Support NeoGAF

[Simon Belmont]

well thats true as an atheist you wouldnt take any belief in a living unseen God seriously but that is a difference between a faithful who takes the belief in a living unseen God seriously and the atheist who just doesn't because reasons which to him are valid just like for the faithful believing due to reasons which are valid for him

Oh absolutely. When I was a younger man I was more concerned with being right, now I'm more concerned with getting along well.

Sometimes it's just important to note that it's going to be very difficult for people to see eye to eye on these issues. The religion part is irrelevant in any case - every religion is violent if you want it to be. The reason it's not in most places is that people are far less likely to throw their lives into the blender when they have opportunities. Idle hands, poverty and discontent are a potent brew, and if it weren't over religion it would be over nationalism or tribalism.

 

[Azih]

You need to stop with the persecution crap. Nobody is saying this.

Interceptor is. Haykel says I have a cotton candy view of my faith while ISIS types don't. Harris says I'm a nominal Muslim and don't take my faith seriously while ISIS types do.

That you ignore the barbaric aspects of the Quran

What parts of the Quran exactly?

 

[Blader]

enter Maninthemirror and a Billion plus others like him who dont ignore verses of their religious text while being adherents to their faith. You don;t know where I stand on reading for you to assume that most muslims skip verses while practicing faith. they don't

100 percent adherence to a religious text is fundamentalism, which is a pretty far cry from being a moderate.

there is only ONE reason why you would think that, that you think the verses we skip are what is violent which is being judgemental when MOST muslims have an entirely different take when it comes to defending Mecca THEN as opposed to Daesh saying Killing offensively NOW

Well, no, the reason I think that is because if someone were to recite the Quran or the Bible or the Torah back to a person line by line, and they nodded in agreement with each verse, that wouldn't make them a moderate of their religion.

 

[Simon Belmont]

Interceptor is. Haykel says I have a cotton candy view of my faith while ISIS types don't. Harris says I'm a nominal Muslim and don't take my faith seriously while ISIS types do.

You're getting hung up on that phrase. If they had said that ISIS has an extreme view and you do not would you be offended?

 

[PeteZaTheHutt]

Lol dude. Why do you care if you are thrown in molten lava or in garden of eden after death when you dismiss the whole thing as fake? Its faith. You cant have your cake and eat it.

I'm just pointing out the irony of ardently defending that there is no death for apostasy and that such a thought is ludicrous while subsequently reassuring everyone that the "only" consequence for apostasy is eternal fiery damnation. One should wish to remain in a religion based upon its own merits, not under the threat of eternal suffering.

 

[Simon Belmont]

I'm just pointing out the irony of ardently defending that there is no death for apostasy and that such a thought is ludicrous while subsequently reassuring everyone that the "only" consequence for apostasy is eternal fiery damnation. One should wish to remain in a religion based upon its own merits, not under the threat of eternal suffering.

Come on now, penalties for breaking 'the contract' are in every religion. I don't think it's fair to single out Islam for that.

 

[Maninthemirror]

Oh absolutely. When I was a younger man I was more concerned with being right, now I'm more concerned with getting along well.

Sometimes it's just important to note that it's going to be very difficult for people to see eye to eye on these issues. The religion part is irrelevant in any case - every religion is violent if you want it to be. The reason it's not in most places is that people are far less likely to throw their lives into the blender when they have opportunities. Idle hands, poverty and discontent are a potent brew, and if it weren't over religion it would be over nationalism or tribalism.

its true people who have bad intentions can take any religion, use it to conform to their view and use religion while acting on violence they would act if there were no religion. Say a set of 2 people committing a crime. One goes on bare chested representing lack of faith, one goes on wearing a shirt representing his faith. Both do criminal acts where the shirt wearing person says this shirt is the reason i did it, while the bare chested person says my ill convictions made me do it. by psychologically, BOTH did it due to bad intentions.

if a person is brainwashed into doing something bad, then you target the misinformation, just like someone is brainwashed into thinking multiculturalism is bad for european identity and i have to act on it by killing (Brievik)

I'm just pointing out the irony of ardently defending that there is no death for apostasy and that such a thought is ludicrous while subsequently reassuring everyone that the "only" consequence for apostasy is eternal fiery damnation. One should wish to remain in a religion based upon its own merits, not under the threat of eternal suffering.

the question again is. if someone doesnt believe in the afterlife, what does he care as he doesnt belief anything will happen to him after he dies. the only one who does care is a believer and he is a believer KNOWING about the afterlife

 

[speculawyer]

Interceptor is. Haykel says I have a cotton candy view of my faith while ISIS types don't. Harris says I'm a nominal Muslim and don't take my faith seriously while ISIS types do.

What parts of the Quran exactly?

Is cotton candy bad?

 

[PeteZaTheHutt]

How could he be moderate if he ignores a main Quranic verse.

There is no compulsion in matters of faith ? Who said he was a moderate?

Apostates burn in hell. Is this not compulsion?

 

[afternoon delight]

Plenty of groups believed they were the fabled heralds of apocalypse.... Here's hoping they don't attain anything nuclear or particularly biological.


No matter what their creed, let the worms and sand judge their efforts. (I love that old phrase/thinking)

 

[speculawyer]

Come on now, penalties for breaking 'the contract' are in every religion. I don't think it's fair to single out Islam for that.

No, they're not in every religion. Not all religions have a hell.

 

[Maninthemirror]

Apostates burn in hell. Is this not compulsion?

This is a message of living here on earth. why would you care about something you dont believe in (afterlife)? Look at the entire verse

"There is no compulsion in religion, Right has been separated from wrong. Whoever refuses to be led by those who are the aggressors and believe in one God has surely grasped the strong handle to which there is no breaking."

 

[PeteZaTheHutt]

Come on now, penalties for breaking 'the contract' are in every religion. I don't think it's fair to single out Islam for that.

I never implied that other religions didn't do the same. Of course they do, and they're all equally ridiculous. If I'm singling out Islam, it's only because this is a thread about Islam.

 

[Simon Belmont]

No, they're not in every religion. Not all religions have a hell.

There are exceptions that prove the rule, but in general otherworldly punishments for non-believers are a pretty common facet of religion. I don't know that there's much of a distinction between going to hell and being reborn as a fruit fly for eternity.

I never implied that other religions didn't do the same. Of course they do, and they're all equally ridiculous. If I'm singling out Islam, it's only because this is a thread about Islam.

But really all you're pointing out is that most religions walk a fine line between a soft and hard sell. If that's a facet of most religions, then we can probably rule it out as a cause for this particular groups actions.

 

[PeteZaTheHutt]

the question again is. if someone doesnt believe in the afterlife, what does he care as he doesnt belief anything will happen to him after he dies. the only one who does care is a believer and he is a believer KNOWING about the afterlife

So is it fair to a believer to threaten him/her with eternal damnation? Is this not compulsion for the purpose of preventing him/her from leaving Islam?

 

[PeteZaTheHutt]

Is cotton candy bad?

My daughter LOVES the stuff. Gets your fingers all sticky though.

 

[PeteZaTheHutt]

This is a message of living here on earth. why would you care about something you dont believe in (afterlife)? Look at the entire verse

"There is no compulsion in religion, Right has been separated from wrong. Whoever refuses to be led by those who are the aggressors and believe in one God has surely grasped the strong handle to which there is no breaking."

Forget about what I believe or don't believe. It's irrelevant. There are several posters here on GAF who describe themselves as former Muslims and even go so far as to label themselves apostates. Would you agree that they were compelled to remain Muslim by the threat of eternal damnation in hell? It seems like compulsion to me.

 

[Maninthemirror]

So is it fair to a believer to threaten him/her with eternal damnation? Is this not compulsion for the purpose of preventing him/her from leaving Islam?

the believer knows full well while believing that the weight of good deeds and bad deeds matter in the afterlife. When the Quran says there is no compulsion in matters of faith it means believing in faith and performing acts which dont remove his good deeds. for example you can not pray knowing you can enjoy this life but being a believer and not praying will be judged in the afterlife. for example you cannot force another muslim to do something because of what you think faith does. The verse is essentially free will given to man in this life.

 

[Maninthemirror]

Forget about what I believe or don't believe. It's irrelevant. There are several posters here on GAF who describe themselves as former Muslims and even go so far as to label themselves apostates. Would you agree that they were compelled to remain Muslim by the threat of eternal damnation in hell? It seems like compulsion to me.

how is it compulsion when Islam says no one should person should force another person to do something and no person should be forced to do something himself except from his own free will. A person has the free will to do good deeds or bad deeds AFTER he has been given all the suggestions to do good deeds. If he still does something bad, a person cannot force a person to pray or a person cannot force himself to pray if he thinks he doesnt want to pray, its free will in this life.

 

[PeteZaTheHutt]

how is it compulsion when Islam says no one should person should force another person to do something and no person should be forced to do something himself except from his own free will. A person has the free will to do good deeds or bad deeds AFTER he has been given all the suggestions to do good deeds. If he still does something bad, a person cannot force a person to pray or a person cannot force himself to pray if he thinks he doesnt want to pray, its free will in this life.

So if an apostate does amazing good deeds for the rest of his/her life, are they still going to hell?

 

[tfur]

Again purposely ignoring the refering verses which proof muslims cannot be transgressors. I give up if people chose to be blind. Your knowledge of islam is showcased when you treat hadith on equal footing as Quran which to you and Daesh is fine but to most muslims is wrong as Quran overrides everythhng in the hadith if hadith contradicts.

What kind of faith do you want practiced if you only follow it by reading and not understanding. This is the problem with your and Daesh view of islam. Read but don't understand.

Rejecting moderate views and only accepting twisted radical views because that's how they conform to your view about islam

You really need to read those verses. There is nothing there from top to bottom of Chapter 9 that somehow diminishes the kill order from Mohammad himself here:

==============================
[9:1] This is a declaration of complete absolution on the part of Allah and His Messenger from all obligation to the idolaters with whom you had made promises.
[9:2] So go about in the land for four months, and know that you cannot frustrate the plan of Allah and that Allah will humiliate the disbelievers.
[9:3] And this is a proclamation from Allah and His Messenger to the people on the day of the Greater Pilgrimage, that Allah is clear of the idolaters, and so is His Messenger. So if you repent, it will be better for you; but if you turn away, then know that you cannot frustrate the plan of Allah. And give tidings of a painful punishment(hell) to those who disbelieve,
[9:4] Excepting those of the idolaters with whom you have entered into a treaty and who have not subsequently failed you in anything nor aided anyone against you. So fulfil to these the treaty you have made with them till their term. Surely, Allah loves those who are righteous.
[9:5] And when the forbidden months have passed, kill the idolaters wherever you find them and take them prisoners, and beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them at every place of ambush. But if they repent and observe Prayer and pay the Zakat, then leave their way free. Surely, Allah is Most Forgiving, Merciful.
[9:6] And if anyone of the idolaters ask protection of thee, grant him protection so that he may hear the word of Allah; then convey him to his place of security. That is because they are a people who have no knowledge.
[9:7] How can there be a treaty of these idolaters with Allah and His Messenger, except those with whom you entered into a treaty at the Sacred Mosque? So, as long as they stand true to you, stand true to them. Surely, Allah loves those who are righteous.
[9:8] How can it be when, if they prevail against you, they would not observe any tie of relationship or covenant in respect of you? They would please you with their mouths, while their hearts refuse, and most of them are perfidious.
[9:9] They barter the Signs of Allah for a paltry price and turn men away from His way. Evil indeed is that which they do.
[9:10] They observe not any tie of relationship or covenant in respect of anyone who trusts them. And it is they who are transgressors.
[9:11] But if they repent and observe Prayer and pay the Zakat, then they are your brethren in faith. And We explain the Signs for a people who have knowledge.
[9:12] And if they break their oaths after their covenant, and attack your religion, then fight these leaders of disbelief — surely, they have no regard for their oaths — that they may desist.
[9:13] Will you not fight a people who have broken their oaths, and who plotted to turn out the Messenger, and they were the first to commence hostilities against you? Do you fear them? Nay, Allah is most worthy that you should fear Him, if you are believers.
[9:14] Fight them, that Allah may punish them at your hands, and humiliate them, and help you to victory over them, and relieve the minds of a people who believe;
[9:15] And that He may take away the wrath of their hearts. And Allah turns with mercy to whomsoever He pleases. And Allah is All-Knowing, Wise.
==============================




All this says, if you read for yourself and do not make up side stories, is that make a treaty if you can. When the time is right, kill them. If you pass x criteria, you can maybe let them pass.

Now on to Chapter 2: 191-193. 5 differing translations...



==============================
2 : 191 Abdul Daryabadi : And slay them wheresoever ye come upon them, and drive them out whence they drove you out; and temptation is more grievous than slaughter. And fight them not near the Sacred Mosque until they fight you therein, but if they get ready to fight you there, then slay them. That is the meed of the infidels.

Dr. Mohsin : And kill them wherever you find them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out. And Al-Fitnah[] is worse than killing. And fight not with them at Al-Masjid-Al-Harâm (the sanctuary at Makkah),[] unless they (first) fight you there. But if they attack you, then kill them. Such is the recompense of the disbelievers.

Mufti Taqi Usmani : Kill them wherever you find them, and drive them out from where they drove you out, as Fitnah (to create disorder) is more severe than killing. However, do not fight them near Al-Masjid-ul-Haram (the Sacred Mosque in Makkah) unless they fight you there. However, if they fight you (there) you may kill them. Such is the reward of the disbelievers.

Pickthal : And slay them wherever ye find them, and drive them out of the places whence they drove you out, for persecution is worse than slaughter. And fight not with them at the Inviolable Place of Worship until they first attack you there, but if they attack you (there) then slay them. Such is the reward of disbelievers.

Yusuf Ali : And slay them wherever ye catch them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out; for tumult and oppression are worse than slaughter; but fight them not at the Sacred Mosque, unless they (first) fight you there; but if they fight you slay them. Such is the reward of those who suppress faith.

Verse:192
Abdul Daryabadi : Then if they desist, then verily Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.
Dr. Mohsin : But if they cease, then Allâh is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.
Mufti Taqi Usmani : But if they desist, then indeed, Allah is Most-Forgiving, Very- Merciful.
Pickthal : But if they desist, then lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.
Yusuf Ali : But if they cease, Allah is Oft-Forgiving Most Merciful.

Verse:193
Abdul Daryabadi : And fight them until there be no more temptation, and their obedience be wholly unto Allah. So if they desist, then there is to be no violence save against the wrong-doers.

Dr. Mohsin : And fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief and worshipping of others along with Allâh) and (all and every kind of) worship is for Allâh (Alone).[] But if they cease, let there be no transgression except against Az-Zâlimûn (the polytheists, and wrong-doers.)

Mufti Taqi Usmani : Fight them until there is no Fitnah any more, and obedience remains for Allah. But, if they desist, then aggression is not allowed except against the transgressors.

Pickthal : 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.

Yusuf Ali : And fight them on until there is no more tumult or oppression and there prevail justice and faith in Allah; but if they cease let there be no hostility except to those who practise oppression.
==============================




So here we have another kill verses from Mohammad to his followers. Your defense of this is that its is about defense, but you can read it for yourself. Your explanation actually leaves out words from the quran, as well as add words. The only defensive stance in verse 191 is one when at the location of a sacred mosque. If you read it for yourself, it actually promotes offense until a desist.

The point is, here with multiple direct translations, we have the doctrine that is being used as an excuse by these groups. Your defense of these problem verses does not really exist in direct translation. This is why I asked about hadiths. So, the idea would be a teaching that tempers these passages that would then become a standard doctrine that these groups would not use as an excuse to kill infidels.

Also, I have not seen anyone consider my thoughts about the philosophy itself, and how it does not coincide with the philosophy of the latest prophet before Mohammed. Are you allowed to ponder these thoughts?

From previous post
------------
This is the reason, as I have brought up in the past, that there is a rather large discrepancy in the chronology of the philosophies and metaphysics. The idea that you go from philosophy of peace and forgiveness, to a philosophy that directly asks its followers to kill is quite a breakdown.

You cannot believe Jesus was a prophet, and then accept that Mohammed followed from the same philosophy when you are directly instructed to kill infidels. You cannot hand wave about tribes and needs to kill, and then somehow wrap that into what is supposed to be direct philosophy. It simply does not follow.

Are we to believe that the angel Gabriel somehow pops up a few years after Jesus to come with a philosophy that sanctions its believers, not God(usually its God that is tasked to do the judgments and killing etc), but its believers that they should have a reason to kill? Forget what this guy preached and said just a few years ago, it's okay to kill now..
--------

 

[Skyzard]

Standard scaremongering.

ISIS leaders really want power. Same as every crazy leader. Use religion to recruit fighters, especially from war-torn areas going through civil wars.

 

[tfur]

FYI,

Diane Rehm had a show she did today that was pretty good.

New Efforts To Block The Growing Threat Of ISIS
http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2015-02-18/new-efforts-to-block-the-growing-threat-of-isis

Guests

Bernard Haykel professor of near eastern studies, Princeton University author of forthcoming book, "Saudi Arabia in Transition"

Ambassador James Jeffrey the Philip Solondz distinguished visiting fellow at The Washington Institute; former U.S. ambassador to Iraq and Turkey.

Graeme Wood contributing editor, Atlantic Magazine

Akbar Ahmed chair of Islamic studies at American University, former Pakistani high commissioner to the U.K. his forthcoming book is titled “Journey into Europe: Islam, Immigration and Empire”

 

[Mrmartel]

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/02/17/italy-fears-isis-invasion-from-libya.html

A good article on Italy's apprehensions of a strengthen ISIS just a couple hundred miles away.

The most startling point from the article, is the status of the Italian defense forces.

"Never mind that Italy has only 5,000 troops available that are even close to deployable, according to the defense ministry."

five thousand troops? that's it? My country Canada could get way more personnel to a further front line than the third largest European country? So basically they can't do squat and if the shit hits the fan, they'll basically have to wait for someone to rescue them.

Also they cut 40% of their defense budget in the last two years. I'm no scholar when it comes to defense or military policies. But with tensions as they are in the world today, that seems like the worse possible decision to make.

 

[RustyNails]

You really need to read those verses. There is nothing there from top to bottom of Chapter 9 that somehow diminishes the kill order from Mohammad himself here:

==============================
[9:1] This is a declaration of complete absolution on the part of Allah and His Messenger from all obligation to the idolaters with whom you had made promises.
[9:2] So go about in the land for four months, and know that you cannot frustrate the plan of Allah and that Allah will humiliate the disbelievers.
[9:3] And this is a proclamation from Allah and His Messenger to the people on the day of the Greater Pilgrimage, that Allah is clear of the idolaters, and so is His Messenger. So if you repent, it will be better for you; but if you turn away, then know that you cannot frustrate the plan of Allah. And give tidings of a painful punishment(hell) to those who disbelieve,
[9:4] Excepting those of the idolaters with whom you have entered into a treaty and who have not subsequently failed you in anything nor aided anyone against you. So fulfil to these the treaty you have made with them till their term. Surely, Allah loves those who are righteous.
[9:5] And when the forbidden months have passed, kill the idolaters wherever you find them and take them prisoners, and beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them at every place of ambush. But if they repent and observe Prayer and pay the Zakat, then leave their way free. Surely, Allah is Most Forgiving, Merciful.
[9:6] And if anyone of the idolaters ask protection of thee, grant him protection so that he may hear the word of Allah; then convey him to his place of security. That is because they are a people who have no knowledge.
[9:7] How can there be a treaty of these idolaters with Allah and His Messenger, except those with whom you entered into a treaty at the Sacred Mosque? So, as long as they stand true to you, stand true to them. Surely, Allah loves those who are righteous.
[9:8] How can it be when, if they prevail against you, they would not observe any tie of relationship or covenant in respect of you? They would please you with their mouths, while their hearts refuse, and most of them are perfidious.
[9:9] They barter the Signs of Allah for a paltry price and turn men away from His way. Evil indeed is that which they do.
[9:10] They observe not any tie of relationship or covenant in respect of anyone who trusts them. And it is they who are transgressors.
[9:11] But if they repent and observe Prayer and pay the Zakat, then they are your brethren in faith. And We explain the Signs for a people who have knowledge.
[9:12] And if they break their oaths after their covenant, and attack your religion, then fight these leaders of disbelief — surely, they have no regard for their oaths — that they may desist.
[9:13] Will you not fight a people who have broken their oaths, and who plotted to turn out the Messenger, and they were the first to commence hostilities against you? Do you fear them? Nay, Allah is most worthy that you should fear Him, if you are believers.
[9:14] Fight them, that Allah may punish them at your hands, and humiliate them, and help you to victory over them, and relieve the minds of a people who believe;
[9:15] And that He may take away the wrath of their hearts. And Allah turns with mercy to whomsoever He pleases. And Allah is All-Knowing, Wise.
==============================




All this says, if you read for yourself and do not make up side stories, is that make a treaty if you can. When the time is right, kill them. If you pass x criteria, you can maybe let them pass.

Now on to Chapter 2: 191-193. 5 differing translations...



==============================
2 : 191 Abdul Daryabadi : And slay them wheresoever ye come upon them, and drive them out whence they drove you out; and temptation is more grievous than slaughter. And fight them not near the Sacred Mosque until they fight you therein, but if they get ready to fight you there, then slay them. That is the meed of the infidels.

Dr. Mohsin : And kill them wherever you find them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out. And Al-Fitnah[] is worse than killing. And fight not with them at Al-Masjid-Al-Harâm (the sanctuary at Makkah),[] unless they (first) fight you there. But if they attack you, then kill them. Such is the recompense of the disbelievers.

Mufti Taqi Usmani : Kill them wherever you find them, and drive them out from where they drove you out, as Fitnah (to create disorder) is more severe than killing. However, do not fight them near Al-Masjid-ul-Haram (the Sacred Mosque in Makkah) unless they fight you there. However, if they fight you (there) you may kill them. Such is the reward of the disbelievers.

Pickthal : And slay them wherever ye find them, and drive them out of the places whence they drove you out, for persecution is worse than slaughter. And fight not with them at the Inviolable Place of Worship until they first attack you there, but if they attack you (there) then slay them. Such is the reward of disbelievers.

Yusuf Ali : And slay them wherever ye catch them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out; for tumult and oppression are worse than slaughter; but fight them not at the Sacred Mosque, unless they (first) fight you there; but if they fight you slay them. Such is the reward of those who suppress faith.

Verse:192
Abdul Daryabadi : Then if they desist, then verily Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.
Dr. Mohsin : But if they cease, then Allâh is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.
Mufti Taqi Usmani : But if they desist, then indeed, Allah is Most-Forgiving, Very- Merciful.
Pickthal : But if they desist, then lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.
Yusuf Ali : But if they cease, Allah is Oft-Forgiving Most Merciful.

Verse:193
Abdul Daryabadi : And fight them until there be no more temptation, and their obedience be wholly unto Allah. So if they desist, then there is to be no violence save against the wrong-doers.

Dr. Mohsin : And fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief and worshipping of others along with Allâh) and (all and every kind of) worship is for Allâh (Alone).[] But if they cease, let there be no transgression except against Az-Zâlimûn (the polytheists, and wrong-doers.)

Mufti Taqi Usmani : Fight them until there is no Fitnah any more, and obedience remains for Allah. But, if they desist, then aggression is not allowed except against the transgressors.

Pickthal : 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.

Yusuf Ali : And fight them on until there is no more tumult or oppression and there prevail justice and faith in Allah; but if they cease let there be no hostility except to those who practise oppression.
==============================




So here we have another kill verses from Mohammad to his followers. Your defense of this is that its is about defense, but you can read it for yourself. Your explanation actually leaves out words from the quran, as well as add words. The only defensive stance in verse 191 is one when at the location of a sacred mosque. If you read it for yourself, it actually promotes offense until a desist.

The point is, here with multiple direct translations, we have the doctrine that is being used as an excuse by these groups. Your defense of these problem verses does not really exist in direct translation. This is why I asked about hadiths. So, the idea would be a teaching that tempers these passages that would then become a standard doctrine that these groups would not use as an excuse to kill infidels.

Also, I have not seen anyone consider my thoughts about the philosophy itself, and how it does not coincide with the philosophy of the latest prophet before Mohammed. Are you allowed to ponder these thoughts?

From previous post
------------
This is the reason, as I have brought up in the past, that there is a rather large discrepancy in the chronology of the philosophies and metaphysics. The idea that you go from philosophy of peace and forgiveness, to a philosophy that directly asks its followers to kill is quite a breakdown.

You cannot believe Jesus was a prophet, and then accept that Mohammed followed from the same philosophy when you are directly instructed to kill infidels. You cannot hand wave about tribes and needs to kill, and then somehow wrap that into what is supposed to be direct philosophy. It simply does not follow.

Are we to believe that the angel Gabriel somehow pops up a few years after Jesus to come with a philosophy that sanctions its believers, not God(usually its God that is tasked to do the judgments and killing etc), but its believers that they should have a reason to kill? Forget what this guy preached and said just a few years ago, it's okay to kill now..
--------

Can I ask, what the beginning of the chapter, verse 9:1 is talking about?

 

[Simon Belmont]

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/02/17/italy-fears-isis-invasion-from-libya.html

A good article on Italy's apprehensions of a strengthen ISIS just a couple hundred miles away.

The most startling point from the article, is the status of the Italian defense forces.

"Never mind that Italy has only 5,000 troops available that are even close to deployable, according to the defense ministry."

five thousand troops? that's it? My country Canada could get way more personnel to a further front line than the third largest European country? So basically they can't do squat and if the shit hits the fan, they'll basically have to wait for someone to rescue them.

Also they cut 40% of their defense budget in the last two years. I'm no scholar when it comes to defense or military policies. But with tensions as they are in the world today, that seems like the worse possible decision to make.

Well rest assured, should it come to that I'm sure those Canadian troops would be there. Along with the rest of NATO.

Edit: I mean, really, that would be a best case scenario for the West? ISIS tries to invade a NATO country? I don't think there's a chance in hell that they're dumb enough to try that.

 

[Oppo]

Can I ask, what the beginning of the chapter, verse 9:1 is talking about?

I read it as "you unbelievers have four months to clear out or convert."

 

[RustyNails]

I read it as "you unbelievers have four months to clear out or convert."

No, that is verse 2 which says give them 4 months. I am asking about verse 1. Something something promise...what promise? Treaty? What treaty?

 

[tfur]

Can I ask, what the beginning of the chapter, verse 9:1 is talking about?

Does it matter if Mohammad still calls for followers to kill?

This is the point. People are interpreting this literally among these groups. God "gets to decide who is right or wrong", and they are only relying on written word to get it "right."

 

[Oppo]

No, that is verse 2 which says give them 4 months. I am asking about verse 1. Something something promise...what promise? Treaty? What treaty?

it seems to say "as of now Allah/Mo is letting his followers off the hook for any deals with unbelievers."

what do you think it says? I didn't see anything about a treaty. 9:4 has that but I'm not sure how or squares with 9:1. subsequent treaties? it's not clear.

 

[CadetMahoney]

ISIS tries to invade a NATO country? I

Never gonna happen, they don't have the resources and supply lines all the way to Italy in the first place, and it's not like they're a proper Army Army. We'll just continue to hear over the years how they're killing their own ppl in dat dere region. Some in the west are content to keep them there but do little to eradicate them for good. It's only when they threaten other ppl's borders like Turkey that things get heated.

 

[Souldestroyer Reborn]

Interceptor is, Sam Harris does, Haykel does when he says peaceful Muslims have a 'cotton candy view of Islam' with the clear implication being that the ISIS types do not.

Don't dismiss the rest of my post please. Context is everything and in replying to you in full it means I'm interested In what your thoughts are. Dismissing everything else I had written isn't the right way to go about things.

Okay so those 3 people do then, in your opinion, but that doesn't mean that the other 3/4 billion of us think the same. Just in the same way that you believe in a different teaching of Islam compared to ISIS. It is not one and the same.

However in my opinion You're also taking what they said out of context, much like what I said in my first post, of which you've ignored 95% of in your quote, that being offended and taking the full on defensive route doesn't help anyone.

No one is saying ISIS is the "true" Islam and the only Islam. But, again, it would be foolish to say they are not Islamic and following parts of the Koran by literal means.

The problem you have is that you cannot admit this. You go straight into a defensive posture as if people are criticising you when they're not. They're saying that they are doing bad shit in the name of Islam under the will of the bad shit parts of the Koran.

You believe that you're being faithful to Islam and are following the good parts and the fair parts of Islam. Which is how it should be and that goes for any religion.

To be in denial that there is bad shit in the Koran however is incomprehensible.

I personally have other issues with Islam in the way the Koran is written, such as that it, in my personal opinion, is written in such a way that you must do as the Koran says as it's the direct word of God and nothing else is as important/righteous as the Koran. It's as though it takes away the thought process of people due to how it is structured in regards to politics/religion combined. That's all a different topic though.

I don't know if it's worthwhile to continue as by not fully engaging in a conversation it seems to me you're not interested in rethinking your stance on what you believe, what others believe and what you think others believe. It's as though you don't want to have a meaningful discussion with me which is unfortunate.

For context here's what I posted so you don't need to go looking for it again, with the bolded the only part you paid any attention to:

I've not read what Interceptor has said yet, I'm not that far in the thread so I'm going purely off of the front page. So genuinely I can't comment on that until I read it.

As for the front page though, it would be irresponsible to say that ISIS are not Islamic, they are (unfortunately). However nobody is saying that what ISIS say/do/believe is the real Islam (I don't think they are anyway) but burying your head in the sand and outright denying that they are Muslims is false.

It would be like saying the KKK are not Christians. I mean I'm sure Christians hate being associated with them all over the world but...they are ultimately Christians.

By outright denying it is where a fundamental problem lies.

Those who deny it feel that the people who say it are personally attacking them and their beliefs, when actually they are not. The people who say ISIS are Islamic, if I take myself as an example, I have no issues with Muslims who live peaceful, honest lives. I do have an issue with the Muslims who are causing chaos at the moment in the form of ISIS, Boko Haram, Al Nusra etc.

The sooner people come to terms and accept that ISIS along with these other groups are in fact Islamic, the sooner we can all come together to try to come to a solution.

Until that happens there will be no solution, there will be no coming together and there will be no reform as you cannot fix something when so many people are in denial about the truth, and feeling victimised when that is not the intent,Otherwise it just comes back full circle

.

 

[tfur]

it seems to say "as of now Allah/Mo is letting his followers off the hook for any deals with unbelievers."

what do you think it says? I didn't see anything about a treaty.

The word treaty does not even matter, at all.
It does not change the philosophy or literal translation of killing by the directive of Mohammad.

I believe this is the license these groups can and do use to do what they do. You add this with all of the other fringe teachers, it's bound to cause problems. Also, when you are not allowed to question or analyse these things, it is easier for this to continue.

In any case, it appears not all translations use the word treaty.

Verse:001
Abdul Daryabadi : Quittance is this from Allah and His aposle unto the associators with whom ye had covenanted.

Dr. Mohsin : Freedom from (all) obligations (is declared) from Allâh and His Messenger (SAW) to those of the Mushrikûn (polytheists, pagans, idolaters, disbelievers in the Oneness of Allâh), with whom you made a treaty.

Mufti Taqi Usmani : Here is a disavowal (proclaimed) by Allah and His Messenger against the Mushriks (polytheists) with whom you have a treaty. [QETafseerComment]

Pickthal : Freedom from obligation (is proclaimed) from Allah and His messenger toward those of the idolaters with whom ye made a treaty.

Yusuf Ali : A (declaration) of immunity from Allah and His Messenger to those of the pagans with whom ye have contracted mutual alliances.―

 

[RustyNails]

it seems to say "as of now Allah/Mo is letting his followers off the hook for any deals with unbelievers."

what do you think it says? I didn't see anything about a treaty. 9:4 has that but I'm not sure how or squares with 9:1. subsequent treaties? it's not clear.

Does it matter if Mohammad still calls for followers to kill?

This is the point. People are interpreting this literally among these groups. God "gets to decide who is right or wrong", and they are only relying on written word to get it "right."

Tfur, yes it absolutely matters. Context absolutely matters in every language, you should know this. It's like you telling your kids "rawr, I will eat you!", and I'm reporting you to the police for cannibalism. It matters in what context, especially when we are using the words kill or death, are used. US has the necessary permission to kill/capture it's enemies means ridiculously draconian without the context of a war. And the same context applies here, as the permission of war was granted after Quraishi Meccans violated the Treaty of Hudaybiyyah. The treaty established peace between Quraish and Medina, in exchange for cease of hostilities and the granting of pilgrimage to Medinans once a year. The treaty made it clear that the terms are to be maintained, and any attack on any members of tribes and associated tribes is an attack on all. A tribe allied with Quraish attacked a tribe allied with Medina, thereby voiding the treaty. That is exactly what it is. 9:1 to 9:3 talks about this situation, but 9:4 says " Excepting those of the idolaters with whom you have entered into a treaty and who have not subsequently failed you in anything nor aided anyone against you. So fulfil to these the treaty you have made with them till their term. Surely, Allah loves those who are righteous.", which means the other tribes who renounced this attack on an allied tribe, and had nothing to do with it, and still want to maintain the Pact with Medina, are free to do so and there is no declaration of war with them. Verse 5 goes back to those that dishonored the Treaty of Hudaybiyyah.

You are using a very context sensitive situation, which without context sounds ridiculous. Now you want to divorce the words from context, which is not how language works. I understand that you have ulterior motives in doing so, and you are absolutely free to do such. But you are completely wrong in every regard.

The word treaty does not even matter, at all.
It does not change the philosophy or literal translation of killing by the directive of Mohammad.

I believe this is the license these groups can and do use to do what they do. You add this with all of the other fringe teachers, it's bound to cause problems. Also, when you are not allowed to question or analyse these things, it is easier for this to continue.

In any case, it appears not all translations use the word treaty.

Verse:001
Abdul Daryabadi : Quittance is this from Allah and His aposle unto the associators with whom ye had covenanted.

Dr. Mohsin : Freedom from (all) obligations (is declared) from Allâh and His Messenger (SAW) to those of the Mushrikûn (polytheists, pagans, idolaters, disbelievers in the Oneness of Allâh), with whom you made a treaty.

Mufti Taqi Usmani : Here is a disavowal (proclaimed) by Allah and His Messenger against the Mushriks (polytheists) with whom you have a treaty. [QETafseerComment]

Pickthal : Freedom from obligation (is proclaimed) from Allah and His messenger toward those of the idolaters with whom ye made a treaty.

Yusuf Ali : A (declaration) of immunity from Allah and His Messenger to those of the pagans with whom ye have contracted mutual alliances.―

Well, thanks for posting other translations and helping me make my point...? Keep saying the context does not matter, and pat yourself on the back. You have about as much understanding of Quran as ISIS.

 

[Oppo]

Tfur, yes it absolutely matters. Context absolutely matters in every language, you should know this. It's like you telling your kids "rawr, I will eat you!", and I'm reporting you to the police for cannibalism. It matters in what context, especially when we are using the words kill or death, are used. US has the necessary permission to kill/capture it's enemies means ridiculously draconian without the context of a war. And the same context applies here, as the permission of war was granted after Quraishi Meccans violated the Treaty of Hudaybiyyah. The treaty established peace between Quraish and Medina...
(snip)
Verse 5 goes back to those that dishonored the Treaty of Hudaybiyyah.

You are using a very context sensitive situation, which without context sounds ridiculous. Now you want to divorce the words from context, which is not how language works. I understand that you have ulterior motives in doing so, and you are absolutely free to do such. But you are completely wrong in every regard.

But how can you possibly expect everyone who follows the faith to hold the same specific, detailed, nuanced view of these texts? And if you don't, surely you can see how a plain reading of them can strike people as a kill-command from god?

Maybe you don't, but when so many people of the world reference that book (and the hadiths) for everything, much of the time in a literal fashion...

 

[Naked Snake]

Since this is the current active Islam criticism thread, I'll post this here as I don't want to make a thread.

Sam Harris released a 24-hour audio titled "The Chapel Hill Murders and ‘Militant’ Atheism"

http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/the-chapel-hill-murders-and-militant-atheism/

It's worth listening to. Soundcloud link

 

[RustyNails]

But how can you possibly expect everyone who follows the faith to hold the same specific, detailed, nuanced view of these texts? And if you don't, surely you can see how a plain reading of them can strike people as a kill-command from god?

Maybe you don't, but when so many people of the world reference that book (and the hadiths) for everything, much of the time in a literal fashion...

People always held the specific, detailed, nuanced view of these texts. The interpretation was always left to scholars and muftis. This idea of deriving jurispudence from layman's reading of Quran is completely alien.

 

[Oppo]

People always held the specific, detailed, nuanced view of these texts. The interpretation was always left to scholars and muftis. This idea of deriving jurispudence from layman's reading of Quran is completely alien.

That idea is not alien, it is simply awful. Supposedly Holy men, acting as guardians of God's Truth. Reminds me of Catholics speaking Latin at mass, resisting having the Bible even translated into English. Fuck that noise.

Thanks for the answers though, Rusty, it is appreciated. I want to ask what happens when a passage about something innocuous and peaceful also gets a 'nuanced' reading, but I've augured this point in by now, I think.

 

[tfur]

Tfur, yes it absolutely matters. Context absolutely matters in every language, you should know this. It's like you telling your kids "rawr, I will eat you!", and I'm reporting you to the police for cannibalism. It matters in what context, especially when we are using the words kill or death, are used. US has the necessary permission to kill/capture it's enemies means ridiculously draconian without the context of a war. And the same context applies here, as the permission of war was granted after Quraishi Meccans violated the Treaty of Hudaybiyyah. The treaty established peace between Quraish and Medina, in exchange for cease of hostilities and the granting of pilgrimage to Medinans once a year. The treaty made it clear that the terms are to be maintained, and any attack on any members of tribes and associated tribes is an attack on all. A tribe allied with Quraish attacked a tribe allied with Medina, thereby voiding the treaty. That is exactly what it is. 9:1 to 9:3 talks about this situation, but 9:4 says " Excepting those of the idolaters with whom you have entered into a treaty and who have not subsequently failed you in anything nor aided anyone against you. So fulfil to these the treaty you have made with them till their term. Surely, Allah loves those who are righteous.", which means the other tribes who renounced this attack on an allied tribe, and had nothing to do with it, and still want to maintain the Pact with Medina, are free to do so and there is no declaration of war with them. Verse 5 goes back to those that dishonored the Treaty of Hudaybiyyah.

You are using a very context sensitive situation, which without context sounds ridiculous. Now you want to divorce the words from context, which is not how language works. I understand that you have ulterior motives in doing so, and you are absolutely free to do such. But you are completely wrong in every regard.

Well, thanks for posting other translations and helping me make my point...? Keep saying the context does not matter, and pat yourself on the back. You have about as much understanding of Quran as ISIS.

You are missing the point. What does the U.S.military having the right to kill/capture have to do with a prophet asking its followers to kill? Do you honestly not see the breakdown in the philosophy of military vs prophet, let along prophet vs prophet? Are you allowed to acknowledge these thoughts and ideas or is that forbidden? This is a question.

You excuse the directive to kill because of a treaty? Your treaty, not a treaty as defined in the direct words in the quran. You placed the contingencies of reason for a prophet to instruct to kill. I am saying these are the words that are being used to rationalize killing... period. They groups are using literal translation, and this is the literal translation.

If you are going to say a person cannot read the quran, and understand it, but only scholars... then you are breaking the rules of "God deciding" by letting it be revealed through personal reading.

It is like wanting it both ways, but not accepting either way.

It is truth
It is the truth with footnotes
It is the truth only with scholarly input

Again, this is why I asked if there was or could be a global teaching or hadith that would allow these verses to be explained away officially, so that these groups would not follow these ideas.

Also, spare the ulterior motives paranoia, I am taking about things that others are talking about in that article and subsequent NPR show.

 

[Maninthemirror]

The word treaty does not even matter, at all.
It does not change the philosophy or literal translation of killing by the directive of Mohammad.

I believe this is the license these groups can and do use to do what they do. You add this with all of the other fringe teachers, it's bound to cause problems. Also, when you are not allowed to question or analyse these things, it is easier for this to continue.

In any case, it appears not all translations use the word treaty.

Verse:001
Abdul Daryabadi : Quittance is this from Allah and His aposle unto the associators with whom ye had covenanted.

Dr. Mohsin : Freedom from (all) obligations (is declared) from Allâh and His Messenger (SAW) to those of the Mushrikûn (polytheists, pagans, idolaters, disbelievers in the Oneness of Allâh), with whom you made a treaty.

Mufti Taqi Usmani : Here is a disavowal (proclaimed) by Allah and His Messenger against the Mushriks (polytheists) with whom you have a treaty. [QETafseerComment]

Pickthal : Freedom from obligation (is proclaimed) from Allah and His messenger toward those of the idolaters with whom ye made a treaty.

Yusuf Ali : A (declaration) of immunity from Allah and His Messenger to those of the pagans with whom ye have contracted mutual alliances.―

ummm 9:1

it applies to something entirely different

9:1 some disbelievers said Islam would be eliminated. this verse comes at a time when those promises that Islam would survive is proven


then it continues to connect to 9:2

[9:2] So go about in the land for four months, and know that you cannot frustrate the plan of Allah and that Allah will humiliate the disbelievers.

then moves to 9:3

which is then connected to 9:4

which is then connected to 9:5

which is then connected to 9:6

which is then connected to 9:7-9:8

which is then connected to 9:9-11

which is FINALLY connected to 9:12-13

and 14 onwards repeats 9:3 onwards in a different example


This sequence proves fighting was only prescribed against those who broke peace and attacked Muslims FIRST as it says right there and only during the time when Islam as a religion was under threat from elimination. Quran says repeatedly, dont be transgressors, dont be transgressors, dont be transgressors. How can you translate that into saying Islam is about transgression

 

[m_shortpants]

You are missing the point. What does the U.S.military having the right to kill/capture have to do with a prophet asking its followers to kill? Do you honestly not see the breakdown in the philosophy of military vs prophet, let along prophet vs prophet? Are you allowed to acknowledge these thoughts and ideas or is that forbidden? This is a question.

You excuse the directive to kill because of a treaty? Your treaty, not a treaty as defined in the direct words in the quran. You placed the contingencies of reason for a prophet to instruct to kill. I am saying these are the words that are being used to rationalize killing... period. They groups are using literal translation, and this is the literal translation.

If you are going to say a person cannot read the quran, and understand it, but only scholars... then you are breaking the rules of "God deciding" by letting it be revealed through personal reading.

It is like wanting it both ways, but not accepting either way.

It is truth
It is the truth with footnotes
It is the truth only with scholarly input

Again, this is why I asked if there was or could be a global teaching or hadith that would allow these verses to be explained away officially, so that these groups would not follow these ideas.

Also, spare the ulterior motives paranoia, I am taking about things that others are talking about in that article and subsequent NPR show.

As Rusty said, people reading it literally is a fairly new phenomenon. In the past it was always read with context, or footnotes, considered.

 

[RustyNails]

That idea is not alien, it is simply awful. Supposedly Holy men, acting as guardians of God's Truth. Reminds me of Catholics speaking Latin at mass, resisting having the Bible even translated into English. Fuck that noise.

Thanks for the answers though, Rusty, it is appreciated. I want to ask what happens when a passage about something innocuous and peaceful also gets a 'nuanced' reading, but I've augured this point in by now, I think.

You're welcome. But the idea of layman interpretation is still alien. The layman would sit in the mosque and read the Quran, and go back to daily life without any need to derive jurispudence or law. Just like a sunday mass, where Christians read a passage of a bible and then get on with their lives. The "tafsir" (exegesis) methodology explains the qualifications needed to actually interpret Qur'an:

The mufasireen (exegetes) listed 15 fields that must be mastered before one can authoritatively interpret the Quran.[7]

1. Classical Arabic: Is how one learns the meaning of each word. Mujahid (rah) said, “It is not permissible for one who holds faith in Allah and the Day of Judgment to speak on the Quran without learning classical Arabic.” In this respect, it should be known that classical Arabic must be mastered in its entirety because one word may have various meanings; a person may only know two or three of them whereas the meaning of that word in the Quran may be altogether different.

2. Arabic Philology: Is important because any change in the diacritical marks affects the meaning, and understanding the diacritical marks depends on the science of Arabic philology.

3. Arabic morphology: is important because changes in the configuration of verb and noun forms change the meaning. Ibn Faris said, “A person who misses out on Arabic morphology has missed out on a lot.”

4. Al-Ishtiqaaq: should be learned because sometimes one word derives from two root words, the meaning of each root word being different. This is the science of etymology which explains the reciprocal relation and radical composition between the root and derived word. For example, masih derives from the root word masah which means “to feel something and to touch something with a wet hand,” but also derives from the root word masaahat which means “to measure.”

5. Ilm-ul-Ma’ani: is the science by which one figures the syntax through the meaning of a sentence.

6. Ilm-ul-Bayaan: is the science by which one learns the similes, metaphors, metonymies, zuhoor (evident meanings) and khafa (hidden meanings) of the Arabic language.

7. Ilm-ul-Badi’: The science by which one learns to interpret sentences which reveal the beauty and eloquence of the spoken and written word. The above mentioned three sciences are categorized as Ilm-ul-Balagha (science of rhetoric). It is one of the most important sciences to a mufassir because he is able to reveal the miraculous nature of the Quran through these three sciences.

8. Ilm-ul-Qira'at: Dialecticisms of the different readings of the Quran. This science is important because one qira'at (reading) of the Quran may differ in meaning from another, and one learns to favor one reading over another based on the difference in the meanings.

9. Ilm-ul-Aqaa’id: is important because we cannot attribute the literal meaning of some ayaat to Allah. In this case, one will be required to interpret the ayah as in ‘the hand of Allah is over their hand’.

10. Usul-ul-Fiqh: are the principles of Islamic Jurisprudence. It is important to master this field so one understands the methodology of legal derivation and interpretation.

11. Asbaab-ul-Nuzul: is the field by which one learns the circumstances in which an ayah is revealed. It is important because the meaning of the ayah is more clearly understood once the circumstances in which it was revealed are known. Sometimes, the meaning of an ayah is wholly dependent on its historical background.

12. Ilm-ul-Naskh: is knowledge of the abrogated ayaat. This field is important because abrogated rulings must be separated from the applied rulings.

13. Fiqh: Jurisprudence. This field is important because one cannot gain an overview of any issue until he has understood its particulars.

14. Ilm-ul-Hadith: is knowledge of the ahadith which explain mujmal (general) ayaat.

15. Ilm Laduuni: Last but not least is the endowed knowledge which Allah grants to his closest servants. They are the servants indicated in the hadith: “Allah will grant one who acts upon whatever he knows from a knowledge he never knew.”

 

[Aureon]

I feel an important piece of the puzzle is missing:
Save the literal bronze age, the age from the Mohammad conquests to the Genghis Khan invasion is the only really stable 'Glorious' day of the zone.
It's very akin to Italian Fascism trying to bring back Imperial Rome - The appeal of the Old, Glorious, Days - In which 'WE' were the forefront of the world, and the most important empire known.

Also:
ITT: People trying to tell other people they aren't really Muslim.

It doesn't actually matter what basis is there in the Quran, or Bible, or whatever, for whatever religious community lives today.
The only thing that matters is that there's communities that agree on it. If they do, that's a religion. Those are their beliefs, and there's no changing that.

And for god's sake don't ever try to tell someone else how to live their faith, because the millisecond you do, any whining about Atheists trying to tell you your holy book doctrine is incredibly stupid becomes hypocritical.

Not the real thing

Calm down, then.
No one tried to tell you, or anybody else, that you aren't a Real Muslim.
It'd be best if you didn't try to engage in the same practice, against ANYBODY else, ISIS included. We have, as a society, decided that beliefs are personal that pointing out hypocritical behaviors in religions is going down a deep hole.

Cotton-Candy meant just "With a rose-tinted view of the rest of the muslim world", that is, people who cannot accept that ISIS exists, and that yes, they are muslim.
In the modern world, you are of one faith the moment you declare to be of it. Catholicism excluded, there's no basis, way or method to formally negate someone's belief choice.

And you, especially, have no grounds to condemn ISIS', or anyone else's, faith.
If you claim you do, i'll thereby claim the same privilege upon your faith, and declare it invalid and ridiculous. See how that works?

 

[Brakke]

But how can you possibly expect everyone who follows the faith to hold the same specific, detailed, nuanced view of these texts? And if you don't, surely you can see how a plain reading of them can strike people as a kill-command from god?

Maybe you don't, but when so many people of the world reference that book (and the hadiths) for everything, much of the time in a literal fashion...

Islam isn't just a person "plain reading" the text. Islam's concentric circles of community.

It's not like someone just wakes up one day, decides to be Muslim, picks the book up dry, and internalizes the thing literally.

 

[m_shortpants]

You're welcome. But the idea of layman interpretation is still alien. The layman would sit in the mosque and read the Quran, and go back to daily life without any need to derive jurispudence or law. Just like a sunday mass, where Christians read a passage of a bible and then get on with their lives. The "tafsir" (exegesis) methodology explains the qualifications needed to actually interpret Qur'an:

Good post. It seems like scholarly institutions have always attempted to prevent extremists from interpreting the Quran literally with those guidelines. It's only people like ISIS and followers of Wahhabism who have gone to a literal understanding. Which is exactly why it's dangerous to legitimize groups like ISIS and the incorrect methods of their ideals.

 

[RustyNails]

You are missing the point. What does the U.S.military having the right to kill/capture have to do with a prophet asking its followers to kill? Do you honestly not see the breakdown in the philosophy of military vs prophet, let along prophet vs prophet? Are you allowed to acknowledge these thoughts and ideas or is that forbidden? This is a question.

You excuse the directive to kill because of a treaty? Your treaty, not a treaty as defined in the direct words in the quran. You placed the contingencies of reason for a prophet to instruct to kill. I am saying these are the words that are being used to rationalize killing... period. They groups are using literal translation, and this is the literal translation.

If you are going to say a person cannot read the quran, and understand it, but only scholars... then you are breaking the rules of "God deciding" by letting it be revealed through personal reading.

It is like wanting it both ways, but not accepting either way.

It is truth
It is the truth with footnotes
It is the truth only with scholarly input

Again, this is why I asked if there was or could be a global teaching or hadith that would allow these verses to be explained away officially, so that these groups would not follow these ideas.

Also, spare the ulterior motives paranoia, I am taking about things that others are talking about in that article and subsequent NPR show.

I'm not sure if I'm explaining to you clearly, but US military has nothing to do with Quran...I was using it as an example of taking words out of context. Maybe it was too difficult a concept to grasp? I don't know how else to put it. The "directive to kill" is strictly within the confines of a Treaty being broken. The very next verse after the command to kill is (9:4), which tells Muhammad to maintain friendship with the tribes that did not break the treaty.

[9:4] Excepting those of the idolaters with whom you have entered into a treaty and who have not subsequently failed you in anything nor aided anyone against you. So fulfil to these the treaty you have made with them till their term. Surely, Allah loves those who are righteous.

Not only that, but it actually says that once you are fighting those that violated the treaty, and if they stop fighting, you not only stop, but escort them to safety!

[9:5] And when the forbidden months have passed, kill the idolaters wherever you find them and take them prisoners, and beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them at every place of ambush. But if they repent and observe Prayer and pay the Zakat, then leave their way free. Surely, Allah is Most Forgiving, Merciful.And if anyone of the idolaters ask protection of thee, grant him protection so that he may hear the word of Allah; then convey him to his place of security. That is because they are a people who have no knowledge.

Now, ask yourself why 9:4 is telling Muhammad to not fight those that did not violate the treaty, and why 9:6 tells him to escort people to safety that stop fighting, if the command was to simply kill infidels left and right. Do you only pick and chose which verses you want to use to prove your point?

 

[Azih]

You're getting hung up on that phrase. If they had said that ISIS has an extreme view and you do not would you be offended?

No I wouldn't. But they don't and it's not an isolated incident.

No one tried to tell you, or anybody else, that you aren't a Real Muslim.

I point out three examples. Once of them in this very thread. Interceptor.

Edit: SDreborn. I'm not ignoring the rest of your post. I've just found on online forums that if I address multiple points then the point that I actually care about gets ignored. So I've started sticking to just one point that I think is the most important.

Sam Harris calls me a nominal muslim who's not serious about Islam. Haykel says I don't have a real view of my faith but a 'cotton candy' one. Interceptor point blank says Daesh is waaay more Islamic than I am when he says

There is just the Islamic state. It´s as islamic as it can get. It´s the closest thing we got to uncle Mo since the fall of the last caliphate

Now you may not think this is a big deal. But I do. It's a dangerous, horrific, untrue narrative that feeds into Islamophobia and "War between civilizations" bullshit.

 

[tfur]

I'm not sure if I'm explaining to you clearly, but US military has nothing to do with Quran...I was using it as an example of taking words out of context. Maybe it was too difficult a concept to grasp? I don't know how else to put it. The "directive to kill" is strictly within the confines of a Treaty being broken. The very next verse after the command to kill is (9:4), which tells Muhammad to maintain friendship with the tribes that did not break the treaty.

Not only that, but it actually says that once you are fighting those that violated the treaty, and if they stop fighting, you not only stop, but escort them to safety!

Now, ask yourself why 9:4 is telling Muhammad to not fight those that did not violate the treaty, and why 9:6 tells him to escort people to safety that stop fighting, if the command was to simply kill infidels left and right. Do you only pick and chose which verses you want to use to prove your point?

Right, but you just repeated yourself again by providing an excuse to kill from the prophet. You can kill because of this, not this. There should be no excuse to kill from the prophet. God is supposed to do the killing and judging. It is a pretty basic thing I am saying here.

Also, I guess since you did not address my question, you are not allowed to talk about it. If you cannot, just say I cannot, and I will stop talking about it here.

It was about the idea in the breakdown of philosophy from the previous prophet to Mohammed.

From previous post. Maybe somewhat inflammatory, but a real question.
------------
This is the reason, as I have brought up in the past, that there is a rather large discrepancy in the chronology of the philosophies and metaphysics. The idea that you go from philosophy of peace and forgiveness, to a philosophy that directly asks its followers to kill is quite a breakdown.

You cannot believe Jesus was a prophet, and then accept that Mohammed followed from the same philosophy when you are directly instructed to kill infidels. You cannot hand wave about tribes and needs to kill, and then somehow wrap that into what is supposed to be direct philosophy. It simply does not follow.

Are we to believe that the angel Gabriel somehow pops up a few years after Jesus to come with a philosophy that sanctions its believers, not God(usually its God that is tasked to do the judgments and killing etc), but its believers that they should have a reason to kill? Forget what this guy preached and said just a few years ago, it's okay to kill now..
--------

 

[y2dvd]

Since this is the current active Islam criticism thread, I'll post this here as I don't want to make a thread.

Sam Harris released a 24-hour audio titled "The Chapel Hill Murders and ‘Militant’ Atheism"

http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/the-chapel-hill-murders-and-militant-atheism/

It's worth listening to. Soundcloud link

Great podcast. It amazes me how much Harris is attacked when he's probably the most civil out of the prominent atheists out there. If this doesn't explain his position or viewpoints any further, I don't know what will.

 

[RustyNails]

Right, but you just repeated yourself again by providing an excuse to kill from the prophet. You can kill because of this, not this. There should be no excuse to kill from the prophet. God is supposed to do the killing and judging. It is a pretty basic thing I am saying here.

What you're saying now is different than what you were saying earlier. I see that we have moved the goalposts from "Islam commands Muslims to kill infidels everywhere!!!" to "OK, but only God should be the one to kill and judge!". It's ok. The "excuse to kill" is a reason as opposed to desire, all within confines of law. Now if you said he ordered the Quraish to be attacked without any treaty in place, I would be inclined to agree with your position. But the fact of the matter is, people broke the law, people were punished. You have to analyze the whole situation rather than singularly look at events. Muhammad was the leader of the newly established state of Medina, bound by law (Constitution of Medina) and various treaties (Hudaybiyyah being one). He acted according to the contents of treaty, and was more than fair in dealing with the oath breakers by escorting those who stopped, and staying clear of those that didn't violate the trust. Wouldn't you agree?

Also, I guess since you did not address my question, you are not allowed to talk about it. If you cannot, just say I cannot, and I will stop talking about it here.

It was about the idea in the breakdown of philosophy from the previous prophet to Mohammed.

From previous post. Maybe somewhat inflammatory, but a real question.
------------
This is the reason, as I have brought up in the past, that there is a rather large discrepancy in the chronology of the philosophies and metaphysics. The idea that you go from philosophy of peace and forgiveness, to a philosophy that directly asks its followers to kill is quite a breakdown.

You cannot believe Jesus was a prophet, and then accept that Mohammed followed from the same philosophy when you are directly instructed to kill infidels. You cannot hand wave about tribes and needs to kill, and then somehow wrap that into what is supposed to be direct philosophy. It simply does not follow.

Are we to believe that the angel Gabriel somehow pops up a few years after Jesus to come with a philosophy that sanctions its believers, not God(usually its God that is tasked to do the judgments and killing etc), but its believers that they should have a reason to kill? Forget what this guy preached and said just a few years ago, it's okay to kill now..
--------

You start off on the wrong foot. Philosophy of "directly instructed to kill infidels" is not true, reasons for which I've explained in various above posts. Muslims believe the message of Tawhid (oneness) has been true among all the prophets of Bible, everything else is subject to questioning. Muslims don't believe all the stories of the prophets in Bible are 100% true. The first 13 years of Muhammad's mission, Muslims were tortured, executed, harassed, exiled and eventually kicked out of Mecca. After the Medinans agreed to make Muhammad their leader, diplomacy, engagement and treaties ensued with the Meccans. Jesus' ministry lasted for a few years. He had no state to run, no diplomacy to broker with neighboring tribes, no peace treaties to settle with quarrels and no army to defend his state in case the enemy attacked. Besides, he was adamant about his message of God, and said that his message is the message of sword, not of peace. His ministry ended too soon. But if you look at Moses, David and Solomon, their mission was more similar to Muhammad's in the sense that they had armies, wars, quarreling and disputes. Taking all the Ishmaelite prophets into consideration, Muhammad's mission does not seem exclusive at all.