Ray

Shek,

Are you sure that Quaran clearly preaches to not kill non Moslems?

The quote below is from the Quaran. It does indicate the issue to the contrary.

The above notwithstanding, do check the history of lands where Islamists conquered. What does the history of such lands state?

I have no problems with Moslems as individuals as such. Good chaps, actually. However, while all religions have their warts, the Moslem mealy mouthed sanctimonious attitude about their religion and, it being beyond reproach, irritates. They try to pose that it is the purest religion and yet any delving in their scriptures reveals double talk.

__________________


"Some have learnt many Tricks of sly Evasion, Instead of Truth they use Equivocation, And eke it out with mental Reservation, Which is to good Men an Abomination."

I don't have to attend every argument I'm invited to.

HAKUNA MATATA

Shek

If jihad were obligatory against the dar al-harb as many supposed interpretations forward about Islam, then the true population of Muslims is quite small then.

The following paper provides some jurisprudence on the topic of abrogation. I am not presenting this as the definitive ruling on the concept of abrogation; rather, as I stated earlier, there are various interpretations of abrogation.

The American Muslim (TAM)

This subject is also mentioned in a thread from last year; maybe William might be able to expand on his earlier thoughts in that thread.

True Islam

In the end, if we develop arguments based on a definition that jihad is obligatory, then we face a self-fufilling prophecy. This doesn't mean that we need to involve ourselves directly in a Western style marketing campaign to promote Ghazali's ruling on abrogation, as we'll then taint it. However, we can eliminate our rhetoric that provides self-fufilling prophecies that are counter to our interests, and try to determine a way to promote those scholars that align with Ghazali's jurisprudence on this matter without leaving our fingerprints.

__________________
"So little pains do the vulgar take in the investigation of truth, accepting readily the first story that comes to hand." Thucydides 1.20.3

Shek

ENA,

Once again, this depends on the strain of jurisprudence that you use. Islamic jurisprudence is not monolithic, and so depending on the context, certain actions towards non-Muslims may or may not be permissible. There are many disparate verses from the Quran and the Hadith that speak against harming non-Muslims and provides that there be no compulsion in religion (although, not surprisingly, as with other religions, you don't enjoy the fruits then of the religion).

2:62 and 2:256 are two verses where you could start.

In the end, I am not denying that there are certain interpretations that obligate jihad against the dar al-harb, as to do so would be an untenable position. I just think that we need to be conscious of how we debate and define our enemy so that we don't create a unified adversary unnecessarily.

Lunatock

Oh I've heard similiar generalisations. But with the words "Muslim" and "me".

...and yeah I mentioned my religion, so play "connect me to any terrorist group". Hell, go above & beyond that and invent a long history of attrocities I've commited.

ExNavyAmerican

I took a look at those verses, and 256 says there is no compulsion in religion, but that could be translated, "don't proselyte, or kill out of compulsion; kill, or proselyte out of love of God." The same principle Chrisitans use for witnessing: i.e. don't witness out of duty, but out of compassion, and love of God. But it could be interpreted to literally not make conversion compullsary. However, it does say in short that, "we're right, so don't worry about it".

Anyway, here are some verses that clearly say kill non-Muslims: 9.005, and 9.029, 8.39, and 9.29-9.30. These are just some.

As for your last statement, I agree. We have to be careful, but one thought: people we have to be careful with lest we offend them into making war on us are not the type of people I want living down the road.

I don't hate Moslems; I'm just saying that there are those who are dangerous, and so in short I agree with you.

__________________
"I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that His justice cannot sleep forever."
- Thomas Jefferson

Swift Sword

Sir,

Why is that translation any better than these?:

"So when you meet in battle those who disbelieve, then smite the necks until when you have overcome them, then make (them) prisoners, and afterwards either set them free as a favor or let them ransom (themselves) until the war terminates."

or, perhaps, if you prefer:

"And when you meet in regular battle those who disbelieve, smite their necks; and, when you have overcome them, by causing great slaughter among them, bind fast the fetters - then afterwards either release them as a favour or by taking ransom - until the war lays down its burdens."

I believe that in both the Indian and the United States armies, it is common, acceptable practice to kill and take prisoners those who you are fighting for no other reason than that they believe in a cause other than yours and are willing to fight for it.

Regards,

William

__________________
Pharoh was pimp but now he is dead. What are you going to do today?

Swift Sword

Bluesman,

There is no need for an Islamic Reformation.

We are faced with a political problem that happens to have an Islamic coloring to it, not a religious problem inherent to Islam itself.

Pan Islamism is fundamentally an anti Colonial, anti Imperialist ideology and is best addressed in that context.

Herein lies the problem with the so called Bush doctrine: hegemony as an answer to an anti Colonial/Imperial movement is kind of like dumping liquid oxygen on your barbecue grill.

Perhaps it is not the Muslims whom need to reform the way they look at the World, perhaps it is we.

Yeah, a few Muslims do indeed need some killing to be sure, but the religious angle and all of this clash of civilizations nonsense is nothing but a red herring that is keeping us all off of our A game.

Hope you and yours are well,

William

Ray

I also don't hate the Moslems.

But that does not change 47:4


Therefore, when non Moslems lives hang on a slender thread as to whether the Moslem accosting you is going to apply it or not, I naturally would be worried!

RadioM

Don't know about the middle easten Muslim ideas on Jew/Christians, but when I had a 2hr 'What to do if you get captured by terrorists" lecture we were told that you would get more respect being Jewish/Christian than being athiest.

If it came down to picking people for execution it was athiests first every time. First time I've ever kept a Gideons bible!

Ray

Bill,

I beg to take a different view.

In War, I will buy to some extent what you say. But wars are fought on national policies and not religious one and I am yet to hear of the US or Indian soldiers forgiving enemy soldiers and shaking hands like good friends if they (the enemy) converted to the religion of the soldier's faith.

However, after war?

Do look at history. Indian history would be an ideal place to start!

Try this:

Heard of the Moghul Emperor walling up alive the sons of a Sikh Guru since they did not want to convert?

Ironduke

I am currently taking a course (Religion & Global Politics), and the authors of some works have made a fairly good point that democracy has never come about as a result of freestanding liberal argument.

Instead, it is finding democratic principles within religion that has made democracy possible. There are surely writings within the Koran, hadiths, etc., in which arguments for democracy, multivocalism, and pluralism can be found. There are writings within almost all religious texts that can be used as pretexts for violence as well.

Islam, of course, is a missionary religion with univeralist aims (like Christianity). There are also proponents of violence and terrorism who claim Islamic beliefs. At the same time, however, there are movements that have an Islamic basis that promote democracy.

The Justice and Development Party of Turkey is a good example for those in Islamic countries to follow to implement democracy. It has similarities to the Christian Democratic Parties of northwestern Europe.

One thing to keep in mind is that most countries do not have the seperation of church and state that the US has. Most European countries have Christian-based parties. In Germany, there is a tithe of 9% one can opt to pay to the Catholic Church, Evangelical Church, or the Jewish organization. To be eligible for benefits such as marriage, burial, retirement homes, etc., one must pay this tithe.

Perhaps we ought to look at some of these Islamic parties in another light -- compare them to the Christian Democratic parties of the West. Religious parties have as much right to play a role in the political process as any secular actor, so long as they renounce violence, terrorism, and obstructing democracy, or blocking secular actors and ideologies from playing a role in the political process as well.

__________________
The Buck Stops Here

TheChosenOne

I'm just starting to read some of the above article's posted by Shek. It looks like I'll be enrolled in an Islam and Politics course this fall so I think some of these articles will do quite nice. Thanks SHEK!

Swift Sword

Brigadier Ray,

Sir,

The way I read the Sura you provided, I see nothing regarding conversion. It stipulates warring on the enemy until he is subdued and then turning loose the prisoners or ransoming them. My military education has been sadly neglected but methinks this amounts to a sound policy.

Furthermore, it would appear, if my Arabian history is up to snuff, that in the context under which it was written, the status of "unbeliever" was essentially a political disposition for all intents and purposes.

Regards,

William

Ray

Swift Sword.

Read history.

Release?

Please note that the suras with chronology order of less than 87 are Meccan suras. Sura 2 (sura al-Bakara) has the chronological order of 87. This is the decisive verse which marks the beginning of a new militarily powerful Muhammad. Truly, this sura is a mixture of some Meccan and some Medinaan elements. For example: verse 2:256 (no compulsion in religion) is such a verse. Curiously, this sura (sura 2) also has the verse 2:193 which prescribes the use of force to accept Islam. Here are these two contradictory verses:

No compulsion in religion; the truth is clear from error.

2:256 There is no compulsion in religion. The right direction is henceforth distinct from error. And he who rejecteth false deities and believeth in Allah hath grasped a firm handhold which will never break. Allah is Hearer, Knower. [87, Medina ]

Fight the infidels until they accept Islam.

2:193 And fight them until persecution is no more, and religion is for Allah. But if they desist, then let there be no hostility except against wrong-doers. [87, Medina ]

Obviously, the most pertinent question is: which of those two verses in the same sura (sura al- Bakara, sura 2) is currently applicable to the infidels-verse 2:256 or verse 2:193? I would like to get a definite answer from the lovers of Islam. Please forward a clear, unambiguous answer-not some mumbo jumbo of context, translation difficulty and exhortation of having 'misconception' about Islam.

Leaving aside sura al-Bakara (sura 2), it is perfectly apparent that the Medinaan verses have really sealed the fate of the infidels living in a pure Islamic society (like Saudi Arabia , Iran , Pakistan , Sudan -.). There is no way that 'true' Muslims could offer mercy, tolerance, kindness, empathy, sympathy and peace to the unfortunate unbelievers who decide to stay put in an Islamic Paradise. To prove my line of reasoning, please go through my list of verses. This detailed list is bound to disturb many unbelievers as well as the not-so-good Muslims (tolerant, in name-only Muslims, who have not closely read the Qur'an and ahadith).

Please note that I have included the chronological order and the type (i.e., Mecca or Medina verse) inside square [ ] brackets. Interestingly, without doubt, you will notice that all the Meccan verses have a chronological order of less than 87; all the Medinaan verses have a chronological order of 87 or higher! This is very fascinating, won't you think so?

These are what Muhammad (or Allah) said (Marmaduke Pickthal's translation):

Islam Watch - "Whither the Islamic Infidels?" by <a href="index.html">Abul Kasem</a>

Shek

Sir,

Can you tell me about verse 2:190 and how it relates to 2:193? Since he uses Pickthal's translation, I am especially interested in Pickthal's translation of 2:190 ("Fight in the way of Allah against those who fight against you, but begin not hostilities. Lo! Allah loveth not aggressors.") and how you interpret it. It seems to me that the author above has cherry picked his verses to fit his argument.

USC-MSA Compendium of Muslim Texts

Thanks.