu Kush and the name means what I said it means
Also, I’d like to thank you for calling me an Islamophobe. A nonsense term invented by Muslim Brotherhood front groups such as Hamas-linked CAIR (I suppose you’ve never read the transcripts, rulings, and looked through exhibits presented as evidence in the Holy Land Foundation terror funding trial, which are a matter of public record and support my characterization of CAIR, but I’m not going to do your work for you as they’re not hard to find in a few minutes of searching) to prevent honest discussion of the Jihadists’ motivating ideology which as much as you seem to want to play it down very much has to do with Islam and is not a teeny tiny minority view.
I generally get called an Islamophobe when I simply refuse to take a Muslim’s word for what Islam teaches. I go to the actual sources (reading is Islamophobic, I suppose) to see if that is actually the case. I’m not going to go through everything that you’ve said so far, but let’s just focus on this. Islam “gave equal rights to women.”
Really? Let’s check that assertion out.
Surah 4:3 An-Nisa (The Women)
“And if you fear that you will not deal justly with the orphan girls, then marry those that please you of [other] women, two or three or four. But if you fear that you will not be just, then [marry only] one or those your right hand possesses. That is more suitable that you may not incline [to injustice].”
So, men can marry up to four women (except Muhammad, gets special privileges). Please show me the verse that says women can marry four men if she thinks she can deal justly with her multiple husbands.
Surah 4:24 An-Nisa (The Women)
“And [also prohibited to you are all] married women except those your right hands possess. [This is] the decree of Allah upon you. And lawful to you are [all others] beyond these, [provided] that you seek them [in marriage] with [gifts from] your property, desiring chastity, not unlawful sexual intercourse. So for whatever you enjoy [of marriage] from them, give them their due compensation as an obligation. And there is no blame upon you for what you mutually agree to beyond the obligation. Indeed, Allah is ever Knowing and Wise.”
I must have missed that verse that says women can lawfully have sex with their captive men and slave boys.
Surah 4:34 An-Nisa (The Women)
“Men are in charge of women by [right of] what Allah has given one over the other and what they spend [for maintenance] from their wealth. So righteous women are devoutly obedient, guarding in [the husband’s] absence what Allah would have them guard. But those [wives] from whom you fear arrogance – [first] advise them; [then if they persist], forsake them in bed; and [finally], strike them. But if they obey you [once more], seek no means against them. Indeed, Allah is ever Exalted and Grand.”
Now this is going to be tough, as it says men are superior to women (“by [right of] what Allah has given one over the other”] and therefore they’re in charge of women (plus they maintain women). I’ll just settle for you showing me the verse that says women can beat their husbands should “fear arrogance” from them.
So far I’m not seeing anything resembling remotely equal rights for women. Let’s see if Muhammad can shed some light on this.
Sahih al-Bukhari – Book of Witnesses – (12) Chapter: The witness of women
” Narrated Abu Sa`id Al-Khudri:
“The Prophet said, “Isn’t the witness of a woman equal to half of that of a man?” The women said, “Yes.” He said, “This is because of the deficiency of a woman’s mind.”
Reference : Sahih al-Bukhari 2658
In-book reference : Book 52, Hadith 22
USC-MSA web (English) reference : Vol. 3, Book 48, Hadith 826
(deprecated numbering scheme)”
Still not seeing that “women have equal rights in Islam” thing, po.
Sahih al-Bukhari – Book of Eclipses – (9) Chapter: To offer the Eclipse Salat (prayer) in congregation
” Narrated `Abdullah bin `Abbas:
The sun eclipsed in the lifetime of the Prophet (p.b.u.h) . Allah’s Messenger offered the eclipse prayer and stood for a long period equal to the period in which one could recite Surat-al-Baqara. Then he bowed for a long time and then stood up for a long period which was shorter than that of the first standing, then bowed again for a long time but for a shorter period than the first; then he prostrated twice and then stood up for a long period which was shorter than that of the first standing; then he bowed for a long time which was shorter than the previous one, and then he raised his head and stood up for a long period which was shorter than the first standing, then he bowed for a long time which was shorter than the first bowing, and then prostrated (twice) and finished the prayer. By then, the sun (eclipse) had cleared. The Prophet then said, “The sun and the moon are two of the signs of Allah. They eclipse neither because of the death of somebody nor because of his life (i.e. birth). So when you see them, remember Allah.” The people say, “O Allah’s Messenger! We saw you taking something from your place and then we saw you retreating.” The Prophet replied, “I saw Paradise and stretched my hands towards a bunch (of its fruits) and had I taken it, you would have eaten from it as long as the world remains. I also saw the Hell-fire and I had never seen such a horrible sight. I saw that most of the inhabitants were women.” The people asked, “O Allah’s Messenger! Why is it so?” The Prophet replied, “Because of their ungratefulness.” It was asked whether they are ungrateful to Allah. The Prophet said, “They are ungrateful to their companions of life (husbands) and ungrateful to good deeds. If you are benevolent to one of them throughout the life and if she sees anything (undesirable) in you, she will say, ‘I have never had any good from you.’
Reference : Sahih al-Bukhari 1052
In-book reference : Book 16, Hadith 12
USC-MSA web (English) reference : Vol. 2, Book 18, Hadith 161
(deprecated numbering scheme)”
Unfortunately, po, Muhammad agrees with Allah. Women are inferior to men. Muhammad says women are mentatlly and morally deficient compared to men, so the majority of the inhabitants of Hell are women.
Maybe I just missed the verses and the ahadith that says women are equal to men. I look forward to you providing the evidence to back up your assertion that women have equal rights with men in Islam.
This is simply not true. There is no constraint on who is targeted, nor are there constraints This is where the violence in the Old Testament is radically different from the violence in the Quran. The Old Testament does speak of specific peoples such as Canaanites or Amorites. All the people named are polytheists, but never do your read of Yahweh God commanding the Isrealites to kill all polytheists. Nor are they to kill them everywhere, just within the confines of Israel. And once the Israel. They aren’t supposed to go outside the borders and keep killing Canaanites. The Quran speaks in broad, general terms. Polytheists, Jews, Christians, hypocrites, etc.
Again, Steve, you are revealing you do not know that which you are talking about. Again you are quoting verses out of context and playing ignorant. You ask about verse 9.29? What led to it? Well start with verse 1!
—————————
9:1 A declaration of immunity from Allah and His Messenger to those of the idolaters with whom you made an agreement.
9:2 So go about in the land for four months and know that you cannot escape Allah and that Allah will disgrace the disbelievers.
9:3 And an announcement from Allah and His Messenger to the people on the day of the greater pilgrimage that Allah is free from liability to the idolaters, and so is His Messenger. So if you repent, it will be better for you; and if you turn away, then know that you will not escape Allah. And announce painful chastisement to those who disbelieve —
9:4 Except those of the idolaters with whom you made an agreement, then they have not failed you in anything and have not backed up anyone against you; so fulfil their agreement to the end of their term. Surely Allah loves those who keep their duty.
9:5 So when the sacred months have passed, slay the idolaters, wherever you find them, and take them captive and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush. But if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, leave their way free. Surely Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.
9:6 And if anyone of the idolaters seek thy protection, protect him till he hears the word of Allah, then convey him to his place of safety. This is because they are a people who know not.
9:7 How can there be an agreement for the idolaters with Allah 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 Allah loves those who keep their duty.
9:8 How (can it be)? And if they prevail against you, they respect neither ties of relationship nor covenant in your case. They would please you with their mouths while their hearts refuse; and most of them are transgressors.
9:9 They have taken a small price for the messages of Allah, so they hinder (men) from His way. Surely evil is that which they do.
9:10 They respect neither ties of relationship nor covenant, in the case of a believer. And these are they who go beyond the limits.
9:11 But if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, they are your brethren in faith. And We make the messages clear for a people who know.
9:12 And if they break their oaths after their agreement and revile your religion, then fight the leaders of disbelief — surely their oaths are nothing — so that they may desist.
9:13 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 Allah has more right that you should fear Him, if you are believers.
” Narrated Anas:
Whenever Allah’s Messenger (ﷺ) attacked some people, he would never attack them till it was dawn. If he heard the Adhan (i.e. call for prayer) he would delay the fight, and if he did not hear the Adhan, he would attack them immediately after dawn. We reached Khaibar at night.
Obviously that hadith makes no sense. Why? Because if the tribe was not muslim, then the muslims themselves would be callign the adhan and praying at that time. You do know how essential the prayer is? RIght? To the point that there is what is called the fear prayer, where the person is supposed to pray even while in battle. And you tell me that while it is prayer time, the Muslims would attacking someone instead? That goes against the whole consensus of the ahadith.
Now, if the town was a muslim town where the adhan is called, that would make it impossible for the Muslims to attack said town. Both the quran and the Prophet are pretty clear about fighting Muslims.
Allah ‘s Apostle said, ” I have been ordered to fight with the people till they say, ‘None has the right to be worshipped but Allah,’ and whoever says, ‘None has the right to be worshipped but Allah,’ his life and property will be saved by me except for Islamic law, and his accounts will be with Allah, (either to punish him or to forgive him.)”
Wouldn’t that hadith go against the various instances in the quran where God tells Muhamad AS the opposite? Wouldn’t that go against the last recorded speech by Muhamad at arafat which actually demands mUslims treat the non_Muslims fairly? Doesn’t the hadith reveal that even the rightly guided qalifs also insisted non_muslism be treated fairly?
I won’t answer your points regarding Hindus, otherwise we are hopping around too much. Suffice to say that whatever you mention was not condoned either by Quran or hadith, just as the crusades were not condoned by the bible.
Regarding women equality, it is easy, let us stick with the quran, please. At least we know that whatever source it is, it has remained unchanged for its existence.
Then please go and take whatever verses there are about such and compare them to any other holy book and come back at me. Additionally, the verses you claim show inequality actually show the opposite, divine care for women who otherwise had no rights at all.
I wrote a lengthy reply to this comment earlier today and it’s awaiting moderation. Perhaps it was too link heavy. My bad; if I’m going to assert something I like to support it.
First, you seem to have inadvertently made one of my points. You list a number of Quran verses that, I suppose, were supposed to refute my statement that the Quran doesn’t restrict violence to specific peoples, times and places. But note most of those verses simply mention generic “idolators.” That was my point; that’s what makes the prescriptive violence in the Quran different from the prescriptive violence in the Old Testament. In the Old Testament specific people are commanded to fight specific peoples. You will not see Yahweh God command the Israelites to fight “idolators.” Instead you will read Him command the Israelites to fight specific peoples such as Amalekites, Hittites, Girgashites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites. They were only to fight them to evict them from the land of Israel, because they had committed abominable sins, and if the Israelites allowed them to stay then they would tempt the Israelites into the same sins. And once the Israelites had killed them off or evicted them, then the job was finished. They weren’t to kill or convert all Canaanites or Hittites everywhere.
It is precisely because of the generic Quranic directives against unbelievers, idolators, and polytheists that led the Muslim invaders to treat the Hindus and Buddhists, who are by any Quranic test unbelievers and idolators, as they did. But you don’t want to address that because then we’d be “hopping around.” That’s curious; in one of your comments on 28 December you invited people to:
“As for the spread of Islam, read up on it. The answer is the history. An example: Indonesia: one of the biggest islamic countries int he world, not one shot was fired there. ”
It’s hardly consistent on your part, but I can understand why you’d much rather discuss examples of the spread of Islam where Muslims come off looking peaceful and tolerant and not the examples where Muslims come off looking like anything but.
I’m going to risk one link since you invite people to read up on history.
https://archive.org/details/ArabiaAndTheArabs
“Arabia And The Arabs From the Bronze Age to the coming of Islam
by Robert G. Hoyland”
You assert but provide no evidence that Islam provided “divine care for women who otherwise had no rights at all.” In fact the available archeological evidence and contemporary histories demonstrate that it’s not the case at all; in fact quite the opposite.
You can download the entire text of the above history book at the link. I suggest you begin by concentrating on pages 128-134 which focuses on marriage and the role of women in pre-Islamic Arabia. You simply have accepted what nearly all Muslims I know have been taught without examination. It’s impossible to know how many women lived in matrilineal societies where lineage was derived through the mother, where women had a great deal of power and a great deal of rights, rather than patrilineal societies where they may have had little, but in fact many Arab women lost rights due to Islam. For instance in some of these societies women could have multiple husbands, and could contract for temporary marriage. This sort of temporary marriage was quite different then the temporary marriage, or Mut’ah, that Muhammad allowed his followers to engage in. Mut’ah was for sexual pleasure. The temporary marriage these women would contract for was to produce children, and the women wanted to have children by the strongest and most valiant warriors. Women could also divorce men as easily as turning their tent around. If a man left and the door to the tent was facing left, and upon his return the door was facing east, he had been divorced and had to leave both his wife and the tribe behind.
More pertinent to the topic, I asked you to name a Muslim apologist who anywhere near as popular throughout the Islamic world as Zakir Naik. Zakir Naik receives a lot of Saudi cash to spread the message of their Wahhabist branch of Islam. As I said earlier in this comment thread, it’s very difficult to compete on a shoestring budget with Saudi petrodollars. You say that Muslim majority countries celebrate Christmas and most Muslims have not problem with it. Well, if I weren’t afraid of comment go into moderation again I could provide you with several links to articles detailing the problems the influential Indonesian Ulema Council has with the public celebration of Christmas. And again, I see the influence of Saudi money in the increasing fundamentalism in what I’m told is moderately Islamic Indonesia. I can’t can’t believe without evidence that the situation r.e. celebrating Christmas is better in less moderate Muslim-majority countries. But for a start I’d settle for you to name someone who advocates your brand of Islam who is anywhere near as popular as Zakir Naik. I don’t mean a good speaker, apologist, debater, what have you. I don’t believe Zakir Naik is particularly good. I think Dr. Shabir Ali is head and shoulders better than him. But Dr. Shabir Ali is nowhere near as popular.
This also should provide you with a hint that I’m familiar with all the top Islamic speakers and debaters so if you deign to respond with someone so obscure he couldn’t draw enough of an audience to fill a hole-in-the-wall coffee shop I’ll know. I’ve seen the kind of crowds Zakir Naik can draw. You assert that this tweet of Zakir Naik’s r.e. the sinfulness of wishing someone Merry Christmas is way out of the mainstream of Islam. I’ve provided a lot of evidence that it is. You keep asserting I’m wrong, but assertions aren’t evidence. For a start, name someone in the same business as Zakir Naik who comes close to being as popular while still in your camp theologically.
First, you seem to have inadvertently made one of my points. You list a number of Quran verses that, I suppose, were supposed to refute my statement that the Quran doesn’t restrict violence to specific peoples, times and places. But note most of those verses simply mention generic “idolators.”
Steve, there are basics things lost on you, which makes it so you are actually inadvertently making my case for me. Ïdolators” in the quran could not be any more specific. Christians are named, Jews are named, hypocrites are named, pagans and idolators are named, Muslims also are named. So when the quran mentions idolators, it is talking about the pagans arabs, the idolators, generally the quraish. Most of the violence you actually decry targets the idolators/pagans/ quraish, and mos tof them were concentrated in or near Mecca. So pretty clear I think.
It’s hardly consistent on your part, but I can understand why you’d much rather discuss examples of the spread of Islam where Muslims come off looking peaceful and tolerant and not the examples where Muslims come off looking like anything but.
Are you not catching on to the hypocrisy of holding Muslims to a different standard? Show me one people anywhere that had a perfect standard of behavior about anything, especially warfare! Even the hadith shows instances where a band of muslims overstepped their bounds and the Prophet AS lamented it harshly! And the quran also rebuked the Muslims who did that. So are you blaming the quran for the abuses of Muslims? Are you blaming the Prophet for the abuses of Muslims? Or are you saying that the quran condones it?
Yes, there has been a lot of violenc ein the spread of islam, no doubt, but there has been less than more. More of islam has spread without violence than with. That’s a fact.
You assert but provide no evidence that Islam provided “divine care for women who otherwise had no rights at all.” In fact the available archeological evidence and contemporary histories demonstrate that it’s not the case at all; in fact quite the opposite.
The history of the area and era is pretty clear, Arabia was not a safe zone for womanhood. The habits of a specific tribe or culture doesn’t make the whole. Muhamad came of age in an Arabia that was incredibly violent, with continuous raids and warfare and where women were the target and collateral of such violence and chaos. It is common knowledge that Arabs used to bury their newborn daughters alive, a practice the quran condemns fully. Additionally, women were divorced without rights or support, and they also did not have inheritance rights. A widow was owned by the family of her husband which decides if or when and to whom she could remarry. The quran changed all of that, do you disagree?
More pertinent to the topic, I asked you to name a Muslim apologist who anywhere near as popular throughout the Islamic world as Zakir Naik. …I can’t can’t believe without evidence that the situation r.e. celebrating Christmas is better in less moderate Muslim-majority countries. But for a start I’d settle for you to name someone who advocates your brand of Islam who is anywhere near as popular as Zakir Naik….You assert that this tweet of Zakir Naik’s r.e. the sinfulness of wishing someone Merry Christmas is way out of the mainstream of Islam. I’ve provided a lot of evidence that it is. You keep asserting I’m wrong, but assertions aren’t evidence. For a start, name someone in the same business as Zakir Naik who comes close to being as popular while still in your camp theologically.
I don’t always disagree with dr Naik…heck I don’t always disagree with any single group out there, nor do I agree with any wholeheartedly. So your attempt to create this ideological gulf between me and naik doesn’t hold. I disagree with him on this subject, as I have seen with my own eyes that any largely muslim soceity that I have found myself in, either celebrates Christmas, is fine with their society’s celebration of it or is at worse ambivalent about it. Senegal is 95% muslim but not only celebrates Christmas but makes the next day a holiday.
Same in most other non-islamic theocracies. So the large majority of Muslims live in societies where christmas is celebrated, including iran.
And in that, we have an example in the Prophet AS himself who let the Christian delegation use the mosque for their service. I mean, doesn’t the fact Naik feels the need to issue that fatwa prove that the habit he targets is pretty established?
po, your deceptions and evasions are getting more and more pathetic.
“Ïdolators” in the quran could not be any more specific”.
No, it could have been more clear. A lot more clear. Idolators are people who worship idols. People were worshiping idols all over the world in the 7th century.
“So when the quran mentions idolators, it is talking about the pagans arabs, the idolators, generally the quraish.”
Does Allah have a speech impediment? If he meant only certain idolators he should have said so. Yahweh of the Old Testament didn’t have this problem. Yahweh didn’t command the Israelites to fight generic idolators. He had a list; Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Apparently Allah isn’t capable of that sort of precision, so you need to step in and help him out and do for Allah what he is incapable of doing for himself, the poor dear. There’s a couple of problems with that.
Surah 7″52
“For We had certainly sent unto them a Book, based on knowledge, which We explained in detail,- a guide and a mercy to all who believe.”
Isn’t it amazing I’m the only one in this discussion who takes Allah at his word. This isn’t the first time I’ve been in this position when dealing with a supposed moderate Muslim who thinks he can explain what Allah meant better than Allah himself.
“Most of the violence you actually decry targets the idolators/pagans/ quraish, and mos tof them were concentrated in or near Mecca. So pretty clear I think.”
You may think so. You may have to think so. But the fact is the prescriptive commands in the Quran aren’t restricted to a particular place and time.
Surah 2:116
“Fighting has been enjoined upon you while it is hateful to you. But perhaps you hate a thing and it is good for you; and perhaps you love a thing and it is bad for you. And Allah Knows, while you know not.”
Surah 9:111
“Indeed, Allah has purchased from the believers their lives and their properties [in exchange] for that they will have Paradise. They fight in the cause of Allah , so they kill and are killed. [It is] a true promise [binding] upon Him in the Torah and the Gospel and the Qur’an. And who is truer to his covenant than Allah ? So rejoice in your transaction which you have contracted. And it is that which is the great attainment.”
These are open ended commands for all times and in all places, unlike the commands in the Old Testament. Unlike you I think Allah would have been capable of providing more detail if he really meant the pagans in or near Mecca. Since he didn’t it is quite clear he didn’t just mean the pagans/idolators near Mecca. If that’s what’s he meant then Muhammad’s companions under the first four rightly guided Caliphs sure didn’t understand Islam. Because they didn’t get that message. And if they didn’t understand Islam, nobody understood Islam or how to be a Muslim.
Except you of course, Mr. Anonymous Internet Guy, who keeps insisting non-existent controversies exist over Allah’s self-proclaimed clear text explained in detail.
“So are you blaming the quran for the abuses of Muslims? Are you blaming the Prophet for the abuses of Muslims? ”
Oh, like this isn’t a red herring I’ve never seen before. As I said, your evasions and deceptions are getting more pathetic. What constitutes an abuse depends on whether or not a self-proclaimed adherent of a religion acts in accordance with the tenets of their faith, deviates from it, or is blatant contradiction of them.
For instance, earlier when I cited Surah 4:24 to show that Allah makes it lawful for Muslims to exploit captive and slave women sexually you started spewing nonsensical squid ink about some imaginary controversy of the Arabic idiom “those your right hands possess.” It’s quite clear, although I realize it’s embarrassing and inconvenient for you when I point it out. I’m going to refer to the Tafsir of ibn Kathir.
If past performance is any prediction of future performance, you’re to start blowing smoke about ibn Kathir being some shady, unreliable source. Because all your arguments depend on the hop that no one is going to check your baseless, unsupported, and unsupportable assertions because inevitably, if they take the time, there is not “there” there to what you are saying. So if anyone is following this tedious conversation and has any interest you can read a biography of ibn Kathir here:
https://dar-us-salam.com/authors/hafiz-ibn-kathir.htm
The Tafsir (exegesis or authoritative explanation of the Quran) of ibn Kathir is perhaps the gold standard for, going verse by verse, explaining exactly what each one means. The ellipses show where the Arabic text alternates with the English transliteration (translating not only from one language to another, but also from one writing system to another). The title of this commentary on 4:24 is “Forbidding Women Already Married, Except for Female Slaves.”
“Allah said,..(Also (forbidden are) women already married, except those whom your right hands possess.) The Ayah means, you are prohibited from marrying women who are already married,
…(except those whom your right hands possess) except those whom you acquire through war, for you are allowed such women after making sure they are not pregnant. Imam Ahmad recorded that Abu Sa`id Al-Khudri said, “We captured some women from the area of Awtas who were already married, and we disliked having sexual relations with them because they already had husbands. So, we asked the Prophet about this matter, and this Ayah was revealed, …”
“This ayah” is verse 4:24, the verse I brought up earlier, which po is terrified people will learn means exactly what it says.
“…(Also (forbidden are) women already married, except those whom your right hands possess). Consequently, we had sexual relations with these women.” This is the wording collected by At-Tirmidhi An-Nasa’i, Ibn Jarir and Muslim in his Sahih. Allah’s statement,…(Thus has Allah ordained for you) means, this prohibition was ordained for you by Allah. Therefore, adhere to Allah’s Book, do not transgress His set limits, and adhere to His legislation and decrees.”
When a Muslim captures a married non-Muslim woman or for that matter an unmarried non-Muslim in the course of Jihad he can make her his sex slave. Or he can sell her to others (or both, as we’ll see when we turn Muhammad’s views on the matter. That it is not an abuse. Allah has authorized the practice.
Now, po would like us to avoid the ahadith, for predictable reasons. But we cannot because that would contradict several of Allah’s clear commands. Allah commands Muslims to pattern their life on Muhammad if they wish to see paradise (S33:21), that once Allah or Muhammad has decided a matter it is settled for all time, and no Muslim has a choice about it anymore (S33:36), that Allah doesn’t send a messenger except to be obeyed (S4:64), etc. There are several more verses like this. So, how do you obey Muhammad, know what judgements he rendered, abide by his decisions? By going to the ahadith. Here’s a charming hadith.
“Sahih Muslim – The Book of Marriage – (22) Chapter: The ruling on coitus interrupts (‘Azl)
Abu Sirma said to Abu Sa’id al Khadri (Allah he pleased with him):
0 Abu Sa’id, did you hear Allah’s Messenger mentioning al-‘azl? He said: Yes, and added: We went out with Allah’s Messenger (ﷺ) on the expedition to the Bi’l-Mustaliq and took captive some excellent Arab women; and we desired them, for we were suffering from the absence of our wives, (but at the same time) we also desired ransom for them. So we decided to have sexual intercourse with them but by observing ‘azl (Withdrawing the male sexual organ before emission of semen to avoid-conception). But we said: We are doing an act whereas Allah’s Messenger is amongst us; why not ask him? So we asked Allah’s Messenger, and he said: It does not matter if you do not do it, for every soul that is to be born up to the Day of Resurrection will be born.
Reference : Sahih Muslim 1438 a
In-book reference : Book 16, Hadith 147
USC-MSA web (English) reference : Book 8, Hadith 3371
(deprecated numbering scheme)”
I never imagined hearing about any prophet in my catechism classes that would take a neutral stance on coitus interruptus when raping a woman you just kidnapped, but Muhammad is, shall we say, unique. Point being, po, when you insist, when others insist, that the Islamic State is acting un-Islamic by making sex slaves of non-Muslim women they capture you don’t have a theological leg to stand on. There is no text that supports your baseless assertions. All the authoritative Muslim sources are on the Islamic States side. And you can scream “Context, context, context!” all you want. There is no imaginable context that can salvage your position. I’m fine to go into all the legitimate sources of context; the historical context, the immediate textual context (how does the verse fit with the surrounding verses), and the general literary context (how does the verse fit in with the message of the scripture as a whole). Once you exhaust those sources of context you’re SOL, my friend. Generally speaking that’s when Muslims like you call me an Islamophobe. Because I won’t join you in magical thinking, as if we ate enough candy-coated unicorn dung we’d see that there’s an alternate universe that provides a context that makes these awful verses and ahadith miraculously inviting and friendly and tolerant and inclusive and peaceful. That context don’t exist, dude.
The term for what ibn Kathir does, what all good scholars do when analyzing any religious text, is exegesis. They draw the truth out of the text. That’s commonly called letting the text speak for itself. The term for what you do, po, and most Western Muslims do, is called eisegesis. Nearly all westernized Muslims have been taught their entire lives, and believe, that Islam is a religion of peaclearly mean to an objective observer. So they project their presuppositions, biases, agendas, what have you, into and onto the text. That is commonly called reading the meaning you want to see into the text. It’s the polar opposite of drawing the meaning out of the text.
“The history of the area and era is pretty clear, Arabia was not a safe zone for womanhood.”
No, it’s not. That’s why I provided you with a link to an actual free, downloadable history book by a reputable historian which examines the actual historical evidence (archeological, contemporary documentation histories, inscriptions, etc.). But since you, like most Western Muslims I know, have been indoctrinated to believe that Muhammad was the first feminist, and that Islam was a great liberating leap forward for all Arab women of the era when for great many (but now unknowable percentage) of Arab women it was really a big step backward, why let the facts get in the way of a cherished narrative.
By the way I encourage everyone to click on the link and read pages 128-134, the section on marriage and the role of women. Note that I distinguish between westernized Muslims and other Muslims.You just don’t get his narrative that Islam liberated women from Muslims who grew up in the Islamic world (unless they’ve been taught it for purposes of Dawah, proselytizing) because they don’t live in societies that value making Islam more palatable to Western audiences.
“The quran changed all of that, do you disagree?”
Yes. And so would you if you didn’t have a closed mind and were impervious to evidence.
Added bonus; I wanted to address this.
“I agree with you, Chauncer. Which is why believers who do not misunderstand their holy texts know that co-existing in faith is divine wisdom.
Which is also why I belong to Abrahamic alliance international, which gathers Jews, Christians and Muslims goodwill and charity.”
What alliance are you talking about? Your Abraham (like your Issa [the Quran doesn’t even get Jesus’ name right; the proper transliteration of the Hebrew Yeshua to Arabic is Yesu, which Christian Arabs had been using for nearly 600 years before Muhammad was born) is not the Abraham of the Torah or Old Testament.
Surah 60:4 Al-Mumtahanah (She that is to be examined)
“There has already been for you an excellent pattern in Abraham and those with him, when they said to their people, “Indeed, we are disassociated from you and from whatever you worship other than Allah . We have denied you, and there has appeared between us and you animosity and hatred forever until you believe in Allah alone” except for the saying of Abraham to his father, “I will surely ask forgiveness for you, but I have not [power to do] for you anything against Allah . Our Lord, upon You we have relied, and to You we have returned, and to You is the destination.”
According to Allah, Abraham and his followers were an excellent pattern of conduct and morality when they preached animosity and hatred to their families forever, until these families believed in Allah alone. Abraham deviated from that excellent pattern when he weakened and told his father he’d ask forgiveness for him, for Allah “loves not the unbeliever.”
How is eternal animosity and hatred a basis for an alliance?
Steve, firstly, please break up your posts so I can answer them better, it is pretty difficult to handle such a long post that hops around. Please address each topic in one post and I can address it easier.
As for…
Idolators:
Again, the whole point of the quran is lost on you. You go at it trying to debunk a book, thinking it is not a true book then offer surprise that you find in it exactly what you are looking for. You are biased in your emotions therefore you are biased in your approach and conclusion… obvious.
Let me start again: The quran is locally based but reaching globally, as should be every message that targets a people while being universal. One messenger, sent to one group of people specifically with a message that will speak to all humanity thereon…how else would you do it?
Was Muhamad As sent to the ROmans? Did he just suddenly appear in China? Would he not speak Chinese then? Would he not speak of the condition the Chinese experienced then? Or was he cloned so he appears to every people at the same time and speak to them in their own language about their own conditions? It is logical to most that the idolators the quran refers to specifically are the local idolators. THEN, every other idolator until the end of times. And an idolator is anyone who assigns divine cause and effects and/or worships anyone other than God. So as long as the world exists, the Muslims are told exactly what Muhamad As was told, fight the idolators if they fight you, leave them alone if they do. Live in peace and fairness with the people of the book meant those christians and jews of that time, but globally it also means all other Christians and jews until the end of times. Quite logical and quite consistent me think. And it makes perfect sense to logical people and to those familiar with the quran and read it with openmindness.
Seems to me you are requiring the quran be exactly as you need it to be in order to make your case for you…:)
Regarding the translations, you, a non-muslim demands that Muslims interpret their verses according to the interpreter of your choosing. Well, most muslims have never read Ibn Khatir. and of those who have, many disagree with at least part of his tafsir. I disagree with much of it. There is no way in my view that the interpretation of a universal holy book is frozen in time and accessible only to a medieval scholar. I disagree specifically with every gender issue and any science related issue. One because he was the cultural product of his era, and two because he was the product of the scientific ignorance of his era. Additionally, some of the ahadith he uses to support his argument are weak. Follow him if you choose.
As for your Abraham and the alliance between Jews, Christians and Muslims…you ar eleaving me speechless…you are arguing opposite points it seems.
But let us just frame the debate once for all. Let us strip the layers off. Let us start with one skeleton and flesh it. Let us go the root, the quran. Do you believe the quran to be divinely revealed? If not why? If we disagree on that, then there obviously won’t be a need to debate hadith.
The Tafsir of ibn Kathir is available in an abridged form online.
http://qtafsir.com/
Steve, “Perhaps it was too link heavy.”
You only get 2 links.
Which is what Yezidi are experiencing I’m sure.
Yes. The Yazidi women, as they are being kidnapped and raped, must be comforted and soothed in knowing that what they are actually experiencing is the Islamic take on arguing gently with one’s neighbors.
Given that Po the Humanitarian once claimed to have owned a slave, himself, should we be surprised? He wanted to praise, from us, congratulating him for finally releasing his captive. As if he just did something miraculous.
He wanted praise, not to praise. . .
Bamabam, don’t I deserve some praise for releasing my slave? Do you know how hard it is to find a good slave nowadays? That’s miraculous by any standard!
Sheesh!
Regarding the Yazidi, I agree with you…but we should also ponder… who knew about the Yazidis before ISIS came along? Were they raped and enslaved before Isis came along? No!
How did they survive and prosper for a millenia and more unless they cohabited peacefully with their neighbors, Muslim neighbors?
Is it the same reason why Iranians Jews are just as patriotic as their Muslim countrymen?
i wonder if what changed is what changed in Iraq, the west invading and driving a wedge between Sunnis and shias, who before that lived in harmony.
One question we must ask however is why is Israel treating the Al Nusra front fighters in Israeli hospitals? These Nusra fighters are allies with ISis, which rapes the Yazidi women and beheads not only non-Muslims but also muslims, and yet Israel treats them as allies! What are we missing, Bambam?
Well, wonders never cease Po, the Great and Beneficent Releaser of Slaves. For once, I actually agree with you. Must be the residual eggnog still in my system.
Why does Israel, your favorite punching bag, treat and give medical care to bloodthirsty murderers and beasts? I ask that question to myself all the time. All the time. It’s hard to fathom why a country would seek to treat and care for such despicable beings, yet Israel does so at every turn. It is not uncommon. It occurs there all the time. The policy, however foolhardy, is to save every human life, regardless if that being has just engaged in the killing of innocents. An amazing concept. Every human life in Israel will be saved. Even when those same beings have just set off a bomb, in a town square, which has maimed and killed dozens. Yes, those subhumans enjoy Israel’s gold plated medical care. Every time some subhuman runs down the streets of Jerusalem, slashing innocent pedestrians along the way, I also wonder why such a person is often rushed, to the nearest Israeli hospital, to be treated and saved from his wounds. Yes, Po, I wonder why Israel never ceases to act humanely in treating the injured and wounded. All of the treated and wounded. Yes, Po, we wonder about the same things; however, as usual, we differ. You choose to read some dark and conspiratorial meaning behind said actions, as no Muslim country, in the world, would ever imagine behaving in such a manner. Once you grasp that Israel is truly a light, unto all nations, you will get it. The inability of you, to comprehend such goodness and altruism, speaks volumes. Your holy books venerate the mass murder of infidels. Treating one’s enemy is incomprehensible. At least, admit it. Of course you see an oddity in Israel’s actions. Surely, once again, it must be Israel’s fault. Everything, according to you, always is.
Hahaha…good try, Bam.
Go say that to the countless Jews Muslims saved from the holocaust.
We are not talkign about random people, the subhumans you speak about are Israeli arabs who get shot by the IDF then a knife is planted on them, same as they do to black people here, we are talkign about the same people you rightly condemn for raping and enslaving the Yazidis… Israel provides them shelter, armament and care when they are injured. Meanwhile they shoot in the head Palestinians women, men and children laying down injured and incapacitated. Meanwhile they bomb Gaza with F16’s, meanwhile they bomb hospitals, and schools, and shoot at fishermen on their own shores…meanwhile they bomb ambulances and drop-missile 4 children playing on the beach…meanwhile they never convict any Israeli guilty of murdering a Palestinian, even if that Israeli firebombed a sleeping family and burned them to death….
More lies from the slave-owning Po. Does CAIR pay you by the lie or simply by the word? You should be able to buy one of your multiplewives a little something for the holidays with that comment filled with propagandist lies.
Po – you are aware that the PLO uses ambulances to move weapons and troops and uses hospitals to hide munitions. They also use hospitals as rocket firing sites. The PLO hides in with the civilians just like Saddam. To expect the Israelis not to attack them is insane.
Paul, you are aware I am sure that you stated PLO when you meant Hamas…and that the claim about Hamas using schools and hospitals and schools has been thoroughly debunked already?
As for you, Bam, everything I said is factual and not hasbara… But if you can provide a counter, I’ll apologize publicly.
Po – the use of schools and ambulances has never been debunked.
Paul, prove it.
Po –
Ambulances – watch to the end
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5oesBeCFAlg
Schools and Mosques plus Ambulances
http://www.theblaze.com/news/2014/07/23/ambulances-schools-and-mosques-hamas-top-10-hiding-places-that-are-frustrating-israels-fight-against-terror/
Paul, you are quoting the IDF to prove IDF propaganda about Palestinians?
Neither the Un nor the reporters on site have vouched for that propaganda. It comes solely from Israel and its presstitudes. What is more jusitfyign for blowing civilians than to say that Hamas hides among them? And, to repeat it, even then it is still a war crime.
“All governments lie, as I.F. Stone pointed out, including Israel and Hamas. But Israel engages in the kinds of jaw-dropping lies that characterize despotic and totalitarian regimes. It does not deform the truth; it inverts it. It routinely paints a picture for the outside world that is diametrically opposed to reality. And all of us reporters who have covered the occupied territories have run into Israel’s Alice-in-Wonderland narratives, which we dutifully insert into our stories — required under the rules of American journalism — although we know they are untrue.
I saw small boys baited and killed by Israeli soldiers in the Gaza refugee camp of Khan Younis. The soldiers swore at the boys in Arabic over the loudspeakers of their armored jeep. The boys, about 10 years old, then threw stones at an Israeli vehicle and the soldiers opened fire, killing some, wounding others. I was present more than once as Israeli troops drew out and shot Palestinian children in this way.
Such incidents, in the Israeli lexicon, become children caught in crossfire. I was in Gaza when F-16 attack jets dropped 1,000-pound iron fragmentation bombs on overcrowded hovels in Gaza City. I saw the corpses of the victims, including children. This became a surgical strike on a bomb-making factory. I have watched Israel demolish homes and entire apartment blocks to create wide buffer zones between the Palestinians and the Israeli troops that ring Gaza. I have interviewed the destitute and homeless families, some camped out in crude shelters erected in the rubble. The destruction becomes the demolition of the homes of terrorists.
I have stood in the remains of schools — Israel struck two United Nations schools in the last six days, causing at least 10 fatalities at one in Rafah on Sunday and at least 19 at one in the Jebaliya refugee camp Wednesday — as well as medical clinics and mosques. I have heard Israel claim that errant rockets or mortar fire from the Palestinians caused these and other deaths, or that the attacked spots were being used as arms depots or launching sites. I, along with every other reporter I know who has worked in Gaza, have never seen any evidence that Hamas uses civilians as “human shields.”
There is a perverted logic to Israel’s repeated use of the Big Lie — GroÃe Luge — the lie favored by tyrants from Adolf Hitler and Josef Stalin to Saddam Hussein. The Big Lie feeds the two reactions Israel seeks to elicit — racism among its supporters and terror among its victims.http://www.opednews.com/articles/Why-Israel-Lies-by-Chris-Hedges-Hamas_Israel_Israel-Attacks-Gaza_Israeli_Propaganda-140804-834.html
Bam…is this the humanitarian thing you talk about? They are nicer to ISIS than to these kids… Thank G the tide is turning, the world is getting sick and tired of beign dictated to by one tiny country.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?utm_medium=social&feature=youtu.be&utm_content=buffer6b9fb&utm_campaign=buffer&v=N0gsnp7kMiA&utm_source=twitter.com&app=desktop
https://www.facebook.com/theIMEU/videos/1626500717366837/
https://www.facebook.com/theIMEU/videos/1626500717366837/
“Were they raped and enslaved before Isis came along? No!”
Yes! They were relentlessly persecuted throughout the Islamic era. From when Islam first became the dominant power in the region until the fall of the Ottoman Empire in 1919. According to Yazidi lore they’ve survived 72 genocide attempts; this is just the latest. Life got better for them under colonial rule and when the European powers were replaced by secular Arab rulers.
“How did they survive and prosper for a millenia and more unless they cohabited peacefully with their neighbors, Muslim neighbors?”
They survived by doing their level best not to have Muslim neighbors. They retreated to remote locations in the mountains. The kind of place where a Sufi mystic such as Sheikh Adi ibn Musafir would go to seek solitude. And…he ran into the Yazidis who also were seeking solitude of a sort. Distance between themselves and potential Muslim neighbors. The Yazidis adopted Sheikh Adi as a saint, but they certainly didn’t consider other Muslims nearly as saintly.
“Is it the same reason why Iranians Jews are just as patriotic as their Muslim countrymen?”
And you believe these expressions of patriotism are sincere?
http://www.npr.org/sections/parallels/2015/02/19/387265766/irans-jews-its-our-home-and-we-plan-to-stay
“Iran’s Jewish population topped 100,000 in the years before the Shah of Iran was toppled in 1979 by the country’s Shiite Muslim clerics. Today, the number of Jews has dipped to below 9,000.”
In case math isn’t your strong point that means 91% of “patriotic Iranian Jews” got out while the getting was good.
“…We asked Shumer for an honest answer to a more serious question: What is it like to be Jewish in an Islamic republic?
“It’s so good and so happy,” he says.
He contends that Jews have equal rights. They don’t, as we came to learn, but Shumer does lead a comfortable middle-class life.”
So this restaurant owner says that Jews in Iran have equal rights when even NPR has to disclose that isn’t remotely true. Why would Mr. Schumer say that? Probably for the same reason the few remaining Jews profess to be just as patriotic as other Iranians. Fear. He doesn’t want to say the wrong thing to a foreign journalist and end up being hung as an Israeli spy. I suppose you’ve never heard that the Iranians scapegoat the persecuted Jewish minority that way, but they do. Jews who do get out of Iran sing an entirely different tune than they ones who are stuck there.
I witnessed the same phenomenon in Hong Kong when I was in the Navy. Hong Kong still is a standard liberty port. I often visited in the NIneties when British rule was coming to an end. Every Hong Kong Chinese who could get out got out.They tried increasingly desperate strategems as time was running out. I actually had guys come up to me in bars and restaurants asking if I wanted to meet their sister. Hey, if things worked out that could lead to chain migration to America.
When the remaining Hong Kong Chinese realized they had no hope of escaping they not only resigned themselves to their fate, they embraced it. The same guys who once saw trying to hook their sister up with a “Foreign Devil” like me as the only life ring they had to cling to had by the time the PRC took over become fiercely patriotic Chinese citizens.
Recall the scenes of North Koreans crying their eyes out, beating their chests, falling to their knees, collapsing in grief when Kim Jong Il died. They didn’t actually feel that badly. The the secret police’s eyes are everywhere. North Koreans know they could get sent to the Gulag if they don’t express sufficient grief when one of their leaders die. More than a few North Koreans did in fact get sent to the prison camps to get worked to death. The rest were smart enough to put on an academy award winning performance as if their life depended on it. Because it did.
“i wonder if what changed is what changed in Iraq, the west invading and driving a wedge between Sunnis and shias, who before that lived in harmony.”
Oh, it’s the west that drove a wedge between the Sunni and Shia. And here I was thinking the the 661 AD assassination of Ali, the fourth rightly guided Caliph froI m the Sunni perspective and the only rightly guided Caliph (and first rightly guided Imam) from the Shia perspective had something to do with the wedge between the Sunni and Shia. Along with the the total defeat of the Shiite army at the battle of Karbala in 680 AD. After which the de. feated Shiite soldiers were massacred and Hussein, Ali’s son, was beheaded. I thought that had something to do with the hard feelings between the Sunnis and the Shiites. But here you are telling me there were none until we evil Westerners drove a wedge between the Sunnis and Shiites 15 years ago.
Seriously, dude, if you want to be taken at all seriously don’t resort to such blatant fabrications. The split goes back over a millennium and while it would be wrong to represent the relationship between the two parties as if they were constantly at each others throat, what you’re doing is equally wrong by falsely claiming they lived in harmony in Iraq. The apparent harmony wasn’t exactly voluntary on their part.
There’s an old Arab saying; the lion keeps the wolves away. Saddam Hussein was the lion. He kept the lid on Iraq and kept the ancient enmities from boiling over. We killed the lion, the lid came off, now the wolves are running wild.
I supported the invasion (not the exercise in futility called “nation building”). Actually we should have invaded a decade earlier after driving the Iraqis out of Kuwait but Bush1 saw images of the Highway of Death and wrongly concluded Saddam Hussein had had enough. The carnage he saw was largely vehicular and entirely inconsequential. Bush1 let Saddam’s army escape almost entirely intact. No Monday morning quarterback I. I said at the time we’d regret leaving our business unfinished and squatting in the desert for years pretending to enforce a cease fire and no fly zone that we clearly had no intention of being serious about.
Which has led to the famous Steve57 military maxim: if you’re not willing to do what it takes to finish the job by going all the way the Baghdad don’t start the job. Let the Iraqis keep Kuwait.
steve57 – Bush1 was locked into an agreement with the allies not to make a regime change. However, the ‘Highway of Death’ was bad PR optics. It looked like they were just beating up on the losers. We also were not set up for regime change at that time. Bush2 was set up for regime change, however the idiot who was sent to change the regime changed the plans and screwed things up.
“Yes! They were relentlessly persecuted throughout the Islamic era.”
I don’t challenge the point that the Yazidis were oppressed throughout history, I challenge the point that they were similarly oppressed as they were under Isis. How many groups in that area do you know that were not oppressed in one form or another? Weren’t Jews oppressed in much of Europe for much of history? What does that say about Christianity?
My point all along, and it is missed is that most of the history of islamic society is one of peaceful cohabitation, including in Iran. The rate of non-muslim groups being oppressed is the same as the rate of non-Christian, non-white groups being oppressed in the west and the US. If the Yazidis’fate speaks on Islam, the fate of native americans and blacks speaks worse on Christianity.
Another parallel is found in India, where the Hindus attempted often to massacre their muslim countrymen, so what you attempt to pass as islamically defining if that which defines humanity wherever it is found. Show me one society anywhere that was not guilty of it.
So until ISIS came along, the Yazidis were not persecuted in the recent era, so using them as a reflection of islamic intolerance is dishonest.
Oh, it’s the west that drove a wedge between the Sunni and Shia. And here I was thinking the the 661 AD assassination of Ali…As Mehdi hassan says, very lazy thinking…http://www.aljazeera.com/programmes/upfront/2015/11/reality-check-myth-sunni-shia-war-151121105751227.html
And then this:
Things first began to change in 2003, when the United States led the invasion of Iraq to topple Saddam Hussein.
Obviously, Iraqis were aware of Sunnism and Shiism before 2003, and those distinctions were not totally irrelevant to Iraqi life. But for much of Iraq’s modern history, Sunni and Shia lived peacefully side by side in mixed neighborhoods and frequently intermarried. For decades after decolonization, Iraqis defined themselves first by their ethnicity as Arabs or Kurds or by their nationality as Iraqis. Religious distinctions were just not as important.
“The roots of sectarian conflict aren’t that deep in Iraq,” Fanar Haddad, a scholar of Iraqi history, once told my colleague Zack Beauchamp. “Sectarian identity for most of the 20th century was not particularly relevant in political terms.”
The change came because of regional power politics, which the 2003 US-led invasion upset. Saddam was hostile to both Iran and Saudi Arabia (despite Saudi support for his 1980s war against Iran), and those two countries saw him as a wild-eyed threat. He held the Middle East in a precarious sort of balance among these three regional military powers.http://www.vox.com/2016/1/5/10718456/sunni-shia
Finally, Steve, I must ask, what is your frame of reference? Have you read the quran?
Have you read the hadith or all your sources websites and the words of others?
And just to note, I did not call you an islamophobe, I said that your references are orientalist and/or Islamophobic.
And as for Jews in Iran, here is a report from the Jewish forward that would be more trustworthy than the NPR piece.http://forward.com/news/318930/a-jewish-journalists-exclusive-look-inside-iran/
I have read the Pikthall version. I have read Yusuf Ali. Next question.
And, then if that doesn’t work, rape them, take them as slaves and force them to convert at the edge of a sword.
How many Muslims know that one of Muhammed’s 11 wives was a Jewess?
I suspect a minority. I also suspect the same minority knows that one of his 9 wives was a coptic Christian.
If most people don’t know including me it is because when Mary the Copt is discussed, elliptically, she’s not
one of Muhammad’s wives. She is one of Muhammad’s slaves. A slave he gave to one of his wives to be her maidservant. Since he wanted her, he sent his wife Hafsa on a wild goose chase of an errand, then raped Mary on Hafsa’s bed.
There is zero evidence Muhammad ever married her, or indeed ever manumitted her. Rather she remained a sex slave, a concubine, until Muhammad died.
I know many Muslims who insist this isn’t rape; the slaves want (note I’m using present tense, not in reference to the Islamic State but in reference to Saudi Arabia and other countries around the peninsula, Sudan, etc.) their masters to sleep with them. In any case a slave can’t give consent because a slave can’t say no. She’s a slave, so it’s always rape. But then these same Muslims will say the women discussed in the Ahadith who became war booty after the Muslims had attacked their villages or towns, slaughtering all their fathers, brothers, uncles, sons, etc., also willingly gave themselves to their Muslim captors. Right.
Actually, sometimes they didn’t kill all their husbands.
Sunan Abi Dawud – Book of Marriage (Kitab Al-Nikah) – (711) Chapter Relating to Intercourse with Captives
“Abu Sa’id Al Khudri said “The Apostle of Allaah sent a military expedition to Awtas on the occasion of the battle of Hunain. They met their enemy and fought with them. They defeated them and took them captives. Some of the Companions of Apostle of Allaah were reluctant to have relations with the female captives because of their pagan husbands. So, Allah the exalted sent down the Qur’anic verse “And all married women (are forbidden) unto you save those (captives) whom your right hand posses.” This is to say that they are lawful for them when they complete their waiting period.
Grade : Sahih (Al-Albani)
Reference : Sunan Abi Dawud 2155
In-book reference : Book 12, Hadith 110
English translation : Book 11, Hadith 2150”
Some of the translations say the Muslims were reluctant to have relations with the women “in the presence of their husbands.” Be that as it may there’s your context for this verse.
Surah 4:24 An-Nisa (The Women)
“And [also prohibited to you are all] married women except those your right hands possess. [This is] the decree of Allah upon you. And lawful to you are [all others] beyond these, [provided] that you seek them [in marriage] with [gifts from] your property, desiring chastity, not unlawful sexual intercourse. So for whatever you enjoy [of marriage] from them, give them their due compensation as an obligation. And there is no blame upon you for what you mutually agree to beyond the obligation. Indeed, Allah is ever Knowing and Wise.”
The Arabic idiom “those your right hands possess” means more than just captives. It means slaves as well. According to the Muslim traditions the ruler of Egypt had sent Mary along with her sister to Muhammad as a gift. According to Allah that meant she was Muhammad’s to do with as he wanted. Hafsa realized she had been duped and came back early to find him doing exactly what he wanted, in her bed. And she was furious. Muhammad promised never to do it again, took an oath, as long as she promised not to tell his favorite wife Aisha. She told Aisha anyway, and Aisha was furious. So were the rest of his nine wives. They all confronted him. He promised them all he’d stop raping the slave girls.
That’s your context for these verses:
Surah 66:1-5 At-Tahrim (The Prohibtion)
“O Prophet! Why do you forbid that which Allah has allowed to you, seeking to please your wives And Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful. Allah has already ordained for you (O men) the absolution from your oaths. And Allah is your Protector and He is the All-Knower, the All-Wise. And (remember) when the Prophet disclosed a matter in confidence to one of his wives, then she told it. And Allah made it known to him; he informed part thereof and left a part. Then when he told her thereof, she said: “Who told you this” He said: “The All-Knower, the All-Aware has told me.” If you two turn in repentance to Allah, your hearts are indeed so inclined; but if you help one another against him, then verily, Allah is his Protector, and Jibril, and the righteous among the believers; and after that the angels are his helpers. Maybe his Lord, if he divorces you, will give him instead of you, wives better than you – submitting, believers, obedient, turning to Allah in repentance, worshiping Allah sincerely, Sa’ihat, previously married, and virgins.”
Got that? Allah got got a bit testy with Muhammad for promising not to rape the slave girls anymore. Allah said he could; who are his wives to say he can’t? So Allah is angrier at his wives now. Muhammad can break his oath to them, and go back to raping Mary the Copt and any other slave girl he desired. And if his wives don’t like it, Allah can easily replace them with better, more obedient, more submissive wives who won’t mind.
This all still applicable today. Every single major Sunni school of Sharia, the Hanbali, Hanafi’i, Shafi’i, Maliki as well as all the Shia schools such as the 12er’s Jafari, agree that until the end of time when Muslims go to war against non-Muslims and capture a non-Muslim girl or woman, that woman or girl is his property and is “lawful” for him. And Muslim authorities from Al Azhar university to the Grand Mosque in Mecca to Tehran agree.
I wonder if you’re going to turn into a Quran-Only Muslim, and which kind. There is the thoughtful kind that really uses the Quran alone and consequently doesn’t say the Shahada or pray five times a day. Because the Shahada and five prayers a day aren’t in the Quran; they’re in the hadith. You can only account for three prayers a day in the Quran. Or the there’s the other kind I occasionally bump into in real life, and often on the internet. Who simply deny the authority of the hadith, even a Sahih hadith, when it’s an inconvenient hadith. I’m not implying anything; I have not way of knowing; I assume you’re being sincere.
But here’s a little bit of food for thought. Muslims like you simply don’t survive long in Muslim majority countries. I’ve met many Western Muslims who say things like:
“It offered a morality of peace and conflict, regulates societal and legal interactions, made the manumission of slaves a tenet of faith, gave equal rights to women, to divorced women and to orphans. It made all human beings equal. It gave rights to immigrants and minorities in their society. As I said before, it was the magna carta, the Geneva convention and the US constitution before any of those.”
I’m really only aware of one cleric in the Islamic world who had much the same message. His name was Mahmoud Mohammad Taha. And the government of the Sudan hung him as a heretic in 1985. You simply can’t hold a view of Islam like this that goes against every school of Sunni and Shia Sharia, that goes against over a thousand years of Islamic scholarship, and indeed goes against the very word of Allah when tells his prophet how to exegete the Quran in verses such as 2:106 and 16:101 (the verses of abrogation). He was a brave man, though. When a government official tried to warn him to pipe down or he was going to be killed, he said he always expected to be killed. Either the legal system would kill him or the Muslim Brotherhood would execute him.
Thank you for such a comprehensive post, Steve.
Much of it is false however. You obviously know that as you made sure to quote some hadith but give them a different interpretation that the accepted, and some conclusions you made are not borne by any source whatsoever.
1-Regarding Mary the Copt: show a source for your statement AS for zero evidence Muhamad As married her, do you have any evidence he married Aisha?
2- Sunan abu Dawud… why specifically that source when there are thousands of other sources to choose from? Why look in all the islamic legacy of report and pick the one that seems to make your case?
3-Surah 4:24 An-Nisa (The Women)
There is no consensus in islam for what those whom you right hand possess. Some believe in it means slaves, other captives, and others concubines, but many believe it generally means people with whom you have a contract of marital of some sort, where there is an agreement for marital favors in exchange for support. You tell me how that differs from everything we know now? There is nowhere in the quran where it permits having sex with a slave, whether forced or not. The list of whom to have sex with is very clear, wives and those whom your right hand possess, but there is a reason that most translations use”those whom your right possess” rather than slaves or captives, because of that lack of consensus on the meaning of such.
4- Rape of slave girl:
Where is your source that Muhamad As ever did the like? I am asking for one single source in the islamic ahadith. One!
5- This all still applicable today. Every single major Sunni school of Sharia, the Hanbali, Hanafi’i, Shafi’i, Maliki as well as all the Shia schools such as the 12er’s Jafari, agree that until the end of time when Muslims go to war against non-Muslims and capture a non-Muslim girl or woman, that woman or girl is his property and is “lawful” for him. And Muslim authorities from Al Azhar university to the Grand Mosque in Mecca to Tehran agree.
That is a lie by any standard. When ISIS advanced that theory to justify raping the Yazidis, most scholars came out against it using those exact tenets you offer erroneously. Additionally, in islam there is no such thing as until the ends of times, as most scholars agree that tenets of fikh (jurisprudence) change according to locale and time.
6-I wonder if you’re going to turn into a Quran-Only Muslim, and which kind. There is the thoughtful kind that really uses the Quran alone and consequently doesn’t say the Shahada or pray five times a day. Because the Shahada and five prayers a day aren’t in the Quran; they’re in the hadith. You can only account for three prayers a day in the Quran. Or the there’s the other kind I occasionally bump into in real life, and often on the internet. Who simply deny the authority of the hadith, even a Sahih hadith, when it’s an inconvenient hadith. I’m not implying anything; I have not way of knowing; I assume you’re being sincere.
Being a quranist only is akin to being a biblist only, one that does not accept the guidance of Jesus As in his faith. The quran is very clear about the authority of Muhamad as a guide and example, “take what he give and let go of what he oppose”, it says. So being a quranist only means to basically take Muhamad As out of Islam, though he is he who brought Islam.
Now most of the 2B Muslim in the world, most the 2B law abiding, peaceful, practical, faithful Muslims who practice their faith daily have no issue reconciling the quran and hadith. We beleive in the quran and use the hadith as supplement, it is really that simple.
7-But here’s a little bit of food for thought. Muslims like you simply don’t survive long in Muslim majority countries. I’ve met many Western Muslims who say things like:
“It offered a morality of peace and conflict, regulates societal and legal interactions, made the manumission of slaves a tenet of faith, gave equal rights to women, to divorced women and to orphans. It made all human beings equal. It gave rights to immigrants and minorities in their society. As I said before, it was the magna carta, the Geneva convention and the US constitution before any of those.”
Well, most Muslims believe in a variance of the above, and most Muslims live and thrive in Muslim majority countries. Most Muslims in Senegal, Nigeria, Indonesia and even China now believe that. Most Muslims in the US, Europe too… Same in Iran…perhaps not in Saudi arabia.
8- I’m really only aware of one cleric in the Islamic world who had much the same message.
Look it up and you’ll see that MOST clerics in every era believed exactly that.
Or that he was supposedly poisoned by one? All untrue of course. As explained here http://www.islam-watch.org/home/112-mohammad/660-why-aisha-poisoned-muhammad-not-jewish-woman-1.html
Where a spicy story can be found as well http://www.islam-watch.org/AyeshaAhmed/Muhammad-Juwairiya-Aisha-Adultery.htm
Every religion has its pathetic, backward, fearful and stupid leaders. The ones who do such stupid things should not be promoted by mentioning their idiotic statements. It’s interesting how the media can freeze out the news it doesn’t want people to know (like how the US is funding ISIS fighters in Syria and calling them anti government “rebels”) but there is no end to the sensationalist BS headlines they are willing to publicize ad nauseum.
Good point, Horus.
We recently discussed how rabbis have issued warnings to hotels and other businesses not to display Christmas trees as offensive to Jewish values, even threatening to pull the kosher certification from businesses.
Rabbis have as one of their tasks making these certifications. Are you taking issue with them on substantive grounds? If so, what are the sources of your argument?
Shoot! Wish I had heard this fatwa BEFORE spending my whole life celebrating Christmas, buying and decorating trees, buying presents for my kids, wishing merry christmas to all and serving the poor Christmas meals.
Po – I thought it was up to you to decide whether to follow the fatwa or not. 😉
I thought so too, Paul, but the certainty with which these scholars state their opinions makes it hard not to relinquish one’s ability to think for one’s self.
Po – I thought you were stronger than that. 😉
Me too, Paul, but, hey, some of these guys are quite convincing…between 72 virgins and the fire of hell, there is enough to convince some of us…:)
Warning to all Christians–don’t eat the meals and don’t go out in the boat with Fredo.
Too late, bam, my christian friends love my cooking….same as my Jewish friends… Muslims have culinary tricks you only find in the quran…
If you convert to Islam, I’ll share my recipe book with you
Religion is adorable.
Being intimately familiar with murder is certainly something an Islamic Cleric would know. Being intimately familiar with war mongering is something the left wing of the USA DOES certainly know. What’s the difference? Number of bodies. I believe the Islamics are in second place.
War mongering is only something affiliated with the left? Need I remind you of George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Richard Nixon or Ronald Reagan?
On the face of it, the statement is hard to challenge. It’s only what he leaves out that you correctly correct him on.
War mongering is only something affiliated with the left? Need I remind you of George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Richard Nixon or Ronald Reagan?
Richard Nixon had to clean up a situation bequeathed by his predecessor. Ronald Reagan, for better or worse, sent American troops into combat just once, to eject Hudson Austin’s red army in Grenada. As for Bush and Cheney, they were certainly presented with policy dilemmas.
Leftist Turley says: “We recently discussed how rabbis have issued warnings to hotels and other businesses not to display Christmas trees as offensive to Jewish values, even threatening to pull the kosher certification from businesses.”
Wrong. You recently LIED about rabbis in a unctuous attempt to attack Israel, as all Leftists feel compelled to do (i.e., the Leftist compulsion to lie and to attack Israel because you hate civilization). And you lied knowing that Israel has laws to prohibit such threats.
But then Leftist, pro-Islamoterrorist Turley goes on to say: “I wish my Muslim neighbors best wished [sic] on Islamic holidays like Eid and I have enjoyed breaking the fast with Muslim friends.” Well, naturally. What else would a pro-Islamoterrorist do.
Apparently you are one of those batcrap crazy persons I mentioned in my reply above to Roscoe. You have completely lost touch with reality to think that JT supports terrorists or terrorism of any kind. You are also divorced from reality to think that all criticism of Israel is due to hatred of Israel and is evidence that a person hates civilization, as if Israel is the foundation of all civilization and that any criticism of it is a criticism of civilization.
Of course, Leftist Turley supports Islamoterrorists. He went out of his way to defend terrorist enabler Sami Al-Arian. http://www.investigativeproject.org/profile/100/sami-al-arian
Contrary to your ultrasubcretinesque post, I have a firm command on exactly what is happening in the world; whereas you are merely a mindless dupe and dope who has learned nothing of reality.
You probably voted for DDT, along with the rest of the bigots.
I suppose you mean DJT, Leftist dupe and dope? And as an ardent ultrasubcretinesque Leftist, you must also make sure that you throw in other favorite Leftist buzzwords like “Islamophobic,” “misogynist,” “homophobic,” and “anti-Semite.” Right?
Leftists are the biggest fools on the planet. They call decent people anti-Semites, yet they love it when Islamoterrorists murder Jews. They call decent people misogynists, yet they applaud the rape and torture of women when those acts are committed by migrants. And they call decent people Islamophobic, yet they applaud the atrocities committed by Muslims that happens ever day of the week. And they call decent people homophobes, yet they applaud when gay people are thrown over roofs by Muslims. They love it when China and Russia commit crimes against innocent civilians, but they hate it when Israel defends itself against the barbarians and tries to make the world more civilized.
Leftism would be a mental disorder, but Letists scarcely have any mentality at all.
Ralph, I suspect you are a self-hating leftist!
Ralph ‘Adamo – those are Hannuka Bushes, not Christmas trees. The rabbis must be blind. 🙂
Amen, Ralph.
It is: Mary Christmas. Or Mary Xmas.
Islam, the perfect theocrazy.
Christianity and Judaism are not much less a perfect theocrazy. They have simply been tamed over the centuries. But there was a time in their past that they were about as bloody and intolerant as the radicalized fundamentalist version of Islam is today. Even today, there are still some batcrap crazy Christians and Jews.
But there was a time in their past that they were about as bloody and intolerant
“Christianity” is an abstraction. “Christianity” undertakes no action. Authorities do. As for being bloody, societies without prisons make liberal use of capital and corporal punishment (and enslavement) and do so for all manner of crimes.
What religious texts encourage people to do and what people who call themselves followers of those religions actually do are two different things. Lets keep history out of debates about religions please, it only clouds the issue. Even Buddhists have attacked people, that doesn’t prove anything about Buddhism.
Even Buddhists have attacked people, that doesn’t prove anything about Buddhism.
That is it! That is all I am saying. But just as it works for Buddhism, it works for Islam.
Yeah, that’s the first thing that occurred to me with the truck attack took place in Berlin, or the previous truck attack in France.
Must be a discontented Buddist from Tibet mowing people down.
Hey…here comes Tom to punch below the gut…:)
Nice to see you Tom.
My question to you is this: Let’s just assume both of those events were not false flags, we have in each case a petty criminal who is not known to be religious, at all. Should we still hold Islam responsible for them?
Meanwhile, Buddhists are genociding the Rohinya in Myammar…. what do you say about that?
And let us remind you that the first suicide bombings we have known were from Buddhists, eh?
po – just when were those Buddhist suicide bombing?
Paul, read up on Tamil Tigers in Sri Lanka.
Oops, forgot the japanese kamikaze.
Po – the kamikaze pilots who are Shinto predate the Tamil Tigers.
Paul, I agree with your agreement.
Hi Po,
Without knowing your nationality, I’ll try to explain why America, Germany, France, U.K., etc., focus on Islamic terrorism.
If the 19 hijackers on 9-11 had been Buddists, or from Buddist countries, or part of an international terror network acting in the name of Byddism, then there would be a greater focus on the threat of international Buddist terrorism.
The first WTC bombing in 1993 was obviously not a “one-off” event, nor were the bombings of the U.S. embassy in Africa isolated, rare, or “Buddist-related” events.
The c. 75 foiled terrorist plots since 9-11 were not “Buddist-related plots”.
People notice the bationalities, the allegiances, etc. of the perpetrators in these attacks, or attempted and disrupted plots.
Buddism is not well-represented as a factor in these plots.
If it were, I would say that there was an international terrorist problem within Buddism.
That would seem to be a realistic appraisal, and focus.
I’m not miniminzing the Myanmar mistreatment of the Muslim minority…I’m saying that, realistically, that is not near the top of our agenda as far as national security issues.
Tom
You make good points, but your focus is unfortunately too narrow. Are we talking about currently or are we talking about structurally? What I mean is this, do we have a problem with a tiny minority of a population related to Islam or is Islam the problem?
You see, the treatment depends very much of the disease, which often is masked or revealed by the symptoms.
If Islam is the problem, as many here think, then obviously the solution is to eradicate Islam. If the tiny minority is the problem, we can also go after them. But…generally I ask, what is the cause? These are the symptoms, what is the disease?
Most who know claim that the disease is actually the reaction to western imperialism. Now, we can call BS on that, but we must ponder the fact that before 1970, there was hardly any islamic terrorism. What changed?
We can also ponder upon the fact that muslim countries are generally among the less violent countries on earth.
We can also ponder upon the fact that the Quran is pretty clear about the restricting of justified violence.
The we can start with Afghanistan and the recruiting, arming and forming of jihadis to go fight the Soviets in Yemen.
The same jihadis then turned against their masters to get them out of the holy land.
Then we must obviously bring up Iraq invasion and 15 year old Afghanistan invasion. we must talk about 24000 tons of bombs dropped in 2015 alone upon Muslim countries and the lives they claimed.
We can talk about the fact we are currently bombing 7 muslim countries, including Libya which we just shred to pieces.
So in the eyes of most of the world, and there are polls to show that, the US is the terrorist country. Who has done more damage to the world?
Who has supported, armed and formed the most jihadis across the globe?
Who has dropped more bombs upon civilians?
Who has sold more weapons to the world?
Who is currently protecting ISIS from Russian and Syrian bombs?
Who does more saberrattlign across the globe?
Who is directly responsible for the most civilian lives claimed across the globe?
Now, if the US were to target Buddhist or Christian countries the way it does Muslim countries and it causes no blowback, then you’d have a point. Until then, you cannot use the treatment to justify the disease.
.
Po,
You aaked about a dozen questions in your comment.
I answered some of your other questions earlier…I don’t have time at this point to tackle a dozen more questions, but I will get back,to you as time allows.
Tom, I am sure you and I could find a way to discuss issues that would be beneficial to both and all. You are obviously smart and knowledgeable, but we seem to start off a wrong premise always. Then we talk past each other for a while, then start over the next time around.
I suggest we start from a specific premise and build up from there. That would help reduce the sidelines and offsides and we could actually both build up an argument beyond the current thread.
Same for you, Olly.
Sorry, Po.
– It was Dec. 29th, not the 24th.
Maybe the original JT column was posted on 12-24…..that’s why I screwed up the date before.
Lol! The world is in flames, with every city utilizing armed guards, in subway stations, open-air markets, churches and synagogues because of those wacky Buddhists, Christians and Jews. Po is always good for a laugh.
Yes, bambam, the muslim scapegoats allows them to distract you while they take away your liberties forever. Amazing that the islamists are a tiniest minority and yet you are willing to suspend any moral and constitutional right for the sake of indulging your silly fears.
meanwhile, watch out for toddlers with guns.
I would rather live in a post-religious world where we can study the ancient religions, and look at particular things the texts say and say – yes that was a great wisdom, and heed it, without becoming sectarian and hating one another just because we have a disagreement about a particular idea. As soon as we say, my religion alone is the truth, then we are implying that all the other religions are falsehoods. I believe there will always be a degree of conflict in the world until we move beyond this.
I agree with you, Chauncer. Which is why believers who do not misunderstand their holy texts know that co-existing in faith is divine wisdom.
Which is also why I belong to Abrahamic alliance international, which gathers Jews, Christians and Muslims goodwill and charity.
But the quran very clearly urges for such, and the Prophetic example is of exactly that, including hosting the Christian delegation and letting them stay in the mosque AND do their service in the mosque.
Additionally, when the pagan arabs (the disbelievers) were oppressing the early muslims, they found refuge in Ethiopia under the Negus, who was a Christian king. So when he died, the Prophet As and the muslims did the funeral prayer for him.
In watching the clip, it appears that the young guy asking the question is a reasonable person, and the man who answered him is an extremist nut. While he may, unfirtunately, sway those on the fringes, I doubt that his views will have a long-lasting impact on the teen.
It never ceases to amaze how those who are supposedly the most blessed by being the most closely connected to the big fairy tale, are the most paranoid and the most threatened by those who don’t believe what they believe; in this case an aging pedophile who rode a horse to heaven to copulate with dozens and dozens of virgins…..
Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year to all, including Dr. Zakir Naik.
What fuels intolerance is an evil holy book that encourages this sort of thing:
Its time to oppose this religion because it is an ideology that is causing the deaths of human beings.
You can be friends with nominal Muslims, friends with Muslims who don’t take their religion “literally” (i.e. seriously), but you should also find the courage to say to those friends – your religion incites you to kill me and my kith and kin and I do not like that. Islam persists precisely because there are such a large number of “moderates” who never question what the holy books say. It is their silence and complacency that encourages the few who do take the book literally to commit their terrible acts. All it takes for tyranny to prevail is for good men to say nothing.
“Incitement and Religion”
https://chaunceytinker.wordpress.com/2016/09/26/incitement-and-religion/
Alright Chauncey… you see, one of the signs of rationality and intellectual honesty is to quote things in context. You see, everything means something only in relation to its context, and that context requires one read carefully and in sequence. It is odd that the quran is the only book people seem to only quote out of context. Why? I don’t know!
Either out of laziness or out of ill-intent.
Matters little.
1-Quran uses disbelievers to mean the pagan arabs with whom Muhamad AS was at war. Those are the quraish from Mecca who oppressed him and his followers when they started preaching. The parallel with Christianity is the rabbis at the temple when they went after Jesus AS and his followers, only the Quraish actually murdered and tortured the Muslims for 10 years before the migration to Medina and the permission to fight back.
If you missed that: the muslims were oppressed, tortured and murdered for 10 YEARS in Mecca by their own fellow Arabs before they were allowed to fight back.
2- Any urging to fight in the Quran presupposes one is fighting BACK from oppression. There is no war of aggression in Quran, only wars of protection.
3- Note that, in context again, every urging to fight in the quran ALSO includes an urging to either forgive or to lay down arms when the oppression stops. This includes this same surah you quote from, out of context:
“If you [disbelievers] seek the victory – the defeat has come to you. And if you desist [from hostilities], it is best for you; but if you return [to war], We will return, and never will you be availed by your [large] company at all, even if it should increase; and [that is] because Allah is with the believers.”
“And remember when you were few and oppressed in the land, fearing that people might abduct you, but He sheltered you, supported you with His victory, and provided you with good things – that you might be grateful”
“And [remember, O Muhammad], when those who disbelieved plotted against you to restrain you or kill you or evict you [from Makkah]. But they plan, and Allah plans. And Allah is the best of planners.”
Finally, Chauncey, your best protection, is a Muslim who takes his religion seriously BUT understands it. Same as for every group, including atheists.
Doesn’t it strike you as funny that in this era of rampant islamophobia, of non-ending war against Muslim countries, or a president elect and his whole party demonizing muslims, of militiamen picketing mosques with weapons in their hands that Muslims are STILL some of the most peaceful and law abiding people in this society?
Defensive warfare doesn’t normally involve “striking terror into their hearts” and “striking all their fingertips off” really though does it, and its strange that Mohammed went from having no followers to ruling Arabia purely through “defensive” military actions. The Banu Qurayza massacre including the slaughter of all the male residents of the settlement including teenage boys. Its odd that such a “defensive” religion has to be protected from criticism by flogging people to death and executing those who try to leave the religion, as stipulated by Mohammed in the hadith. We know the context, well enough.
Again, Chauncey, in context.
IF one is oppressed, acculed, fought and terrorized and one is fighting back, fight back fully and completely until the oppression stops, and commit yourself fully to the fight, 100%. You tell me how that differs from everything else?
Aren’t the laws of treason on the battlefield targeting those who fight not or fight little?
As for the spread of Islam, read up on it. The answer is the history. An example: Indonesia: one of the biggest islamic countries int he world, not one shot was fired there.
As for the Banu Quraiza, why not bring up the fact that they had an alliance with the muslims but betrayed them once. The rules of alliances at that time between all parties was that the whole of the tribe was to be slaughtered. Muhamad AS forgave them. They betrayed them again. The banu Quraiza asked that one of their allies, also an ally of the Muslim be designated to decide of their fate. Muhamad allowed them that. That ally is he who decided that the men and adolescents (who were considered warriors then. The muslim child was allowed to fight once he reached 15) would be killed and the women and children enslaved.
As for executing those who try to leave the religion, you do know that the hadith is not the quran, right? It is merely every single report of saying or deed assigned to Muhamad AS. Muhamad AS never executed anyone who left the religion. And the quran is very clear about freedom of choice, right? that is actually one of the tenets of the faith, there is no compulsion in religion. Blaming Islam for that is akin to blaming Christianity for the abortion doctor killers. Which we obviously won’t do.
If the Koran is only meant to be taken in the context of 7th century Arabian morality, why is it still relevant today? Nowhere in the Koran does it say, this section is only meant to apply in 7th century Arabia. Surely Allah could see into the future, as he created everything, surely he realized that times would change? Surely its time for Muslims to stop being Muslims then, as Islam is just about 7th century morality?
So, according to your logic, its ok to execute teenage boys in the 21st century, if they are the children of your enemies (note the Islamic story does not say these teenage boys were fighters). Most people would disagree with that logic, in the civilized world. Also, its not normal in the 21st century to execute an entire tribe of people whose leaders are merely accused of assisting your enemies. Do you think this is justified in the 21st century? Also, do you think its OK to enslave women and children in the 21st century, as it says Mohammed did, in the Koran? Is this behaviour – enslaving people – only “in context” in 7th century Arabia? How do you know (it doesn’t say anything about this only being OK in the 7th century, in the Koran)?
Its always interesting to see how Muslims in the West often say the hadiths are unreliable but Muslims in Muslim majority countries very rarely say they are unreliable. Are all the hadiths completely unreliable in your view, or just some parts of some of them?
As for “no compulsion in religion” that is contradicted elsewhere even in the Koran for example:
Why does Allah contradict himself like this? Does he change his mind? How are you supposed to know how to behave if he changes his mind? Even Islamic scholars have wrestled with this problem and come to the conclusion that later verses override (abrogate) the earlier ones. The later verses are invariably more violent than the earlier ones, reflecting Mohammed’s later conduct.
Chauncey, I must say, thank you for making this a discussion rather than adventure in “how offensive and irrational one can be” that usually typifies these issues on this blog.
You ask very good questions, some of which has been discussing across 1500 years in thousands of books by thousands of scholars both Muslim and not.
1-If the Koran is only meant to be taken in the context of 7th century Arabian morality, why is it still relevant today? Nowhere in the Koran does it say, this section is only meant to apply in 7th century Arabia. Surely Allah could see into the future, as he created everything, surely he realized that times would change? Surely its time for Muslims to stop being Muslims then, as Islam is just about 7th century morality?
Where did I say the like? The quran clearly says that its message is sent for all humanity. And so far, we have yet to see how the Quranic message goes against any times, including ours. Its urging to lead a moral life, do no harm to man, beast or thing, to forgive and do good is timeless, isn’t it?
Matter of fact, it was ahead of its times. It offered a morality of peace and conflict, regulates societal and legal interactions, made the manumission of slaves a tenet of faith, gave equal rights to women, to divorced women and to orphans. It made all human beings equal. It gave rights to immigrants and minorities in their society. As I said before, it was the magna carta, the Geneva convention and the US constitution before any of those.
2-So, according to your logic, its ok to execute teenage boys in the 21st century, if they are the children of your enemies (note the Islamic story does not say these teenage boys were fighters). Most people would disagree with that logic, in the civilized world. Also, its not normal in the 21st century to execute an entire tribe of people whose leaders are merely accused of assisting your enemies. Do you think this is justified in the 21st century? Also, do you think its OK to enslave women and children in the 21st century, as it says Mohammed did, in the Koran? Is this behaviour – enslaving people – only “in context” in 7th century Arabia? How do you know (it doesn’t say anything about this only being OK in the 7th century, in the Koran)?
No, the context is that the rules of a society determines the societal morality. A good example is slavery. Slavery has always existed and in every human society. When Islam came, it set rules to improve the lot of slaves, making it a tenet of the faith to release slaves, even to marry the good slave women. It made the son of a slave woman a free man who could inherit his father. It demanded the owner dress and feed the slave as himself, and to not burden them beyond reason.
Now, think about it. Islam was nascent, the community was being attacked from all sides, they were fighting a war of necessity to defend themselves. If slavery had been made religiously illegal at that point, what would have happened to the captives of war? Either they would have to be released on the spot and they would gather again to fight the Muslims, or they would be executed on the spot to prevent just that. Islam not only allowed ransoming them, but enslaving them with a delayed manumission, it allows for the enemy forces to be broken up while avoiding a final solution of genocide.
Now if you compare it to ANY other time, ANY other people, ANY other society, the losing tribe gets slaughtered, the women and children enslaved for perpetuity and without ANY rights.
Currently, for example, we have dropped 23000tons of bombs in 2015 upon Muslim countries. We used napalm in the 21’st century, we still use white phosphorus, we use drone missiles, we use 1 ton bombs, we keep building nuclear bombs, we had hiroshima and nagazaki, we bomb hospitals routinely… we razed Afghanistan, Gaza… executing an entire tribe, perhaps 600 men at most, in light of that time and these ones, I say it is not abnormal (making sure we know I do not condone it, but I understand…)
Finally, we, the US have locked up a 15 year old whom we deemed an enemy combatant in Guantanamo for 10 years. We have also killed a 16 year old becasue his father was deemed an enemy combatant. we routinely blow up children in Yemen and Pakistan as collateral of our targeting men of a certain age. Israel routinely kill Palestinian children for throwing rocks.
At least in the time of that Arabia, a 15 year old was considered a man, same as a 15 year old girl was considered a woman.
3-ts always interesting to see how Muslims in the West often say the hadiths are unreliable but Muslims in Muslim majority countries very rarely say they are unreliable. Are all the hadiths completely unreliable in your view, or just some parts of some of them?
The difference between muslims in the west and muslims in the east is that though in both most have never read the hadith (or the quran for that matter), in the west Muslims are generally more informed than in the east. A good example of that is my cousin back home who has had extensive islamic studies and is fluent in arabic telling me the hadith in Bukhari are true. He has never read Bukhari but was told so. I have read the story of the Bukhari collection and know that he collected all the hadith in circulation in his times, which is why he could have back to back hadith saying the exact opposite thing.
Obviously there is no way all of the hadith is reliable. Many of them directly counter the Quran, including the one about Aisha being married at 6. The quran is clear about when women ought to marry, and this is after puberty and soundness of mind.
The hadith also suggest killing for apostasy is permissible. That counters the quran. The hadith suggests stoning or honor killing is legitimate, both counters the Quran. That is why the hadith is ranked from very likely to false, but even the very likely ones are at time not likely at all.
4-<As for “no compulsion in religion” that is contradicted elsewhere even in the Koran for example:
A-Quran (33:57) – “Lo! those who malign Allah and His messenger, Allah has cursed them in this world and the Hereafter, and has prepared for them the doom of the disdained”
B-Quran (33:61) – If the hypocrites and those in whose hearts is disease and those who spread rumors in al-Madinah do not cease, We will surely incite you against them; then they will not remain your neighbors therein except for a little.
C-Quran (33:61) – “Accursed, they will be seized wherever found and slain with a (fierce) slaughter.”
Why does Allah contradict himself like this? Does he change his mind? How are you supposed to know how to behave if he changes his mind? Even Islamic scholars have wrestled with this problem and come to the conclusion that later verses override (abrogate) the earlier ones. The later verses are invariably more violent than the earlier ones, reflecting Mohammed’s later conduct.
Nope! The verses you quote are once more out of context.
A- How does this counter the verse? It targets those who malign Allah and His Prophet, not those who do not beleive!
B- Where is the compulsion in religion part? It targets the hypocrites…is hypocrisy a religion? The better parallel is a spy or an infiltrator.
C- Again, those are the ones fighting against the Muslims when the Muslims were not fighting them.
Every logical muslim, as does every logical Christian and Jew knows that their holy book is grounded in the history of their revelation but also lives according to the times. While the core tenets never change because they target human nature, the societal ones change because societies change. All religions go through exactly that. Slavery was present in 7th century arabia, it is no longer. Polygamy was then too, it is less and less so.
Your argument seems to boil down to the fact that compared with other warlords/rulers of his day, Mohammed was more moral and merciful than they were. However, what I constantly wonder is, why couldn’t the man who was the sole messenger of Allah do FAR better than those other warlords/rulers of his day, and PARDON the Banu Qurayza? Surely a man who was the sole messenger of Allah would have the power of PERSUASION to convince that tribe that he was indeed the messenger of Allah and therefore they should join his cause? Especially in the situation where they had surrendered to him without a fight, believing that they would be spared?
To me the word malign would include a statement such as “Mohammed was not a prophet”. To say such a thing is to imply that the Koran is a pure fabrication, to suggest that Mohammed was a fraud. To say so at that time would have been to undermine Mohammed’s AUTHORITY. If I had been alive in 7th century Arabia and gone around saying so to people, I don’t doubt for a moment that my life would have been in the gravest of danger from Mohammed and his forces (several stories in the hadith confirm this). (Interestingly, if I did so today in most Muslim majority countries the situation would be exactly the same). What greater slander could there be than to say that a man claiming to be a prophet is a fraud! With this in mind the statement “no compulsion in religion” does yes, contradict the statement that I quoted here from the Koran. The language is far too vague to suggest that it is only referring to spies and infiltrators.
You say the Koran was ahead of its times, but was Mohammed’s life even at that time really the most beautiful example of a life ever lived? Jesus was also persecuted in his day, to the point of being killed for what he preached, but he did not resort to violence. Indeed in one case he dissuaded a follower from drawing his sword, saying to him that those who live by the sword will die by the sword.
Modern Western foreign policy is not inspired by Jesus’s teaching either. Jesus did not say – launch a drone strike against the terrorist groups and don’t worry if you kill some innocent civilians. What Jesus taught us is that we should turn the other cheek. Perhaps if the West had heeded his teachings and not responded to 9/11 by launching wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, the world might be in a better state today (I only say perhaps though).
While we’re on the subject of Western foreign policy, not that its relevant to a debate about religion, there is a large difference between the Banu Qurayza massacre and modern Western foreign policy. When the West launches drone strikes for example the INTENT is not to kill innocent civilians, the INTENT is to kill the active enemy. When Mohammed massacred the Banu Qurayza, the INTENT was to kill these non-combatants and enslave their women and children. This is far from a beautiful example, for any time in history, in my opinion.
You make good points, Chauncey. And to be fair, many of us Muslims have been pondering some of those same points, including specifically the Banu Quraiza issue. The Banu Quraiza issue has been revived by Muslims and non-Muslims alike, the former because it counters the narrative of their merciful prophet, and the latter because they use it as a tool to counter said narrative.
It is worth noting again that there various elements to the religious narrative. The first is local and contemporary context. Why did the message come, in response to what. Secondly, does this message have a non-local, non- contemporary scope?
If we start with Jesus As vs Muhamad As , the difference is that the scope of their mission is different. Jesus AS was sent to the Israelites, Muhamad AS was sent to the whole of the world until the end of times. As such, Jesus As was not equipped to do more than warn, and he was not promised victory. Muhamad As was also sent as a warner (the quran is replete with such urging to warn only, he is solely a warner) but he was also promised victory. He was equipped with the people necessary to make his mission successful.
Yet, in spite of that, the hadith is clear that he forgave as many people as he was allowed to. He was even reproached wanting to free people before the war was over. SO the historical and religious record is very clear about the merciful quality of Muhamad As.
Now we come back to the Banu quraiza. Which brings back to the local and historical context. Nothing happens outside of its context. Which is why when Moses As came, he brought magical miracles, and Jesus As brought medical miracles, because each came at a time when magic/medicine were in vogue. Muhamad As came at a time when language and word and eloquence were in vogue, and therefore the quran is still unmatched in its eloquence. That was his miracle.
So if the times demanded for example he made alliances with other tribes, and conforms his whole prophethood to the geopolitical rules of those time, why then are we reproaching him to conform to those rules fully? The quran is pretty clear about respecting alliances and contract, and all the mentions of violence against anyone excepted the tribes with which they had an alliance, but targeted heavily those tribes that had alliances with them but betrayed those alliances. Such rules even made non-Muslim tribes with whom the Muslims had an alliance, more important to them that Muslim tribes with whom they did not have an alliance.
Additionally, Muhamad As, as part of his political method, extended judicial independence to Christians and Jews. They had the right upon their own selves, and when they asked for his judgement, he gave it based on their holy books. Hence, the only instance of stoning assigned to him with any certainty was when the Jews came to him about an adulterous couple and he asked them what does your holy book require? Stoning, they said. Stoning then it is.
So regarding the Banu quraiza, once more, the rules were complete slaughter. When they required intercession, he gave it to them. They picked the intercessor and everyone accepted to abide by his decision. He made the call, and everyone submitted to it.
Yes, one may say, why didn’t Muhamad override that decision and forgive as he did previously with that tribe and with other tribes before? Who knows? Does it sound harsh? It does. Does it sound abnormal in context? No, it doesn’t.
One can also ask…why did Muhamad As wage war against his oppressors, couldn’t he have forgiven them? He could have. But if he is solely a messenger and doing the bidding of God, who gets to decide? God does, yes, and the quran is pretty clear about when, how and whom to forgive.
But doesn’t it strike you odd that of all the 23 years under which the muslim ummah was led by Muhamad As, this may be the worse you can say about him, that he allowed the rules of warfare and that society to take their course?
Finally, why are we using cluster bombs if not to target civilians?
Why are we using F16 in densely populated urban areas but to target civilians?
If we kill 4000+ people trying to kill 400 militants how isn’t it killing civilians?
How is Hiroshima not targeting civilians?
How is bombing a hospital not targeting civilians?
Most of modern warfare is targeting civilians while pretending it isn’t.
And the quran is the only constitution ever to ban the use of any weapon that may cause collateral damage. The rules of war state one cannot target women, children, the elderly, animals, nature and habitation. That is not targeting civilians.
We seem to have reached the limits of useful debate here, but thanks for discussing all this, perhaps I have come to a slightly better understanding of your point of view at least although I remain unconvinced by your defence of Islam.
Recent Western foreign policy has been a series of disastrous blunders, I don’t disagree with you about that much though its not relevant to a discussion about religion. Hopefully we can convince our Western governments not to meddle in affairs that they don’t understand and the world will be a more peaceful place in the future.
My pleasure, Chauncer. I find it easier to discuss religion around a pot of tea or coffee but it was nice for once to speak to each other rather above each other. Religion is very personal, and the logic and response to faith is individual primarily before being communal. That’s the great thing about it. I have yet to meet a Muslim who thinks exactly as I do about everything relating to the religion. But that is natural and necessary. Perhaps you’ll meet someone who can better convey what I am trying to say.
But worth stating hat when I read the Essenes bible, the Jesus As i saw in it is exactly the one described in the Quran, and the message he conveys in it is exactly the same Muhamad As preached.
So reconciling Jesus As and Muhamad As, Christianity and Islam is very easy for me because I accept both as divinely sent messengers. Necessarily, if I didn’t accept Jesus’ legitimacy, Christianity would sound supremely foreign to me too.
Indonesia… Not one shot… Hmmm…
Reminded me of Koenraad Elst’s writings on Negationisms, in this case in India http://koenraadelst.bharatvani.org/books/negaind/ch2.htm
Perhaps less bullets were used in Indonesia because the use of swords krisses klewang etc is more customary over there?
This might provide a different perspective on Jihad in Indonesia http://www.historyofjihad.org/indonesia.html
Stof, am sure very informational sites, but…uh…they are a bit biased against Islam… so sorry to have to pass on it.
Now if you want to ask direct questions, I’ll gladly instruct you a lil’bit.
“It is odd that the quran is the only book people seem to only quote out of context. Why? I don’t know!
Either out of laziness or out of ill-intent.
Matters little.”
Why with roughly 7 billion people on this planet and 1 billion plus of them Muslim, why aren’t you spending your time lecturing the followers of Islam about quoting their own religious texts “out of context” instead of those that do not follow Islam? In other words, you can hardly expect those that do not follow Islam to “get it right” when there are those within Islam that evidently are getting it wrong. “Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye?” Matthew 7:3. Tend to your own flock and we’ll tend to ours.
Agreed, Olly.
Tend to your flock and I’ll tend to mine.
However,, the reason I am here is not because we are discussing Christianity, are we?
And the reason you just posted is not because we are discussing Christianity, are we?
And why can’t I do both? Address both sides?
Po,
What % of Christians are blowing people up for interpreting the Bible out of context? What passages in the Bible is our government citing to justify killing in the name of God?
Olly, that is a fallacious question. You jumped from one argument to another. One minute you are asking me not to speak on Christianity, and the next you are asking for percentages…
Before I address that, let me remind you that I, a Muslim have perhaps more right to claim Jesus AS as you do. Why? Because I embrace all of his message, including not eating swine.
Additionally, I am not muslim unless I also embrace Jesus AS and his greatness. The bible very clearly speaks of the coming of the praised one (Hamad/ Muhamad), who will speak not his own words, but will speak that he would be inspired”, and that the flock must follow him. So I am hearing the words of Jesus AS and following Muhamad.
As for the percentage of Muslims blowing themselves up because they misunderstand their verses, well, in 2015, of 350 terror events here, 4 were assigned to Muslims, some of said Muslims were not even practicing. So 4 out of 2 millions? is pretty good. Meanwhile how many white Americans have committed terrorism in the US int he name of misunderstood Christianity? too many to list!
Additionally, before 9/11, how many acts of terror committed by Muslims have you heard of, globally? What changed?
And I do not think you want to go into comparing scriptures. At least every violent verse in the quran is framed by the specifics of who, when, why and how. And all of those are bordered by “if wronged” and “forgiveness is better”.
As for government, isn’t there one single war the US engaged in that was also not couched in religious terms? Wasn’t the US invasion of Iraq also framed in biblical language of crusades and infidels? Yes, American generals/president specifically advocated war as crusades and enemies as infidels…I rest my case.
“As for government, isn’t there one single war the US engaged in that was also not couched in religious terms? Wasn’t the US invasion of Iraq also framed in biblical language of crusades and infidels?”
Tell me what war the United States was involved in that was justified by citing a specific passage in the Bible. Not “couched”, not “framed” not “alluded to” but openly and publicly declared justified because the Bible alone gave the United States the authority to do so.
But Olly, that would not work. The United States, as a democratic government, cannot work like that. There is no religious structure that could do that, the most we would have is individuals such as the president, generals, members of congress, high priests and media personalities making it a religious crusade. Which we’ve had plenty of.
Now before you make the parallel again, worth pointing out that whatever “Muslim country” that has done that was not a democratic country, it was either a theocracy or a monarchy.
On the other side, I offer you Israel, where the war on Palestinians is religiously framed and justified, using the Torah.
Now if we must compare apples to apple, I ask you the same thing, show me one instance of an islamic democracy that “openly and publicly declared justified because the Quran alone gave them the authority to do so.”
There is a war against Palestinians?!
Olly and Po,
JT’s Dec. 26 column dealt with the terrorism charge added to the road rage murder of the 3 year old boy in the car.
So the “true number” of 2016 “terroristevents” might be 351, not the 350 cited by Po.
In 2001, one could probably play the same kind of games with numbers.
One could probably find about 350 acts that one decides to classify as “terrorist events”, but even if one counts each hijacked plane as a seperate “terrorist event”, that’s still
“only 4 out of 350” Islamic terrorist acts.
Pretty easy to play games with numbers to try to prop up a specious
claim.
I am not sure what you said there, Tom. Either i am right or I am wrong, or perhaps I seem wrong but you are unable to prove it.
What I said is factual. Can you discount it?
The facts are still clear that in the United states, in the western world, more acts of terrorism are committed by men of white Christian background than by any other persons.
Again, that is a fact!
I think we ought to start profiling white men of Christian persuasion 🙂
Didn’t see this post before, Po.
This mass shooting index that you use to understate Islamic terrorism is compiled based on shootings that injure or kill 4+ people.
I think I pointed out before that the database includes rival gang shootouts ( not sure how you “know” they are “White Christians), a “Dick Cheney ” thpe of accidental shooting, if he had sprayed 4 people with pellets, a kid with a BB gun slightly injured 4,.etc.
You choose to define all of these acts as acts of terrorism, and “White Christian terrorism”..
Since 9-11 involved boxcutters and airplanes, but not firearms, that attack would not appear on “your terrorist list”.
I don’t know if there is a similar international database, but it would conveniently exclude the truck attacks in Nice, France and Berlin, since ( except for highjacking the Polish driver) didn’t involve firearms.
But Tom, unless you mean that terrorism applies solely to Islam, we must apply the same standard to all acts of similar nature. I actually did not dig too deep into it, I used all similar acts of using a means of violence to target members of the public, which includes all instances of mass shooting.
OK, Po.
The ONLY index that comes up with your exact numbers is the mass shooting index, used to distort indents of terrorism.
IF that is not what you’re using to repeatedly claim that almost all of the 350 incidents of “terrorism” are “White Christian males”, then was is your source fir that claim?
used to distort indents of terrorism.
Tom, maybe we ought to define terrorism first.
Chauncey,
“friends with Muslims who don’t take their religion “literally” (i.e. seriously),”
This is not fair. A person can be serious and not literal.
And the nature of religion makes so almost no one can take it literally. Every believer must pick and choose what to take literally. I have yet to meet a Muslim who takes the quran literally in every aspect.
Obviously there is enough butthurt to go around. And just so Dr. Naik understands, there are multitude of women and men that find it offensive to treat women as second class citizens.
I got this. *Ahem*
Merry Christmas, AND a Happy New Year.
that oughtta pass the test.
Yes it does.