I guarantee you that every "violent" verse is take

Post Reply New Topic

Yeah, but I think the liberal interpretation is full of crap.

Probably, but it's good for a laugh.

I can see what the Muslim liberals are trying to do here, and I'm with them.

I'd much rather those Muslims revolutionize Islam altogether rather than resort to such intellectual dishonesty. They're still supporting the same texts that bring forth the traditional Islamic mentality. Get rid of the unneeded texts and just keep the ones that are appropriate for peace and harmony with the rest of the world and that's it.

Perhaps I should have said that I understand what they're trying to do, but it's not working.

One actually wonders how much Islam can be reformed. You're asking them to ditch the very core of the religion itself, which is the literal word of Allah as imparted to our best bud Mo. They're not going to be able to do that with, well, any credibility whatsoever.

The most senior in all of the Islamic texts is verse 9:5, which Pickthall renders it as: "Then, when the sacred months have passed, slay the idolaters wherever ye find them, and take them (captive), and besiege them, and prepare for them each ambush. But if they repent and establish worship and pay the poor-due [jizya], then leave their way free. Lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful."

Famous Islamic scholar from the 14th century, Ibn Kathir, commented on its meaning:

"Do not wait until you find them. Rather, seek and besiege them in their areas and forts, gather intelligence about them in the various roads and fairways so that what is made wide looks ever smaller to them. This way, they will have no choice, but to die or embrace Islam."

Nice. And they wonder why non-Muslims are suffering from Islamonausea!

The difficulty of reforming Islam depends on what they see as the core of Islam. Isn't it about peace and worshiping Allah? Why do liberal Muslims need more than that?

Remember, I'm only talking about liberal Muslims here, and setting aside the fundamentalists and "moderate" Muslims.

Imagine two factions of Islam (not Shia or Sunni but fundamentalists vs. liberals) warring against each other with the liberal side eventually dominating and gaining triumph as the main Islamic faction. Things would definitely change for the better for this world.

Now if the liberal Muslims aren't satisfied with the above, then what do they want exactly?

I worry that the liberals are nice, peaceable people that you'd have round for tea and biscuits any day of the week, but that they're actually in a minority and they can't bring the dickheads and the, er, 'moderates' with them.

the Christians did it, and there's some pretty effing obscene stuff in the Bible.

One wonders if there was that same overriding, violent fear of change in Christianity though.

There's a huge difference in Christianity, though. The "pretty effing obscene stuff" largely has to do with the establishment of the Israelite theocracy in former Canaan and a culture totally dedicated to the worship of Yahweh. It can easily be seen as strict and, to modern sensibilities, pretty barbaric because this is something we don't have any kind of grasp of. Nor can we really grasp the concept of what it was really like to live in and cope with ancient Bronze Age reality. The Old Testament was conceived with peace as a longed-for end. It doesn't pretend that the world into which it came was a peaceful one. King David finished the work of conquest--well, MOST of what was left, anyway. Solomon built the temple during the peaceful golden age. Rehoboam reversed the good work of his predecessors, the kingdom split, and the kings largely abandoned God. Then worse "effing obscene stuff" happened than before. Much of the lessons learned through this period is that good things come with obedience to God, bad things come with disobedience.

Plus, the Hebraic theocracy extends to the borders of former Canaanite territory that had been inherited by the Hebrews. The idea was that they were to be an example of a Godly nation to the surrounding nations and beyond. Beyond taking what was rightfully theirs, it was never about conquest or imperialism.

Christianity is distinct from ancient Israelite religion and Judaism in that it places the supremacy of God above ALL nations and kingdoms and thus extends its influence worldwide to anyone who is open to it. Nowhere does Jesus teach Christians to fight holy wars or promote imperialism. Christians are never called to violent behavior, overthrow governments, resist authority, etc. The only incidences of civil disobedience seen in the NT happens when some government or religious authority calls for Christians to compromise their beliefs or stop preaching the gospel, and I believe that in practice this concept is not unlike what we understand as Satyagraha (Gandhi, King). So I think that describing Christianity and the Bible as "effing obscene" may be premature and predicated on a poor understanding of what the Bible is really all about.

The trouble in contrasting this with the Koran is the extent to which the Koran really does advocate violence in the active spread of religion as a worldwide movement. Not long after 9/11 I was dating this "open-minded" girl who had the idea that it was "extremists" who were responsible for the attacks. While I agree this is true, we did not share the opinion that the Koran was that easily interpreted to encourage this behavior. At the time, I really had never even read the Koran. So we happened to walk through a bookstore where there happened to be a few copies of the Koran for sale. I opened to a random page. There just happened to be language about "killing the infidels." OK. I flip to another random page. Still killing the infidels. One more time...yep, still killing infidels. Apparently she'd never read the Koran either and was shocked by what she saw. And I'm not convinced that more people wouldn't change their views if they really knew what the book had to say, either. Now, sure, many Christians don't know the Bible that well either, but most of us know enough not to rebel against a government! Where governments have been overthrown have been largely due to a movement of people unjustly governed, not the wholesale rejection of authority based on religious ideas.

If the Koran was all about limited nation-building and the history of the rise of a peaceful religion centralized to a geographic location and left everyone else alone, I could be more understanding. If continuing holy war was something fought within the heart of the repentant person (spiritual warfare), I could be more understanding. Even Christians do that. It just doesn't end there with the Koran. No doubt there are peaceful Moslems, I've known a few, and I respect them. But peaceful Moslems willingly living side-by-side with unbelievers is considered hypocrisy. The Koran says put those people to death, too. The worst thing the Bible says to do about a believer who starts chronically acting un-Christlike? Stop enabling the behavior in order for them to see that they depend on God and the Christian community in hopes that they'll come back. Shut them out of the church if they act disruptive. A far cry from killing them, don't you think?

tHAT VERSE IS REFFERRING TO THE PAGANS WHO OPENLY DECLARED WAR on the Muslims and violated their treaties numerous times. In war you're strictly ordered to kill the enemy, that's the point of war. the same way a general would tell his soldiers:

kILL THE ENEMY WHEREVER YOU FIND THEM.

God is telling the muslims to kill the enemies who declared war on them. even still in the next verses he said if they seek peace to give them to a safe place.

Don't shout at me. You aren't a good advocate for your religion when you do that. Please go and have a lie down with your favourite book and come back when you feel better.

Oh, and many Islamists today use "pagans" to mean all non-Muslims.

What's it still doing in the Qur'an?

I'm not shouting. my fingers slip at times when i type and without me realizing the caps is on and and instead of go9ing back and removing caps lock, i just leave it that way. sorry, i didnt mean to come off as rude. at times i accidetly leave the caps on and feel to lazy to remove caps, so i just continue asnd remvce caps when i notice it on. my bad

I don't think that's exactly how Sun Tsu would have put it.

Uh, it's in the Qur'an. What, you think it would have been changed?



Where are you getting this from?