Page 4 of 5

Posted: Sat Oct 14, 2006 7:25 am
by Lizard Man
Judah wrote:What you write sounds wonderful, Aviatrix, but it does not match with what is said by those acknowledged to be of high standing in Islam.
The error here is you only seem to accept sources that agree with your own notions of the religion. There are plenty of scholars who support Islam even after years of research. This is an excellent article erradicating the authority of those who claim Islam to have violent roots:
The Myth of "The Myth of Moderate Islam"
By Vincenzo Oliveti

In a recent article in The Spectator magazine in the UK, the evangelical leader Patrick Sookhdeo takes a swipe at Muslims and their religion. Does his case stand up to scrutiny?

Patrick Sookhdeo's Article (July 30, 2005) in London's The Spectator , “The Myth of a Moderate Islam” reflects a dangerous trend in the war on terror. Under the guise of informing Westerners about Islam, he is in fact spreading the very same disinformation that anti- Islamic polemics have been based upon for over 1,000 years. This plays directly into the hands of Osama bin Laden, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and others, for it encourages the “clash of civilizations” they so appallingly desire. It is indeed of the utmost importance that we learn more about Islam and fight the scourge of extremism with all the tools possible. But Sookhdeo and those like him corrupt this process, seeking to advance their own agenda by turning the war on terror into an ideological war against Islam.



MUSLIM VIOLENCE



Sookhdeo's bias is evident from the outset. He argues that terrorists truly represent Islam, writing: “If they say they do it in the name of Islam, we must believe them. Is it not the height of illiberalism and arrogance to deny them the right to define themselves?” The remainder of the essay, however, is an extensive effort to deny other Muslims the right to define themselves by rejecting extremist interpretations of Islam. In fact, less than 5 % of Muslims could be classified as fundamentalist in outlook, and of that 5 %, less than 0.01 % have shown any tendency toward enacting terrorism or “religious violence.” It is thus “the height of illiberalism” to define as terrorists over 1.3 billion Muslims who have nothing to do with “religious violence” because of the misdeeds of a fringe minority of 0.005 %. At most, one in every 200,000 Muslims can be accused of terrorism. That is to say there are a maximum of about 65,000 terrorists worldwide—roughly the same figure as the number of murderers on the loose in the U.S. alone, with over 20,000 homicides a year and a population of only 300 million.



Sookhdeo claims that Muslims “must with honesty recognize the violence that has existed in their history.” However, given that the majority of books that record the transgressions of Muslims have been written by Muslims, it is difficult to argue that Muslims have chosen en masse to ignore the atrocities of their past. Of course, there are Muslims who deny many parts of this past, just as there are British people who still deny the atrocities of colonialism; Americans who deny the massacre of the Native Americans; and Germans who deny the Holocaust of 6 million Jews. But the fact remains that Christian civilization has given rise to many more atrocities than has Islamic civilization, even relative to its greater population and longer age.



CHRISTIAN VIOLENCE



Nowhere in Islamic history can one find a doctrine similar to Saint Augustine's cognite intrare (“lead them in”—i.e. “force them to convert”). In fact the Qur'an says the exact opposite: There is no compulsion in religion ( 2:256 ). Augustine's frightening idea that all must be compelled to “conform” to the “true Christian faith” has unleashed centuries of unparalleled bloodshed.

Indeed, Christians have suffered more under the rule of Christian civilization than under pre- Christian Roman rule or any other rule in history. Millions were tortured and slaughtered in the name of Christianity during the periods of the Arian, Donatist and Albigensian heresies, to say nothing of the various Inquisitions, or the Crusades, when the European armies were saying, as they slaughtered both Christian and Muslim Arabs: “Kill them all, God will know his own.” Needless to say, these transgressions— and indeed all the transgressions of Christians throughout the ages—have absolutely nothing to do with Jesus Christ and or even the New Testament as such. Indeed, no Muslim by definition would ever or will ever blame this on Jesus Christ (the Word made Flesh, for Christians and Muslims). So how is it that Sookhdeo blames Muslim transgressions (even though far less than “Christian” ones) on the Qur'an (the Word made Book, for Muslims)?



By no means was such indiscriminate violence limited to Europe's “Dark Ages” or to one period of Christian history. The Reformation and Counter Reformation took inter- Christian slaughter to new extremes; two thirds of the Christian population of Europe being slaughtered during this time. Then there were (among many others wars, pogroms, revolutions and genocides) the Napoleonic Wars ( 1792-1815 ); the African slave trade that claimed the lives of 10 million; and the Colonial Conquests. Estimates for the number of Native Americans slaughtered by the Europeans in North, Central and South America run as high as 20 million within three generations.



Despite the ravages of Europe's violent past, in the 20 th century, Western Civilization took warfare to new extremes. A conservative estimate puts the total number of brutal deaths in the 20 th century at more than 250 million. Of these, Muslims are responsible for less than 10 million deaths. Christians, or those coming from Christian backgrounds account for more than 200 million of these! The greatest death totals come from World War I (about 20 million, at least 90 % of which were inflicted by “Christians”) and World War II ( 90 million, at least 50% of which were inflicted by “Christians,” the majority of the rest occurring in the Far East). Given this grim history, it appears that we Europeans must all come to grips with the fact that Islamic civilization has actually been incomparably less brutal than Christian civilization. Did the Holocaust of over 6 million Jews occur out of the background of a Muslim Civilization?



In the 20th century alone, Western and/or Christian powers have been responsible for at least twenty times more deaths than have Muslim powers. In this most brutal of centuries, we created incomparably more civilian casualties than have Muslims in the whole of Islamic history. This continues even in our day—witness the slaughter of 900,000 Rwandans in 1994 in a population that was over 90 % Christian; or the genocide of over 300,000 Muslims and systematic rape of over 100,000 Muslim women by Christian Serbs in Bosnia between 1992 and 1995. The horrible truth is that, numerically and statistically speaking, Christian Civilization is the bloodiest and most violent of all civilizations in all of history, and is responsible for hundreds of millions of deaths.



The production and use of nuclear weapons alone should be enough to make the West stand in shame before the rest of the world. America created nuclear weapons. America is the only country ever to have used nuclear weapons, and Western countries strive to maintain a monopoly over them. As the record stands, we have no moral grounds for objecting to the acquisition of such weapons until we prove willing to forfeit them entirely.



It should also be mentioned that although Islam has the concept of legitimate war in self-defense (as does Christianity, and even Buddhism), nowhere in Islamic culture (or in other cultures that survive today) is there latent the idealization, and perhaps idolization, of violence that exists in Western Culture. Westerners think of themselves as peaceful, but in fact the gentleness and sublimity of the New Testament, and the peace-loving nature of the principles of democracy, are scarcely reflected in Western popular culture. Rather, the entire inclination of popular culture— Hollywood movies, Western television, video games, popular music and sports entertainment—is to glorify and inculcate violence. Accordingly, the relative rates of murder (especially random and serial murder) are higher in the Western World (particularly in the U.S., but even in Europe, taken as a whole) than they are in the Islamic world in counties that are not suffering civil wars, and this true despite the much greater wealth of the West. So has Sookhdeo ever read the following words?:




Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgement ye

judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be

measured to you again. And why beholdest thou the mote in thy

brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?

Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of

thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye? Thou hypocrite,

first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see

clearly to cast the mote out of thy brother's eye. (Matthew 7:1-5 )



THE QUR'AN AND THE USE OF FORCE



Like most anti-Islamic polemics, the rest of Sookhdeo's article is a mix of fact and fiction. For example, he argues that many of the Qur'anic verses that advocate peace were abrogated by later verses. It is true that many Muslim scholars claim later verses abrogate earlier verses, but the extent of abrogation is greatly debated. Some scholars say that only five verses have ever been abrogated. Some say that over 150 have been abrogated. Sookhdeo's claim that “wherever contradictions are found, the later-dated text abrogates the earlier one” is thus a gross simplification. To claim that all of the peaceful verses are earlier revelations that have been abrogated by later militant verses is simply false. For example, verses revealed in the last two years of Muhammad's mission enjoin Muslims to not seek vengeance against those who had driven them from their homes:




Let not the hatred of the people—because they hindered you from

the Sacred Mosque—incite you to transgress. Help one another in

goodness and reverence, and do not help one another in sin and

aggression . (Qur'an 5:2 )




O ye who believe, be upright for God witnesses injustice; and let

not hatred of a people cause you to be unjust. Be just — that is

closer to piety. (Qur'an 5:8 )



One can hardly imagine a more emphatic message of justice, forgiveness and reconciliation.

Moreover, many highly qualified Muslim scholars have cited the earlier verses advocating peace to dissuade young Muslims from answering the call of the extremists. Would Sookhdeo prefer that these young Muslims listen to those who explain these verses away by applying his truncated version of abrogation?




Significantly enough, like extremist interpreters of Islam, Sookhdeo misrepresents Qur'anic verses by citing them out of context. He claims that Qu'ranic verses 8:59-60 condone terrorism. Verse 8:60 does indeed condone fighting one's enemies, but it is followed by verse 8:61 : And if they incline unto peace then incline unto it —another later revelation. In this context, verse 8:60 is advocating that one not take the course of passivism when threatened by an enemy, but 8:61 then limits the application. This hardly constitutes terrorism. Perhaps if Sookhdeo knew Arabic properly, he would have the capacity to read the Qur'an more clearly. But he does not. This makes it difficult to accept him as an authority on Islamic teachings, whatever may be his post or title.



Sookhdeo goes on to claim that one can pick between Qur'anic verses that support violence and those that support peace. This is true, but one would be hard pressed to demonstrate that the Qur'an condones violence more than the Old Testament (say, for example, the Book of Leviticus or the Book of Joshua). And if we say that the Qur'an condones violence, what are we to think of the passages of the Bible that directly command slaughter and genocide? In Numbers 31:17 Moses says (of the Midianite captives, whose menfolk the Israelites have already slaughtered): Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and every woman who has known a man intimately . I Samuel 15:1-9 tells the story of the Prophet Samuel commanding King Saul to eradicate the Amalekites as follows: Slay both men and women, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and donkey. Such extremes were forbidden by the Prophet Muhammad who ordered his community ( Tafsir Ibn Kathir , on vv.2:190-193): Fight in the way of God against those who disbelieve in God! Do not act brutally! Do not exceed the proper bounds! Do not mutilate! Do not kill children and hermits! And likewise (Al-Waqidi, Kitab al- Maghazi , vol.  , pp. 1117-1118 ): Attack in the Name of God, but do not revert to treachery; do not kill a child; neither kill a woman; do not wish to confront the enemy .



To claim that the warfare advocated in some Qur'anic verses is a justification for wanton acts of violence fails to acknowledge that classical interpretations have always limited the scope of such verses. For example, a verse that is often misinterpreted in the modern era is 2:191-92 : Slay the polytheists wherever you find them, and capture them and blockade them, and watch for them at every lookout. But if they repent and establish the prayer and give alms, then let them go their way. On the one hand, extremists employ this verse to sanction shedding innocent blood. On the other hand, it is employed by non-Muslim polemicists to portray the Qur'an as a bellicose declaration of perpetual warfare. But according to the classical Islamic tradition, this verse cannot be taken as a carte blanche to fight non-Muslims. It can only be applied to the specific polytheists who opposed the early Muslim community and threatened the very survival of Islam. As one authoritative jurisprudent (Qadi Abu Bakr Ibn Al-'Arabi, 11 th-12th century AD) writes:



This verse is general regarding the polytheists, but is restricted

by the Prophet's prohibition of the killing of women,

children, religious adherents, and non-combatants. But

understood also are those who do not fight you nor are preparing

to fight you or harm you. The verse actually means, “Slay

the polytheists who are attempting to slay you.”



Such interpretations could be cited ad infinitum . They clearly demonstrate that Sookhdeo's equation of “radical Muslims” with “medieval jurists” who claim that “Islam is war” is not only unfounded, but an utter distortion. Either Sookhdeo is not qualified to analyze the classical Islamic tradition and compare it to modern deviations, or he is intentionally distorting Islamic teachings. Either way, he proves himself to be completely unreliable.



DUBIOUS SCHOLARSHIP



Sookhdeo's dubious scholarship is on display throughout this article, particularly when he uses the hackneyed distinction between Dar al-Islam (the abode of Islam) and Dar al-Harb (the abode of war) to argue that Muslims accept nothing but war or triumph. These are important classical terms, but Muslim scholars also wrote of many other abodes between them. Some classifications include three abodes, some five, and some seven. In the modern era, Europe and America have been regarded by the vast majority of Muslim scholars as the Dar al-Sulh , or “the abode of treaty.” This means that a Muslim can engage with this world on many levels and should abide by the laws of the land if he or she chooses to live there or to visit. Using this distinction, Muslim scholars have even declared that Muslims can serve in the U.S. Army, even when combating other Muslim countries. Only those who seek conflict continue to misinform the public by limiting the world to Dar al-Islam and Dar al-Harb .



ISLAMIC SCHOLARSHIP



Sookhdeo's miscomprehension is also revealed when he discusses the recent conference of Islamic scholars in Jordan, which issued a final declaration that opposed the practice of calling other Muslims non-believers and clarified the qualifications for issuing fatwas . He argues that this has “negated a very helpful fatwa which had been issued in March by the Spanish Islamic scholars declaring Osama bin Laden an apostate.” However, a war of words wherein Muslims begin calling other Muslims unbelievers is precisely what Al-Qaida and other extremists desire. This way they can brand as apostate and kill everyone who disagrees with them. Let us not forget how two days before 9/11 , Al-Qaida assassinated Ahmed Shah Massoud. This was no mere coincidence; it was a strategic imperative. By removing the most charismatic representative of traditional Islam in Afghanistan, Al-Qaida removed the greatest obstacle to their distortions of Islam, a credible leader who would expose the spurious nature of their claim to represent Islam.



In order to avoid people being killed over even petty faults or sins, classical Islamic law does not allow one to “excommunicate” another Muslim for sinning nor to declare him or her to be a non-believer. By reaffirming this and removing the possibility of takfir (calling someone an apostate) in our age, King Abdullah's conference has made the world a safer place. This is true not just for traditional, “moderate” Muslims—the only ones in fact who can effectively isolate the extremists and thus protect non-Muslims—but also for others, such as Jews and Christians whom the Qur'an (and the greatest classical scholars of Islam, such as the famous al-Ghazali) regards as “fellow believers.” Sookhdeo desires to keep this “door” open so that Muslims he does not like can be “excommunicated.” He wants to keep this “sword”—in effect—unsheathed, completely forgetting that all they that take the sword shall


perish with the sword (Matthew 26:52 ).



Sookhdeo further displays a complete lack of understanding of Islamic law when he asks: “Could not the King reconvene his conference and ask them to issue a fatwa banning violence against non-Muslims also?” In fact this is exactly what did happen by the scholars declaring that the fatwas issued in support of wanton violence are illegitimate. For everyone who commits an act of terrorism in the name of Islam attempts to first justify that act through the issuance— and misuse—of a fatwa , and no one commits terrorist acts without being convinced that terrorism is justified. The conference reaffirmed that all fatwa s must necessarily be bound by a triple system of internal “checks and balances”: all those issuing fatwa s must have certain, stringent personal and educational credentials; they must all follow the methodology of the eight Madhahib or tradional schools of Islamic jurisprudence; and no fatwa may go outside the bounds of what the traditional Madhahib allow—precisely what the extremist fatwa s attempt to do. The conference assembled over 180 major scholars from 45 countries, and garnered 17 major fatwa s from the greatest Islamic Authorities in the world (including the Sheikh Al-Azhar, Ayatollah Sistani, and Sheikh Yusuf al-Qardawi) to declare this. The conference thus not only de-legitimized the extremists de jure , but, to quote Fareed Zakaria in Newsweek (July 18,2005 ), constituted “a frontal attack on Al-Qaida's theological methods.” This is surely a vital tool in the war against extremism, and so the King and his conference are very much to be commended.



ERADICATING EXTREMISM



Isolating and eradicating extremists does not, however, appear to be Sookhdeo's agenda. Rather he wishes to misrepresent the Qur'an, history, and contemporary Muslims in order to substantiate his own claim that terrorism and extremism are inherent to Islam. Following this approach is exactly how we will lose the war on terrorism. The true war is the war of ideas. The lynch-pin in the arguments of Bin Laden, Zarqawi and others is that they think they represent Islam. Traditional Muslim scholars from around the world have confirmed that such deviant ideologies and actions violate the very principles of Islam. By working with such scholars we can help them to consolidate the traditional middle ground of Islam and further expose the extremists for being just that. This is the most efficient, most peaceful and most effective weapon in the war against extremist interpretations of Islam. If we do not use it, we will have surrendered the higher ground in the war of ideas. By responding with extremism of another kind, Sookhdeo and those like him allow the extremists to determine the general inter-religious ambiance and thus the course of events. Rather than providing a realistic presentation of the challenges we face and their possible peaceful solutions, they take advantage of the situation to advance their own hidden polemical agenda and prejudices. In doing so they work not only against Muslims and Islam, but against the whole of humanity, Christians included (or perhaps especially). Onward Christian soldiers, Reverend Sookhdeo?



Vincenzo Olivetti is the author of Terror's Source: The Ideology of Wahabi-Salafism and its Consequences.
http://www.islamicamagazine.com/content/view/159/59/

Posted: Sat Oct 14, 2006 8:05 am
by Gman
Aviatrix wrote:I would just like to ask a simple question...

If a country decided to attack the USA, for example, enslave its population, and absolutely prohibit the practice of any religion, what would be the response?
We wouldn't like it...
Aviatrix wrote:Would the USA be allowed to defend itself?
If forced yes... Of course it would also have to be voted on by the House and Senate.. Not just one man's fury..
Aviatrix wrote:Would the USA be allowed to prevent the other country from oppressing other people?
It depends... Again it needs to be voted on in a democracy..
Aviatrix wrote:Is the USA morally and religiously justified in doing this?
It depends again, let's not forget that the U.S. as a whole is a secular nation.. Separation between Church and State..
Aviatrix wrote:Or should the entire country love its enemy, turn the other cheek, and allow the invaders to oppress everyone?
No... To turn the other cheek is actually an individual law not a corporate law.. As a nation we have the right to defend ourselves..
Aviatrix wrote:Loving your enemies is a good religious practice. It keeps people from becoming bitter.

But I really can't argue with how you're comparing the teachings of the Christ Jesus peace be upon him and those of Muhammad, peace be upon him. This is because you're looking through a filter to see Islam.
Yes and it seems that this filter was verified in the Hadith... The Hadith was used to make any sense out of the Quran. They are the traditions of Muhammad... Not to be debated over..
Aviatrix wrote:Islam is more than just a religion. Islam is your diet, Islam is your government, Islam is your habits, Islam is your goals, Islam is your complete and total way of life.
Hopefully not here... We understand that it is a government... There could never be a separation between church and state. According to Bible we must submit to the governing authorities... Not wipe it out..

Romans 13:1 Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God.
Aviatrix wrote:God, being the Creator of mankind, knows what is best for mankind. And he has prescribed a way of life for those who wish to devote themselves to him. It is Islam, and it pervades every aspect of life. You have to start with this foundation in order to even attempt to understand Islam.
Pervades it does... There are no brakes on this theological car only gears 1 - 5... No checks or balances... Just higher and lower gears..
Aviatrix wrote:Let there be no compulsion in religion. Any Muslim who attempts to force Muslims to practice Islam, or non-Muslims to practice Islam, is in direct violation of the Qur'an, period. God does not love aggressors. Any Muslim who wants to oppress a population, go to war with them purely for conquest is aggressing--see last sentence.
Again I think Judah is right in saying that verses can be abrogated by another.. The verse 'Let there be no compulsion in religion' was stated in Mecca where Muhammad was just starting out.. At this point he was powerless and had only a few relatives following him. That all changes in Medina where he becomes more wealthy and more intolerant.

In other words if you follow the logic, the Quran can contradict itself. When there are verses that appear to be contradictory in the Quran, the later verse is actually better then the first one… In other words, more is being revealed.. The earlier one is canceled by the later one…

Sura 2:106 When We abrogate a verse or cause it to be forgotten, We will bring one better than it or one similar; do you not know that Allah is Able to do all things?

So you have peaceful verses in the beginning which are actually annulled by the later ones.. In other words, the peaceful verses in Mecca have been abrogated by the later ones in Medina.

Here is one example:

Sura 5:32 For this reason; We decreed for the Descendants of Israel that whoever kills a human being except in lieu of killing or causing turmoil in the earth, so it shall be as if he had killed all mankind; and whoever saves the life of one person, is as if he had saved the life of all mankind; and undoubtedly Our Noble Messengers came to them with clear proofs - then after this indeed many of them are oppressors in the earth.

But then look at the next verse..

Sura 5:33 The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger, and strive with might and main for mischief through the land is: execution, or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides, or exile from the land: that is their disgrace in this world, and a heavy punishment is theirs in the Hereafter;

Ok, here is your answer...

I think the logical flow of the Quran does let others live outside of the Quran's teachings and faith.. In other words you could be right in some sense that it doesn't seem to want to kill everybody..

However, we have very clear instructions from Muhammad about such actions... When they were to meet the unbelievers on the battlefield, they were invited to accept Islam or to accept a second class status in the Islamic state (with no civil rights)... And if they refused both of those they were to wage war against them.

Sura 9:29 Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth (Islam), of the People of the Book (Christians and Jews), until they pay the Jizya with willing submission (the full tax), and feel themselves subdued.

In other words, you were given 3 options when confronted with Islam..

1. Either accept it.
2. If you don't accept it you would have the option to become a second class citizen and pay the Jizya or tax to the Islamic faithful..
3. You would be killed in a war.

This is confirmed in the Hadiths..

While we were in the Mosque, the Prophet came out and said, "Let us go to the Jews" We went out till we reached Bait-ul-Midras. He said to them, "If you embrace Islam, you will be safe. You should know that the earth belongs to Allah and His Apostle, and I want to expel you from this land. So, if anyone amongst you owns some property, he is permitted to sell it, otherwise you should know that the Earth belongs to Allah and His Apostle." Book #53, Hadith #392..

Umar sent the Muslims to the great countries to fight the pagans… When we reached the land of the enemy, the representative of Khosrau came out with forty-thousand warriors, and an interpreter got up saying, "Let one of you talk to me!" Al-Mughira replied… Our Prophet, the Messenger of our Lord, has ordered us to fight you till you worship Allah Alone or give Jizya (i.e. tribute).. And our Prophet has informed us that our Lord says:-- "Whoever amongst us is killed (i.e. martyred), shall go to Paradise to lead such a luxurious life as he has never seen, and whoever amongst us remain alive, shall become your master." Book #53 Hadith #386.

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.)" Book #52 Hadith #196.

Also confirmed in the Quran..

Sura 5:51 People who Believe! Do not make the Jews and the Christians your friends; they are friends of one another; and whoever among you befriends them, is one of them; indeed Allah does not guide the unjust.

Surah 47:4 So when you confront the disbelievers, strike at their necks; until when you have slain them in plenty, tie them up firmly; then after that, you may either release them as a favour or take ransom, until the war lays down its ordeal; this is it; and had Allah willed He Himself could have taken revenge from them, but this is to test some of you with others; and Allah will surely never waste the deeds of those who were killed in His way.

I'm sorry.... You still haven't addressed Suras 61:9, 48:28 and 9:33... As they continue to state their objective: in order to prevail over all other religions - even if the polytheists get annoyed.

Is this clearer now?

I'm going to leave this discussion until someone answers my questions..

Good bye and God bless..

Posted: Sat Oct 14, 2006 9:26 am
by Christian2
Abrogated verses in the Qur'an can be found here:

http://www.islamreview.com/articles/qur ... rine.shtml

Posted: Sat Oct 14, 2006 10:02 am
by Lizard Man
Gman wrote: Again I think Judah is right in saying that verses can be abrogated by another.. The verse 'Let there be no compulsion in religion' was stated in Mecca where Muhammad was just starting out.
No. It was one of the last revelations he recieved.
Sura 2:106 When We abrogate a verse or cause it to be forgotten, We will bring one better than it or one similar; do you not know that Allah is Able to do all things?
"or one similar". That means that if two verses mean the same or something similar, the easier verse to understand knocks the other out.
Sura 5:33 The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger, and strive with might and main for mischief through the land is: execution, or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides, or exile from the land: that is their disgrace in this world, and a heavy punishment is theirs in the Hereafter;
That's not even the complete verse:
"The punishment for those who wage war against Allah and his Rasool and strive to create mischief in the land, is death or crucifiction or the cutting off of their hands and feet from opposite sides or exile from the land based on the gravity of their offense. This will be their humiliation in this world and the hereafter they will have a grievous punishment, except those who repent before you apprehend them, in such a case, you should know that Allah is forgiving, merciful."
Sura 9:29 Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth (Islam), of the People of the Book (Christians and Jews), until they pay the Jizya with willing submission (the full tax), and feel themselves subdued.
My translation goes as "...Fight those people of the book who do not believe in Allah or the Last Day..." This is a verse dealing with hypocritical behavior of some Jews and Christians, and not the entirety of their societies (actually the Qur'an even mentions that there are divisions and differences among the people of the book; some are true believers, and others are hypocrites).
In other words, you were given 3 options when confronted with Islam..
If you were on the battlefield or living in a defeated city.
1. Either accept it.
One step ahead of ya. ;)
2. If you don't accept it you would have the option to become a second class citizen and pay the Jizya or tax to the Islamic faithful..
"Second-class citizen" meant that you were exempted from military service. The taxes that Christians and Jews paid were actually lower than those that Muslims paid.
3. You would be killed in a war.
Sounds fair enough, considering Islam forbids war except in defense and even those defeated were still allowed to practice their own religion.
While we were in the Mosque, the Prophet came out and said, "Let us go to the Jews" We went out till we reached Bait-ul-Midras. He said to them, "If you embrace Islam, you will be safe. You should know that the earth belongs to Allah and His Apostle, and I want to expel you from this land. So, if anyone amongst you owns some property, he is permitted to sell it, otherwise you should know that the Earth belongs to Allah and His Apostle." Book #53, Hadith #392..
I am net yet well versed in the Hadiths, so I can't debate that. However, some of them are authentic, and some are not.
Sura 5:51 People who Believe! Do not make the Jews and the Christians your friends; they are friends of one another; and whoever among you befriends them, is one of them; indeed Allah does not guide the unjust.
My translation says "protecting friends." A big difference.
Surah 47:4 So when you confront the disbelievers, strike at their necks; until when you have slain them in plenty, tie them up firmly; then after that, you may either release them as a favour or take ransom, until the war lays down its ordeal; this is it; and had Allah willed He Himself could have taken revenge from them, but this is to test some of you with others; and Allah will surely never waste the deeds of those who were killed in His way.
Gman, that passage has already been addressed. ;)
I'm sorry.... You still haven't addressed Suras 61:9, 48:28 and 9:33... As they continue to state their objective: in order to prevail over all other religions - even if the polytheists get annoyed.
Duh. :P Anybody would get annoyed if their religion started to shrink because of competition.
God bless..
God bless you too. ;) However, I suggest that you investigate your sources if they are dishonest enough to cut entire segments from verses or surahs.

how is it related to the Qur'an bible?

Posted: Sat Oct 14, 2006 10:15 am
by Oriental
Just wondering why the 911 tragedy was said to be a "Holy War" or something in the media... What is the reason if it is based on Qur'an bible or..? I may not know it well enough.

Oriental.

..

Re: how is it related to the Qur'an bible?

Posted: Sat Oct 14, 2006 11:09 am
by Christian2
Oriental wrote:Just wondering why the 911 tragedy was said to be a "Holy War" or something in the media... What is the reason if it is based on Qur'an bible or..? I may not know it well enough.

Oriental.

..
That is a problem within Islam IMO. Who declares war and on what basis? Seems Osama bin Laden and his sort took acception to some of the things that the USA did--keeping troops in Saudi Arabia, give money to Israel and Egypt, etc. According to an American Islamic Site, there is more to it. See below:

Since the fall of the Ottoman Empire in the early 20th century, many Muslims have lamented the loss of a unified Muslim polity and longed for the reestablishment of a world empire. Some have organized movements with the imposition of a Muslim world order as their end goal. In recent years, there have been numerous such movements, some but not all adopting a strategy of armed struggle.

Al-Qaeda is one such group. It is a coalition of armed movements espousing a refined form of Wahhabism, a stringent interpretation of Sunni Islamic law that informs the state ideology of Saudi Arabia and until recently Afghanistan. Usama bin Laden and his followers wish to make Islam the only religio-political force in the world.

In practice, this means reclaiming Muslim countries now ruled by secular governments they view as illegitimate, reconquering lost Muslim lands like Israel and Spain, unifying the entire Muslim world under a new caliphate, and ultimately, advancing into new territories and claiming them for Islam. America's position as the only superpower pits it inherently against their ambitions. Thus, weakening America is a fundamental part of their agenda.

Usama and his followers oppose much of America's foreign policy. They oppose America's support for Israel, sanctions against Iraq, military presence in Saudi Arabia, support for India in its rule over the dispute region of Kashmir, and support for Middle Eastern governments like Egypt that have tried to put down Islamist political groups. At the core, Usama and his followers oppose America because it is the only superpower that stands in his way.

Bin Laden uses some of the lessons of Islamic history to instill a sense of optimism in his followers. In his many sermons and recruitment speeches, he points out that the prophet Muhammad and a much smaller group of supporters managed to defeat not one but two superpowers: the Byzantine and Sasanian empires.

The people who carried out the atrocities of September 11 were not Americans, but resided in the United States and used the American Muslim community as a cover for their terrorist activities. Law enforcement officials are concerned that there are still such activists among us. No matter how many remain, however, they are a tiny subset of Muslims residing in America, and the vast majority of Muslims living here oppose them as much as other Americans do. Many Muslim Americans have volunteered their energy, language skills, and cultural knowledge to the FBI and other law enforcement organizations to help root out the threat of Al-Qaeda from American soil.

To understand the American campaign called "Enduring Freedom" as a war against Islam is to accept Usama bin Laden's vision of the world. A number of armed movements in the Middle East have declared war on America. We are at war with these groups and their supporters. But the majority of Muslims around the world share with America common values of family, education, freedom, human rights, and democracy.

Source: American Islamic Congress

http://www.aicongress.org/teachersguide1.html

If you have read any of bin Laden's speeches he quotes the Qur'an and the sayings of his prophet in defense of what he has done and is doing.

To them it is a Holy War in the cause of Allah.

Posted: Sat Oct 14, 2006 3:55 pm
by Gman
Lizard Man wrote:No. It was one of the last revelations he recieved.


Not according to my sources... One of them is Abdullah Al-Araby, Mark Gabriel a PHD in Islam, and the other Walid Shoebat a former PLO terrorist..
"or one similar". That means that if two verses mean the same or something similar, the easier verse to understand knocks the other out.


Yes my point exactly... Kiddo..
Sura 5:33 The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger, and strive with might and main for mischief through the land is: execution, or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides, or exile from the land: that is their disgrace in this world, and a heavy punishment is theirs in the Hereafter;
That's not even the complete verse:

"The punishment for those who wage war against Allah and his Rasool and strive to create mischief in the land, is death or crucifiction or the cutting off of their hands and feet from opposite sides or exile from the land based on the gravity of their offense. This will be their humiliation in this world and the hereafter they will have a grievous punishment, except those who repent before you apprehend them, in such a case, you should know that Allah is forgiving, merciful."


And your point is?
My translation goes as "...Fight those people of the book who do not believe in Allah or the Last Day..." This is a verse dealing with hypocritical behavior of some Jews and Christians, and not the entirety of their societies (actually the Qur'an even mentions that there are divisions and differences among the people of the book; some are true believers, and others are hypocrites).


I don't know... I only quote from an online Quran..

Right here... http://www.multimediaquran.com/quran/005/005-051.htm
If you were on the battlefield or living in a defeated city.


I 'll get to that later..
One step ahead of ya. ;)


Ok, then I'm two steps ahead of you.. :wink:
"Second-class citizen" meant that you were exempted from military service. The taxes that Christians and Jews paid were actually lower than those that Muslims paid.


According to my sources it was more... Regardless a tax is a tax..
I am net yet well versed in the Hadiths, so I can't debate that. However, some of them are authentic, and some are not.


I'm surprised at this... Are you really a muslim? The overwhelming majority of Muslims consider hadith to be essential supplements to and clarifications of the Qur'an, Islam's holy book. These Hadiths come from Sahih Bukhari... Do you know about them?
My translation says "protecting friends." A big difference.


Huh?
Gman, that passage has already been addressed. ;)


Ah, not really...
Duh. :P Anybody would get annoyed if their religion started to shrink because of competition.


Ok, thanks for showing us the battlefield then..
However, I suggest that you investigate your sources if they are dishonest enough to cut entire segments from verses or surahs.


Likewise... :wink:

At this point I starting to think Aviatrix is a more of a Muslim... And maybe even more respectful.. :wink:

Posted: Sat Oct 14, 2006 4:33 pm
by Aviatrix
Let there be no compulsion in religion.

This verse is in a Medinan Surah (al-Baqara) and is one of the later verses revealed in Islam. It was not abrogated. I even read this article of yours on Islam Review, that says Muslims hide this doctrine... wow. That article has over half of the Qur'an as being "abrograted." Come on, now. Basically, that article is trying to convince people that some parts of the Qur'an have less weight than other parts, and it's just not true. I hope this article explains to you why it can't possibly be true: http://www.islam-online.net/English/con ... e01d.shtml

My brother Lizard Man is right... what you are considering a "second class citizen" had equal rights, except that they weren't serving in the military, and they didn't pay Zakat. Instead they paid Jizya because they were exempt from service, and it was actually lower than the Zakat that Muslims paid. They are also allowed their own laws.

[quote=Gman] No... To turn the other cheek is actually an individual law not a corporate law.. As a nation we have the right to defend ourselves.. [/quote]

Now you're starting to understand Islamic philosophy and law. Good job. Islam, as a nation, has the right to defend itself. Muslims also individually are allowed to defend themselves.

I think all participants should read this article: http://mercyofallah.com/misc/misc1.html to get a better scope of the Islamic understanding. I'm not here lying to you, I'm telling the truth, trying to clear up misunderstandings. I would rather have this topic shift back to its original intent. Now there is nothing here but attacks against Islam and a defense of it. Please.

Posted: Sat Oct 14, 2006 4:45 pm
by Judah
Lizard Man wrote:
Judah wrote:What you write sounds wonderful, Aviatrix, but it does not match with what is said by those acknowledged to be of high standing in Islam.
The error here is you only seem to accept sources that agree with your own notions of the religion. There are plenty of scholars who support Islam even after years of research. This is an excellent article erradicating the authority of those who claim Islam to have violent roots: ["The Myth of Moderate Islam" By Vincenzo Oliveti]
LM, if you persist in playing a game of "my sources are more authentic than yours" or whatever, this whole matter is going to do nothing but go around in circles and get nowhere.
Therefore I will not persist with this game-playing beyond my final clarification to you as follows:

Your information flies right in the face of that by Abil-Kasim Hibat-Allah Ibn-Salama Abi-Nasr, the revered islamic scholar who wrote the classical work "al-Nasikh wal-Mansukh". This work is accepted as authentic and authroitative by both Sunni and Shi'ite Muslims who make up by far the majority of all Muslims.
On the other hand, you have provided a lengthy uncut Copy-and-Paste article by one Vincenzo Oliveti, author of a book on Wahhabi-Salafi ideology and its consequences. The name is a pseudonym which prevents an open scrutiny of the writer's credentials.
The article itself contains large sections that are irrelevant to your argument but serves to attack and discredit Christianity.

C2, Gman, myself and others here have made specific reference to Islamic sources as well as to the works of well-informed non-Muslims (who were mostly schooled by Muslims in the first place).
FYI Dr Patrick Sookhdeo is an ex-Muslim himself, and no lightweight in the field of comparative religion having a doctorate degree in this area.

Back on the previous page of this thread, C2 offered a means for us to get back on topic with this thread, yourself LM having been the one to persist with the presentation of Islam and Qur'anic texts. However you chose not to go down that path and instead, to persist further with the same old arguments while largely ignoring the responses you have been given. They have been allowed in order to provide testimony to others of the relative natures of Islam and Christianity.

But as I said at the beginning of my post here, I see no sense in continuing a battle of the Sources, and I suggest that it is particularly fruitless when you (and anyone else) do not accept the classical theological works of your own religion when they are accepted by its own mainstream, and that they are is proven by the undeniable reality of what is happening continually in world events.

Posted: Sat Oct 14, 2006 5:20 pm
by Aviatrix
Why is it that no Muslim scholar discusses this idea of abrogation to mandate fighting, but only non-Muslims (usually Christians) who claim to have studied from an Islamic background do?

Are the Muslims trying to hide it? :lol: Or has it been exaggerated out of context?

You guys make it sound like first the Qur'an said BE NICE and then all of a sudden changed to HATE ON EVERYONE. Your sources, I'm sorry to tell you, are deceiving you. :P

Knowledge is power. Don't ask a fisherman to teach you about the harvest.

Posted: Sat Oct 14, 2006 5:24 pm
by Lizard Man
Aviatrix wrote:Knowledge is power. Don't ask a fisherman to teach you about the harvest.
Well put. 8)

Posted: Sat Oct 14, 2006 5:25 pm
by Gman
Aviatrix wrote:Why is it that no Muslim scholar discusses this idea of abrogation to allow fighting, but only non-Muslims (usually Christians) who claim to have studied from an Islamic background do?

Are the Muslims trying to hide it? :lol: Or has it been exaggerated out of context?

You guys make it sound like first the Qur'an said BE NICE and then all of a sudden changed to HATE ON EVERYONE. Your sources, I'm sorry to tell you, are deceiving you. :P

Knowledge is power. Don't ask a fisherman to teach you about the harvest.
We never said that Muslims or the Quran hates everyone. This is what the Quran seems to be implying.. Your verse "Let there be no compulsion in religion" is only a single verse... There are many other verses that would contradict it, even if it was said in Medina.. Just add them up...

At this point I have no clue who Allah even is...

Posted: Sat Oct 14, 2006 5:56 pm
by Aviatrix
"When they don't know Allah means God, we're in trouble." -Sheikh Hamza Yusuf

Posted: Sat Oct 14, 2006 6:04 pm
by Gman
Aviatrix wrote:"When they don't know Allah means God, we're in trouble." -Sheikh Hamza Yusuf
No... What I mean is what are his attributes.. He doesn't seem to be a God of Love.. And if you get in his way look out or you are toast..

Posted: Sat Oct 14, 2006 6:14 pm
by Aviatrix
He is the Loving One (al-Wadud) according to the Qur'an.

He is the Forgiver, and the Merciful, and the bestower of bounties without measure.