Does the Quran promote peaceful values? (I claim it does not.)

[icehorse]

This thread is a continuation of a thread in the "Comparative Religion" forum entitled; "What are the values of moderate Muslims?".

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/comparative-religion/159410-what-values-moderate-muslims.html

To summarize (and I hope not oversimplify), as a western secularist my reading of the Quran is that it does NOT promote modern, peaceful values such as:

- freedom of religion and freedom from religion (e.g. no penalty for apostasy)
- separation of church and state (e.g. the opposite of Sharia)
- equality for all (e.g. women's rights, gay rights...)
- freedom of speech (e.g. the freedom to openly criticize anything)
- respect for other belief systems
- respect for non-Muslims and non-Muslim countries

My second claim is that if a Muslim holds modern, peaceful values, those values didn't come from the scripture, and that the scripture must be massively edited and cherry-picked to support peaceful values.

When I have cited certain verses from the Quran to support my claims, I have been told that I'm not interpreting the verses correctly. Several members have said that if I (we?) will cite verses that seem to be in conflict with the above list, they will explain the true context.

I will list some verses here, but it seems others should be able to as well.

== Allah created non-believers so they can burn in hell

2:6-7
4:56
22:19-22
40:70-72
56:93-94

and many others...

== non-believers are not to be trusted or befriended

2:65-66 - Jews are apes to be despised
2:121 - they are losers
2:191-193 - kill them
2:221 - no intermarriage
3:73 - do not believe them
3:118 - do not befriend, they hate you
4:101 - they are enemies
9:107 - they are liars
33:48 - they are hypocrites
58:14-15 - they are hypocrites and liars

and many others...

That seems like a good start. The verses I listed are only a small fraction of the verses in the Quran that read as though the Quran does NOT have a peaceful message.

 

[Truthisnotyourenemy]

On this subject I would like to ask Muslims, can you be friends with the enemies of Allah who are the worst of creatures?

 

[Pastek]

To summarize (and I hope not oversimplify), as a western secularist my reading of the Quran is that it does NOT promote modern, peaceful values such as:

- freedom of religion and freedom from religion (e.g. no penalty for apostasy)

To me my religion, to you yours says the Quran

- separation of church and state (e.g. the opposite of Sharia)

What do you exactly means by it ? That the religion can't be the source for the law or in a larger sense ?

- equality for all (e.g. women's rights, gay rights...)

Which rights exactly ? Be more specific then we can say if it's possible or not.

- freedom of speech (e.g. the freedom to openly criticize anything)

Certainly not. If it goes too far this is not acceptable.

- respect for other belief systems

We do respect other people and their faiths. I have christians in my familly, and many of my friends are atheists, bouddhists, christians, jews...

- respect for non-Muslims and non-Muslim countries

Of course.

My second claim is that if a Muslim holds modern, peaceful values, those values didn't come from the scripture, and that the scripture must be massively edited and cherry-picked to support peaceful values.

It comes from the Scriptures but we can also share other's values.
Remember that the muslims did a great work by translating and studying the western pholosophy (like Avicenna, Averroes ...) but also from India (from were they took the numbers) etc
Bagdad was a cultural center were they used to come to learn, share, translate during many centuries.
It seems that you think muslims are close minded and only accept Islamic Scriptures and never study anything. You would be surprise that they know quite well the western litterature, philosophy etc

 

[Pastek]

On this subject I would like to ask Muslims, can you be friends with the enemies of Allah who are the worst of creatures?

Yes we can

 

[Pastek]

I will list some verses here, but it seems others should be able to as well.

== non-believers are not to be trusted or befriended

2:65-66 - Jews are apes to be despised

Not true. That's probably because you didn't understand the verses and especially didn't finish to read the Quran. Also you took it from a website who simplified it because the Quran don't says that.

2.65 And you had already known about those who transgressed among you concerning the sabbath, and We said to them, "Be apes, despised."

"Those among you", not "all". The guy in your website made a judgment i think, he didn't quote the verse correctly.


Anymay, the story if you have kept reading :

7.163 And ask them about the town that was by the sea - when they transgressed in [the matter of] the sabbath - when their fish came to them openly on their sabbath day, and the day they had no sabbath they did not come to them. Thus did We give them trial because they were defiantly disobedient.

7.164 And when a community among them said, "Why do you advise [or warn] a people whom Allah is [about] to destroy or to punish with a severe punishment?" they [the advisors] said, "To be absolved before your Lord and perhaps they may fear Him."

7.165 And when they forgot that by which they had been reminded, We saved those who had forbidden evil and seized those who wronged, with a wretched punishment, because they were defiantly disobeying.

7.166 So when they were insolent about that which they had been forbidden, We said to them, "Be apes, despised."

7.168 And We divided them throughout the earth into nations. Of them some were righteous, and of them some were otherwise. And We tested them with good [times] and bad that perhaps they would return [to obedience].


Please, before you copy and past from a website, try to read it yourself.

2:121 - they are losers

Of course they are losers. In the Day of ressurection disbelievers will be losers.

2:191-193 - kill them

Yes, those who fighted the muslims.
Do you think muslims can't fight back and must let people kill them ?

2:221 - no intermarriage

When did you stop reading exactly ?

5.5 (...) And [lawful in marriage are] chaste women from among the believers and chaste women from among those who were given the Scripture before you, when you have given them their due compensation, desiring chastity, not unlawful sexual intercourse or taking [secret] lovers.

3:73 - do not believe them

You didn't understand the verse at all.
It was some of the people of the Book who said to their people "don't accept the fact that the muslims have Scriptures/Revelations from God".

It clearly shows that you didn't even take the time to read it, because it was said just the verse before :

3.72And a faction of the People of the Scripture say [to each other], "Believe in that which was revealed to the believers at the beginning of the day and reject it at its end that perhaps they will abandon their religion,

(that the muslims may abandon their religion)

3.73 And do not trust except those who follow your religion." Say,** "Indeed, the [true] guidance is the guidance of Allah .
[Do you fear]# lest someone be given [knowledge] like you were given or that they would [thereby] argue with you before your Lord?" Say,** "Indeed, [all] bounty is in the hand of Allah - He grants it to whom He wills. And Allah is all-Encompassing and Wise."

(** : Muhammad)
(# : People of the Book talking to each others)

3:118 - do not befriend, they hate you

Yeah they hated them and even betrayed them.
The sourate talk a lot about the battles between muslims and non muslims (if you keep reading). Will you be friend with someone who fight and betray you ?

4:101 - they are enemies

Yes, if you keep reading ( reading not picking verses in some websites) you'll see that they were in time of war.
In time of war of course there's what we call "enemies" and you must be prudent.

4.102 And when you** are among them and lead them in prayer, let a group of them stand [in prayer] with you and let them carry their arms. And when they have prostrated, let them be [in position] behind you and have the other group come forward which has not [yet] prayed and let them pray with you, taking precaution and carrying their arms.
Those who disbelieve wish that you would neglect your weapons and your baggage so they could come down upon you in one [single] attack. But there is no blame upon you, if you are troubled by rain or are ill, for putting down your arms, but take precaution.

(** : Muhammad)

9:107 - they are liars

Yes, it was some hypocrites among people of Medina who built a rival mosque.
The first mosque built was the one of prophet Muhammad (the mosque of Quba).
God told him to not pray there.

9.107 And [there are] those [hypocrites] who took for themselves a mosque for causing harm and disbelief and division among the believers and as a station for whoever had warred against Allah and His Messenger before. And they will surely swear, "We intended only the best." And Allah testifies that indeed they are liars.

If you want to know more about that mosque : Demolition of Masjid al-Dirar - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

33:48 - they are hypocrites

Can't God knows who is a good person and who's a bad one ?

33.48 And do not obey the disbelievers and the hypocrites but do not harm them, and rely upon Allah . And sufficient is Allah as Disposer of affairs.

58:14-15 - they are hypocrites and liars

So ?

58.14 Have you not considered those who make allies of a people with whom Allah has become angry? They are neither of you nor of them, and they swear to untruth while they know [they are lying].

What's the problem here ?

That seems like a good start. The verses I listed are only a small fraction of the verses in the Quran that read as though the Quran does NOT have a peaceful message.

This is not a good start at all. It seems that you didn't take the time to read the Quran. I understand that it takes time, but the minimum to do is to read the entire the sourate. You asked questions when the answers were some verses before or after the one you quoted. If you want to continue like that, i think this thread will last forever.

I have a question, would you think it's normal if someone take a verse in the Bible and do the same without even reading the chapter and without understanding that God (or the prophets/believers/disciples) were dealing with some circumstances of their time ? "God said they are liars, hypocrites etc ..." were you there, were we there ?
What do you expect from people who believe in God and their Scriptures may say ?

In the beginning i thought that you have really read the Quran (at least some sourates entirely), but in reallity it seems that you have read a little here, a little there and most of time picked up some verses from a website.

 

[icehorse]

Hi Pastek,

While I appreciate your response, please stop calling me a liar. I read the King Fahd Complex version of the Quran. I read it from cover to cover. I took notes as I went. I believe that this translation has been printed and distributed around the world over 250 million times.

The whole point of this thread is to discuss WHY someone like you claims that it's not enough to read the words.

Now of course, I gave very brief summaries. I did this only to make sure we were discussing the same verse. I've noticed that - depending on the translation - sometimes the numbering of the verses will be different by 1 or 2. By NO MEANS are my short summaries meant to be perfect. The point was to say "this verse and the verses around it have message X".

Pastek - which translation are you reading from?

 

[Pastek]

Hi
First of all, i never said or implied that you are a liar. You said you've read the Quran, but never precised (or i don't remember it) that you've read it enterly.

You said now that you've read it cover to cover, ok. So why did you asked questions about verses when you had the answers some verses/sourates before or after ?

The whole point of this thread is to discuss WHY someone like you claims that it's not enough to read the words.

If there's some historical events (or the Bible) that occured and you don't know them, you may not understand some verses.
It also happened to me. When i've read for exemple the stories when muslims had problems with non muslims i asked to myself "what happened to them exactly ?" "who betrayed who, how, why ?" I put my Quran and i made some reasearchs, I think there's nothing wrong with that.

I've noticed that - depending on the translation - sometimes the numbering of the verses will be different by 1 or 2. By NO MEANS are my short summaries meant to be perfect. The point was to say "this verse and the verses around it have message X".

It's not a problem, it can happen.

The english translation that i use in the internet is from this website : The Noble Qur'an - ?????? ??????

 

[icehorse]

Pastek,

You said:

To me my religion, to you yours says the Quran

And yes, I agree the Quran says that once or maybe a few times.

But by far the more overwhelming message is that anyone who doesn't follow Islam is an enemy to Muslims. I listed a few passages. There are over 500 such passages.

Now if you tell me that I've got all 500 passages wrong, then what you're saying is that the ONLY WAY to read the Quran is to spend your life studying it, or to trust someone else's interpretation.

What I'd say to you is that - in a modern world - that's suspicious. Some Islamic scholars spent years and years working on the translation I read. What you're saying is that they did a poor job of translation? You're saying that you know the Quran better than the translators?

To be fair, I found a lot of the verses to be ambiguous. It's not always clear which verses belong together and when a new idea is starting. This is NOT the fault of the reader.

Many times, the Quran declares itself to be clear and easy to understand. It seems to me that you're saying that a person cannot read it and understand it. It seems that you're saying that a person needs to be a historical scholar - either that or a person needs to trust an Islamic holy man? Is that correct? Can you find where it says that in the Quran?

 

[Pastek]

But by far the more overwhelming message is that anyone who doesn't follow Islam is an enemy to Muslims. I listed a few passages. There are over 500 such passages.

No, it says that some are/were enemies to muslims.
You quoted some verses and i explained them.
The problem is that you think some verses are talking to you directly ( you :atheists, polytheists etc...) while it talks to people of that time. I'm not saying all the verses are toward people of that time, some are some aren't. Depends on the sourate/context, normally you are supposed to know that according to the situation described.

Now if you tell me that I've got all 500 passages wrong, then what you're saying is that the ONLY WAY to read the Quran is to spend your life studying it, or to trust someone else's interpretation.

Why then those who converted to Islam understood it without problem ?
Did they spent their life studying the Quran ?
You have many of them here, you should ask them this question.

I think that any scholars for any religion spend many years (maybe all his life) searching and learning. Even some non religious people who study the religions (any religion) do that.
I don't think that a priest or a rabbin just read his Book and that's all.
And i never said you need to believe someone else interpretation.
Like in other religions, people may desagree in certain points. That's ok, nobody have the suprem knowledge.

What I'd say to you is that - in a modern world - that's suspicious. Some Islamic scholars spent years and years working on the translation I read. What you're saying is that they did a poor job of translation? You're saying that you know the Quran better than the translators?

I never said anything about the translation.
I don't know what you're talking about.

To be fair, I found a lot of the verses to be ambiguous. It's not always clear which verses belong together and when a new idea is starting. This is NOT the fault of the reader.

I know, i was surprise too when i've read it the first time.
I think you just get used to it.
But didn't find it ambiguous personnaly.

Many times, the Quran declares itself to be clear and easy to understand. It seems to me that you're saying that a person cannot read it and understand it.
It seems that you're saying that a person needs to be a historical scholar - either that or a person needs to trust an Islamic holy man? Is that correct? Can you find where it says that in the Quran?

The main idea in the Quran is very simple. But if you want to understand what happened to Muhammad and the pagans (for ex) -as the Quran was revealed at that time (during 23 years) - then you may need to make some researchs.

But if you just want to know God, what is the message of God then you'll have no problem at all.
Very simple : you believe in God, avoid sins, make good deeds, etc
This is very easy to understand. But if you want to know more about some event, then this is not an historical book who will explain point by point what happen in each situation.

It seems that you're saying that a person needs to be a historical scholar - either that or a person needs to trust an Islamic holy man? Is that correct? Can you find where it says that in the Quran?

What do you mean ?

 

[Breathe]

As an outsider?

- freedom of religion and freedom from religion (e.g. no penalty for apostasy)

Yes and no; Muslims tend to not make a big deal out of it unless they feel it could lead to instability in the region or used to sow dissent.

- separation of church and state (e.g. the opposite of Sharia)

To some extent, yes; sharia is frequently seen as a Muslim-only thing, and it does not necessarily have to affect non-Muslims who may have their own moral code, so long as it does not infringe on sharia law's effect on Muslims.

- equality for all (e.g. women's rights,

O Messenger of Allah! Who from amongst mankind warrants the best companionship from me? He replied: "Your mother." The man asked: Then who? So he replied: "Your mother". The man then asked: Then who? So the Prophet replied again: "Your mother." The man then asked: then who? So he replied: "Then your father." So this necessitates that the mother is given three times the likes of kindness and good treatment then the father.

"And from amongst His Signs is this: That He created from you wives from amongst yourselves, so that you may find serenity and tranquility in them. And He has put between you love and compassion. Indeed, in this are signs for those who reflect." [Quran 30:21]

By the way, Muslim women are not submissive, weak things like you think. Muslim women do not feel discriminated against. If they do not feel discriminated against, why is it others feel discriminated against on their behalf if they do not?

gay rights...)

This is a heavily debated subject. A large chunk of Muslims feel homosexuality is prohibited. Some more liberal Muslims believe that the verses the previously mentioned Muslims use to justify their view on homosexuality are attributed to homosexuality wrongly; some Muslims feel homosexuality is not really mentioned in the Quran.

- freedom of speech (e.g. the freedom to openly criticize anything)

Not really to the same extent, so I suppose no; there are certain things which cannot be criticised: God, the prophets, and so on cannot be.

Another prohibition is causing dissent which can lead to societal instability.

Otherwise, nothing else.

- respect for other belief systems

I think so.

- respect for non-Muslims and non-Muslim countries

I think so. Not all Muslims have been respectful but Muslims are people, and people can be good or bad.

My second claim is that if a Muslim holds modern, peaceful values, those values didn't come from the scripture, and that the scripture must be massively edited and cherry-picked to support peaceful values.

I think your claim is silly.

 

[icehorse]

Hi Pastek,

For the sake of this particular thread, my idea was to stay focused on the Quran and try not to bring in the hugely complex topics of Islam, how people might come to be Muslims and so on. Perhaps it's unavoidable, but I think it might add confusion...

Maybe there are common categories of people who are reading the Quran:

A - Someone reading a translation without much outside support or influence.
B - Someone who's culture is Islamic and who's reading it with that cultural perspective and support.

I'm mostly interested in the category "A" situation because then we're dealing with a relatively known situation. If we start discussing the category "B" experience, then we can't possibly know that experience because there will be a billion variations.

So to clarify, I'm mostly coming from category "A". Of course I have a general awareness of the world, but I'm not a scholar of Islamic history. Now it turns out that I have been studying Islamic history a bit, so I'm not totally unfamiliar with it. For example, I know that typically Muslims claim that Islam was not spread by the sword. And I know that many historians disagree with that conclusion. That's for another thread. Yet another complex issue.

So perhaps your big picture message is that you can't understand the Quran by just reading it? Maybe you're saying that if all a person does is read the book, they will not understand because they need *context*? Is that what you're saying?

 

[work in progress]

I think it is unavoidable to bring in other issues related to Islam and Muslims, besides complaining about some verses in the Quran.

Whenever I come across some fundamentalist Christian critics of Islam, I like to point out some of the verses in our Bible (which I am far more familiar with than the Quran) that are totally egregious and ignored, excused away, or re-interpreted by modern Christians and Jews. But, if we excuse even the most fundamentalist Christians and Orthodox Jews for not following everything written in their holy books, why not give modern Muslims the same credit for having brains and attempting to apply their religious faith in their lives to the best of their abilities? So, if there is a general groundswell of interest to promote peaceful values by Muslims or Christians or Jews or Hindus, Buddhists etc. it will happen regardless of whatever the verses are in the book! Today's militant Christian warhawks....who claim America is "exceptional" in the eyes of God, seem to have found ways to ignore all of statements by Jesus calling for peace in the NT.

Over time, religions have two choices when times change and reform is called for: either they further retrench and resist change, or they make some changes to keep their faith meaningful as they try to deal with the world around them. This was certainly the case in Christian nations when the issue of slavery was in the forefront. To hear them now, you would think that the conservative fundamentalists of 150 years ago in the U.S. were leading the fight against slavery...but the opposite was the case: most of the Bible verses that could be quoted either approved of slavery or in case of the NT, were still indifferent to slavery as an issue.

What I fear is behind most of the bashing of Islam and Muslims as a group, is an American military complex that went desperately searching for a new useful enemy after the fall of the Soviet Union and capitalization of China, removed the spectre of communism as the great, existential threat to justify expensive military buildups and billion dollar weapon systems. So, they found their enemy...especially in the months and years after 9/11, as regime changes, and fears of further terrorist attacks justify anything and everything, even the demonization of Christendom's primary competitor on the stage of world religions.

 

[icehorse]

Hi work_in_progress,

I think we're largely in agreement. Notice I didn't say "Does Islam promote peaceful values".

I'm SPECIFICALLY addressing the Quran. I would be thrilled to hear from a groundswell of Muslims that they have a new interpretation of the Quran. What seems not to be working is to hold the party line that it is literally the perfect, eternal, needs-no-interpretation (except when it does), word of God. There are virtually no Christians today that would kill a person for working on the sabbath (like the OT instructs). But there are a LOT of Muslims who will turn violent over a cartoon of the prophet. (Sorry guys, this is just recent history.)

So I'm totally in favor of modernizing Islam! (But I've been told several times that it doesn't need any modernizing.)

 

[work in progress]

Hi work_in_progress,

I think we're largely in agreement. Notice I didn't say "Does Islam promote peaceful values".

I'm SPECIFICALLY addressing the Quran. I would be thrilled to hear from a groundswell of Muslims that they have a new interpretation of the Quran.

Okay, but I'm not just talking about liberals or reformers modernizing Islam. My point is that everyone, including fundamentalists interprets the verses they read in the Quran or the Bible, not just the liberals!

So, even a verse like the often mentioned - Verse of the Sword - Surah 9:5, does not make every Muslim a holy warrior!

What seems not to be working is to hold the party line that it is literally the perfect, eternal, needs-no-interpretation (except when it does), word of God. There are virtually no Christians today that would kill a person for working on the sabbath (like the OT instructs). But there are a LOT of Muslims who will turn violent over a cartoon of the prophet. (Sorry guys, this is just recent history.)

So I'm totally in favor of modernizing Islam! (But I've been told several times that it doesn't need any modernizing.)

How many people were killed by those cartoons again? And we're talking about the whole world too! I'm not aware of anyone dying in Denmark - the source of controversy.

And, if you haven't noticed how fundamentalist Christianity has become increasingly militant and aggressive, you haven't been paying attention! And again, you are talking about issues of culture and politics, which are impacted by more issues than what verses in a book have to say.

For a number of centuries, most Jews - like the Talmudic scholar Maimonides, chose to go to the Muslim nations, rather than risk living in Christian Europe. The rise of Salafism in Arabia, cannot be separated from the changing fortunes of the Muslim Caliphates, which were conquering the known world and twice came close to conquering Europe....and then in recent centuries, fortunes changed, as the Muslim World declined in wealth and power, while Europe rose to become a continent of colonial empires that took over most of the world, including the last Muslim Caliphate after WWI. Many bipartisan historians view the shock that accompanied the loss of the caliphate and being conquered by European powers as the source of many of the tensions we have today.

But, on another level, I find the "look how violent they are/and how peaceful we are" argument both chauvinistic and fraudulent; because we need to include the use of state power on that list of use of violence.

When I recall an idiot general commenting on the War in Iraq as 'we won because our God is more powerful than their God,' I'm reminded about how neocolonialism has caused more death and destruction than any crimes by terrorists. On that point - terrorism is often called asymmetrical warfare, because it is a tactic used by groups or maybe even nations, who are grossly outnumbered and unable to match state of the art, high tech weapons used by a global power that dominates the economies and cultures of most of the world today, including the Muslim World.

But, times are changing now! Much of the reason today for the growth of fundamentalism in the U.S., and its morphing into theocracy - dominionist and Christian reconstructionist movements, is because of growing anxieties among conservatives that America's days as the global superpower are likely coming to an end, largely because of reasons that have destroyed past empires: England, France, Spain, the Romans etc. - the costs of enforcing the empire through increasing military spending is bankrupting the nation. And an America in decline...with its increasingly rigid reconstructionist theocrats, is going to have much more in common with theocrats in the Muslim World, than with secular, liberal democracy.

 

[TashaN]

Wow, did i miss the party?

 

[TashaN]

If you don't mind let me start by asking you this, icehorse, do you consider self defence to be peaceful or not? does being peaceful mean to allow yourself to get killed and never defend yourself no matter what or it means to use all necessary steps to avoid violence unless you really have to because it becomes a matter of life and death?

I need to understand what you mean first before i can engage in this discussion.

Thanks in advance.

 

[icehorse]

work_in_progress - I'm not at all claiming that religion X is better than religion Y. From my perspective BOTH Christianity and Islam have the blood of hundreds of millions of people on their hands. As far as the cartoon riots go, not sure, 20? 100? But the point is not the body count, but the idea of censorship. Let me ask you (and everyone else who believes in censorship), who do you know who's smart enough to decide what YOU should NOT be allowed to hear? I've never heard of a person I'd trust with that job.

TashaN - Yes, I believe in self-defense. But I've had this discussion before. If an Islamic army invades a new country, they are supposed to give the invaded people a peaceful chance to convert to Islam, correct? But if they don't convert, then what? dhimmi-tude? slavery? death? I have been told by Muslims that they consider this scenario to be "self defense". I think that, that's just an example of playing with words, and would not be considered "self defense".

TashaN - It's possible you have a different kind of situation in mind. If so, can you give an example from history?

 

[work in progress]

work_in_progress - I'm not at all claiming that religion X is better than religion Y.

Which is not my point. What I am trying to convey is that the merits and demerits of religious texts cannot be tell us very much about how the adherents consider these texts and act in this world. There is so much baggage that goes along with the issue of religion and how religion is practiced. A notable example would be how Sam Harris and few other widely quoted "new atheists" were proclaiming Buddhism as the most tolerant and acceptable religion in the world...but that narrative fell apart after the revolution in Burma led to a fundamentalist movement that started persecuting Muslims and trying to drive them out of the country. The notion that Buddhists have to be nonviolent and peaceful because of the tenets of their religion all went up in a puff of smoke when the real world landed on this theory!

From my perspective BOTH Christianity and Islam have the blood of hundreds of millions of people on their hands. As far as the cartoon riots go, not sure, 20? 100? But the point is not the body count, but the idea of censorship. Let me ask you (and everyone else who believes in censorship), who do you know who's smart enough to decide what you should NOT be allowed to hear? I've never heard of a person I'd trust with that job.

I have to confess that I do not give a whole lot of thought to censorship in places that I have never lived and likely will never visit. That seems to be an issue for the people who live in those countries to deal with. To me, being deliberately hostile to any nation or nationality that feels their culture is at risk, is a surefire way to guarantee support for censorship!

TashaN - Yes, I believe in self-defense. But I've had this discussion before. If an Islamic army invades a new country, they are supposed to give the invaded people a peaceful chance to convert to Islam, correct? But if they don't convert, then what? dhimmi-tude? slavery? death? I have been told by Muslims that they consider this scenario to be "self defense". I think that, that's just an example of playing with words, and would not be considered "self defense".

If I can add something to that question: if Islam cannot tolerate polytheists, and only provide very limited acceptance of Christians and Jews, how do you explain the history of India - since the first Mogul emperors, they realized the scope and implications of trying to put a Hindu population in the hundreds of millions to the sword, and had to find workaround strategies.

And even in the case of dhimmitude...don't believe all the b.s. you find on sites like Jihadwatch...if that's where some of the arguments are coming from. There is a cottage industry of pseudo-scholars like Robert Spencer, who have made themselves rich just by blogging and talking the game of fanning the flames of hysteria against Islam and Muslims in the U.S. after 9/11, largely to an audience who do not know any Muslims and likely have never even met a Muslim during their lives. So, they end up taking in a lot of this kind of propaganda without going to other sources online for unbiased, more informative sources of information.

 

[TashaN]

TashaN - Yes, I believe in self-defense. But I've had this discussion before. If an Islamic army invades a new country, they are supposed to give the invaded people a peaceful chance to convert to Islam, correct? But if they don't convert, then what? dhimmi-tude? slavery? death? I have been told by Muslims that they consider this scenario to be "self defense". I think that, that's just an example of playing with words, and would not be considered "self defense".

TashaN - It's possible you have a different kind of situation in mind. If so, can you give an example from history?

Invading other nations is certainly not in self defence except in rare cases, well, unless someone was really delusional and insane enough, and have superiority complex to believe so, like how most American Presidents do when they believe that invading other countries and bombing them with drones is self defence in order to protect the national security of the US.

When it comes to Muslims, Quran commanded them to fight in self defence, and also to spread the word of Islam in other nations through peaceful means , but if some leaders didn't allow the message to be received by their people then they need to be removed so the message can get across. In a case a leader wanted to pay tax in return of peaceful agreements then in that case they can do so and by doing so they become under the sovereignty and protection of Muslims. Though it is restricted only to men who are able to fight. Women, children, insane, elderly, etc were not required to pay these taxes. By doing so their way of life as it is will be protected. They can still drink alcohol, eat pork, worship normally, and nothing will change except that they will be under the authority and protection of Muslim in return for paying these taxes. Some of them said it was only 1 dinnar a year. Being under authority of Muslims doesn't mean they will be slaves or that they will be killed.

In fact, it's even more dangerous than simply prohibiting Muslims from killing them. Prophet Mohamed went further than that by saying that anyone who kill someone under the protection of Muslims will never enter Paradise!!!

"Whoever killed a Mu'ahid (a person who is granted the pledge of protection by the Muslims) shall not smell the fragrance of Paradise though its fragrance can be smelt at a distance of forty years (of traveling)".

Nevertheless, some late Muslim Caliphs might have abused the system to either get more tax or not treat them fairly.

So, you have to make up your mind now before going any further...

Do you want to discuss what the Quran says ONLY, or you want to discuss the history of Muslims and their practices which had both positive and negative impact not only on other nations but on Muslims themselves as well.

I'll wait for your response, and we shall proceed based on what you choose, and as we go further i'll keep reminding you that we have picked a specific thing to discuss. For example, if you just want to discuss the Quran, then you can't back up any claim you make about the Quran by examples of what happened in the past with some Muslims which goes contrary to what the Quran says.

 

[icehorse]

hi WIP (sorry),

Which is not my point. What I am trying to convey is that the merits and demerits of religious texts cannot be tell us very much about how the adherents consider these texts and act in this world.

This is the standard politically correct answer. I don't buy it. Perhaps this is it's own thread. We can discuss it here, but it's a BIG topic in my experience.

I have to confess that I do not give a whole lot of thought to censorship in places that I have never lived and likely will never visit. That seems to be an issue for the people who live in those countries to deal with. To me, being deliberately hostile to any nation or nationality that feels their culture is at risk, is a surefire way to guarantee support for censorship!

The OIC (57 Islamic member nations), has been hounding the UN for years to establish universal blasphemy laws. Further, many groups in the Euro-zone have been pushing for blasphemy laws as well.

how do you explain the history of India

Again, in the context of BOTH Christianity and Islam having a lot of blood on their hands, my understanding is that as Islam spread towards India, something like 80 million Hindus were killed.

And even in the case of dhimmitude...

Another big topic. But briefly, there is a LOT of evidence that when Islam becomes the majority in a country, other religions don't fair well. For now, consider Turkey and SA. We could look at others.