It's about time Muslims did some introspection

[papasmerf]

would seem to me that unless one fully understands a Bible or any such religious foundation inside and out. Any quote will be out of context, unless the entire book is quoted. As one chapter leads into another. It is only in full understanding of the book can we understand the verse.

 

[Bushpilot]

Chapter 109 of the Qur'an, quoted in its entirety:

"Say: 'Unbelievers, I do not serve what you worship, nor do you serve what I worship. I shall never serve what you worship, nor will you ever serve what I worship. You have your own religion, and I have mine."

(N.J. Dawson trans.)

Sounds pretty damn reasonable to me; indeed, can we find a parallel passage expressing such tolerant agreement-to-disagree in the Old or New Testament?

Interesting observations, DM, but,with all due respect, I’d like to comment on your question “can we find a parallel passage expressing such tolerant agreement-to-disagree in the Old or New Testament?�

1. The answer’s “No�, of course, given that OT/NT chronicles pre-date your Koran quotation by several centuries.
2. Yes, the passage 'Unbelievers, I do not serve what you worship, nor do you serve what I worship. I shall never serve what you worship, nor will you ever serve what I worship. You have your own religion, and I have mine.’
indeed “sounds pretty damn reasonable�.

The problem is the discrepancy between what “sounds pretty damn reasonable� and the reality - today’s Islam represents many things, few of them good:

- they commit acts of unabashed, unapologetic evil;
- they’re manifestations of the force of evil in human affairs.

A tough bunch to defend.

 

[*d*]

Now there is an intelligent and reasonable solution!

The best way to deal with terrorism is to ask the terrorists not to be fanatics. Every body else, just mind your own biz!

Well, *d*, at least I understand the nature of your logic. But that is all I can say in its favour!

Perry

What are you saying here? Should everyone, no matter how disconnected they are from the causes of terrorism, take on some responsibility for terrorism? Sounds like a great ideology, maybe finally something would get done about it. But it's not very practical or logical. Why not just concentrate on those at the root cause of terrorism? Mainstream Muslims are far from the root cause of terrorism.
And about Muslim reform: Muslim society is not monolithic. If some Muslims wish to reform or set up good will campaigns to reform Muslim extremists, let them. But I see it as a gesture of good will, not because they are somehow responsible for fanaticism.

 

[Drunken Master]

Interesting observations, DM, but,with all due respect, I’d like to comment on your question “can we find a parallel passage expressing such tolerant agreement-to-disagree in the Old or New Testament?�

1. The answer’s “No�, of course, given that OT/NT chronicles pre-date your Koran quotation by several centuries.
2. Yes, the passage 'Unbelievers, I do not serve what you worship, nor do you serve what I worship. I shall never serve what you worship, nor will you ever serve what I worship. You have your own religion, and I have mine.’
indeed “sounds pretty damn reasonable�.

The problem is the discrepancy between what “sounds pretty damn reasonable� and the reality - today’s Islam represents many things, few of them good:

- they commit acts of unabashed, unapologetic evil;
- they’re manifestations of the force of evil in human affairs.

A tough bunch to defend.

I'm not sure what your point is here. The composition of the NT and the finalisation of the canonical Torah were only established during the tumultuous years after the heyday of the Roman Empire. The Koran was written half a millenium later, but during no less turbulent times. It is arguable that the Koran's focus on tolerance helped establish the flowering of learning in medieval Islamic culture.

I was not suggesting, however, that Islam in all its manifestations is a "tolerant" religion. Call me simple, but I don't think "tolerant" and "religious" really go together, strictly speaking. I was arguing against Titbrain's ignorant suggestion that terrorism is somehow hardwired into Islam; if anything, Islam in at its origins was comparatively tolerant compared with the Judeo-Christian tradition.

To suggest that "Islam" represents "evil" is just silly. There are as many different strains and political spectra within Islam as there are within other religions.

 

[pool]

It's amazing how defenders of Islam can never admit the truth. I quoted chapter and verse. I figure if you want to know the Koran says, read the damned thing.

Why would you refer to those who would prefer to make conclusions based on the whole rather than snippets as "defenders". By that implication, does it make those who see it as you do to be "attackers".

The problem with actually reading the Qu'ran is that it is written in Arabic. I have one translated copy, but there are a few different translations available. Another problem is that many Arabic words have no direct translation into the English language. It's a complex book and even Muslims look to scholars for their interpretations.

Within Islam there are obviously different views as to what the Qu'ran teaches and at the risk of stating the obvious, the extremists and terrorists possibly focus on that which fits their agenda, while "moderate" Muslims focus on the more positive teachings, which are numerous. Somewhere between the two is likely the truth, but it's a truth that I think cannot be reduced to any certain absolute conclusion.

Jihad is not in fact a "holly war", but loosely translated it means "striving" or "exerting" which includes personal struggle.

The Qu'ran was written at a time when Muslims were under siege and much of it is pertinent to that time. Jihad was part of the struggle to defend themselves.

"Permission to fight is given to those on whom war is made, because they are oppressed . . . those who are driven from their homes without a just cause except that they say: Our Lord is Allah." (22:39-40)

"Fight in the way of Allah against those who fight you, but be not aggressive. Surely Allah loves not the aggressors." (2:190)

Anyway, I'm not even going to pretend I understand fully or begin to come to any conclusions, because as papasmurf alluded, the Quran was meant to be read as a whole and there are many references to the same topics throughout, which may seem almost contradictory, but need to be understood as a whole.

and then there's the Hadith

 

[Titmouse]

Chapter 109 of the Qur'an, quoted in its entirety:

"Say: 'Unbelievers, I do not serve what you worship, nor do you serve what I worship. I shall never serve what you worship, nor will you ever serve what I worship. You have your own religion, and I have mine."

(N.J. Dawson trans.)

Sounds pretty damn reasonable to me; indeed, can we find a parallel passage expressing such tolerant agreement-to-disagree in the Old or New Testament?

Have you ever heard of "The Laws of Noah" also referred to as the "Noachic" or "Noachide" Laws.

Jews are subjected to 613 laws in order to be considered righeous. Gentiles need only obey seven. These are pretty much laws of decency that parallel the ten commandments in matters of morality. They're easy to find via Google so I won't list them. If I did, I'd probably be accused to quoting out of context.

Suffice to say that in Judaism, a righteous gentile has equal access to "the world to come". You can't get much more tolerant than that.

 

[Mao Tse Tongue]

This thread is now becoming ridiculous, as we all knew it would.

 

[Drunken Master]

Have you ever heard of "The Laws of Noah" also referred to as the "Noachic" or "Noachide" Laws.

Jews are subjected to 613 laws in order to be considered righeous. Gentiles need only obey seven. These are pretty much laws of decency that parallel the ten commandments in matters of morality. They're easy to find via Google so I won't list them. If I did, I'd probably be accused to quoting out of context.

Suffice to say that in Judaism, a righteous gentile has equal access to "the world to come". You can't get much more tolerant than that.

I think I'll let this ludicrous interpretation of relgious tradition stand on its own, other than to note that Titbrain's abuse of theology is pretty much indicative of how religious doctrine can be twisted to conform to almost any hateful end.

 

[Quest4Less]

Read the passage itself - I provided a link to the Qur'an. You will see what I mean.

This is exactly why I referred to Titmouse's post as bigoted - your reaction. That is exactly the reaction Titmouse wanted.



bbk


BTW thankyou for proving my point.

Jesus H Christ man it says "kill the unbeleivers"!!! Does that not seem wrong????

 

[Sargon]

To kill or not to kill?

would seem to me that unless one fully understands a Bible or any such religious foundation inside and out. Any quote will be out of context, unless the entire book is quoted. As one chapter leads into another. It is only in full understanding of the book can we understand the verse.

I agree. For example I found these quotes from The Bible which could concieveably be used to argue that followers of 'The Lord G-d' are liscenced to kill those who either do not believe in 'The Lord G-d' (i.e., they are 'Non-believers') or they are not related to The Lord's chosen people:


Deuteronomy 13
15 Thou shalt forthwith kill the inhabitants of that city with the edge of the sword, and shalt destroy it and all things that are in it, even the cattle.

Deuteronomy 20
17 But shalt kill them with the edge of the sword, to wit, the Hethite, and the Amorrhite, and the Chanaanite, the Pherezite, and the Hevite, and the Jebusite, as the Lord thy God hath commanded thee:

Josue 10
19 And stay you not, but pursue after the enemies, and kill all the hindermost of them as they flee, and do not suffer them whom the Lord God hath delivered into your hands to shelter themselves in their cities.

Judges 21
11 And this is what you shall observe: Every male, and all women that have known men, you shall kill, but the virgins you shall save.

1 Kings 15
18 And the Lord sent thee on the way, and said: Go, and kill the sinners of Amalec, and thou shalt fight against them until thou hast utterly destroyed them.

4 Kings 10
25 And it came to pass, when the burnt offering was ended, that Jehu commanded his soldiers and captains, saying: Go in, and kill them, let none escape. And the soldiers and captains slew them with the edge of the sword, and cast them out: and they went into the city of the temple of Baal,

Ecclesiastes 3
3 A time to kill, and a time to heal. A time to destroy, and a time to build.

Ezechiel 9
6 Utterly destroy old and young, maidens, children and women: but upon whomsoever you shall see Thau, kill him not, ...


Source: http://www.drbo.org/


S.


NOTE: These are only the instances where there seems to be 'an encouragement to kill'. I can also find references where either the Israelites or The Lord G-d himself has killed people.