[quote]Adamsson wrote:
Malevolence wrote:
The point is. The religion is not the issue. It never was
Wrong… :)[/quote]
Dawkins you are not.
[quote]pookie wrote:
haney1 wrote:
Don’t these verses only apply to The Jewish people traveling with Moses during the Exodus/the nation of Israel? instead of an outright call for converts at all costs.
Could be. The point was to show that for a nut looking for justification, the text is there. After that, it’s just your interpretation vs. his.
My first quote can be used (wrongly) to justify killing unbelievers. The end of the second one to justify the Crusades.
Fundamentalist nuts aren’t known for being great theologians nor masters of nuance and context.
Even among more moderate interpretations, look at the near endless sects of Christianity: Catholics, Orthodox, Protestants (with sub splits among Baptists, Evangelicals, Methodists, Anabaptists, etc) Mormons and on and on. All from the same source material.
Now, why would your reasonable reading of the Bible be any more “right” than Fred Phelp’s reading of same?
[/quote]
That is the reason I am labeled a heretic…
Ehh, serves me right for always picking a fight with the teacher in Sunday School. 
What I was looking for was a BASIC PREMISE, part of the Islamic ‘mission statement’ that allows the violence.
Marx’s premise, for ex, was: From each according to his ability, to each according to his need. (which is logically impossible as a political philosophy).
Very simply, what is the fatwa or hadith that allows such goings on?
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
What I was looking for was a BASIC PREMISE, part of the Islamic ‘mission statement’ that allows the violence.
Marx’s premise, for ex, was: From each according to his ability, to each according to his need. (which is logically impossible as a political philosophy).
Very simply, what is the fatwa or hadith that allows such goings on?[/quote]
If you go quote mining you can find these.
2:190-193 “Fight in the cause of God those who fight you … And slay them wherever ye catch them … And fight them on until there is no more tumult or oppression and there prevail justice and faith in God …”
2:216 “Fighting is prescribed for you and ye dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you, and that ye love a thing which is bad for you. But God knoweth and ye know not.”
2:224 “Then fight in the cause of God and know that God heareth and knoweth all things.”
3:157-158 “And if ye are slain or die in the way of God, forgiveness and mercy from God are far better than all they could amass. And if ye die, or are slain, Lo! It is unto God that ye are brought together.”
3:169 “Think not of those who are slain in God’s way as dead. Nay, they live finding their sustenance in the presence of their Lord.”
3:195 “… Those who have … fought or been slain, verily I will blot out from them their iniquities and admit them into Gardens with rivers flowing beneath; a reward from the presence of God …”
4:101 “… For the Unbelievers are unto you open enemies.”
4:74, 75 "Let those fight in the cause of God who sell the life of this world for the Hereafter. To him who fighteth in the cause of God whether he is slain or gets victory, soon shall we give him a reward of great (value).
Those who believe fight in the cause of God and those who reject faith fight in the cause of evil, so fight ye against the friends of Satan, feeble indeed is the cunning of Satan."
4:89 “They but wish that ye should reject faith as they do, and thus be on the same footing as they. But take not friends from their ranks until they flee in the way of God. But if they turn renegades, seize them and slay them wherever ye find them?”
4:95 "Not equal are those believers who sit at (at home) and receive no hurt and those who strive and fight in the cause of God with their goods and their persons. God hath granted a grade higher to those who strive and fight with their goods and persons than those who sit (at home).
5:36 “The punishment of those who wage war against God and His apostle and strive with might and main for mischief through the land is: execution, or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides, or exile from the land. That is their disgrace in this world and a heavy punishment is theirs in the Hereafter.”
5:54 “O ye who believe. Take not the Jews and the Christians for your friends and protectors. They are but friends and protectors to each other. And he amongst you that turns to them (for friendship) is of them. Verily God guideth not a people unjust.”
8:12-17 "Remember thy Lord inspired the angels (with the message): "I am with you. Give firmness to the believers. I will instill terror into the hearts of the unbelievers. Smite ye above their necks and smite all their finger tips off them. This because they contend against God and his apostle.
If any contend against God and his apostle, God is strict in punishment … O ye who believe. When ye meet the unbelievers in hostile array, never turn your backs to them. If any do turn his back to them on such a day, unless it be a stratagem of war … he draws on himself the wrath of God and his abode is Hell, an evil refuge (indeed)."
8:59-60 “Let not the unbelievers think that they can get the better (of the godly). They will never frustrate (them). Against them make ready your strength to the utmost of your power, including steeds of war, to strike terror into (the hearts of) the enemies of God and your enemies and others besides, whom ye may not know, but whom God doth know …”
8:65 “O apostle! Rouse the believers to the fight. If there are twenty amongst you, patient and persevering, they will vanquish two hundred. If a hundred they will vanquish a thousand of the unbelievers, for these are a people without understanding.”
9:5 “… fight and slay the pagans wherever ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war) …”
9:14 “Fight them, and God will punish them by your hands, cover them with shame …”
9:29 “Fight those who believe not in God nor the Last Day nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by God and his apostle nor acknowledge the Religion of Truth (even if they are) of the people of the Book, until they pay the Jizya [religious tax] with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.”
47:4 “Therefore, when ye meet the unbelievers, smite at their necks, at length when ye have thoroughly subdued them, bind a bond firmly (on them) … but if it had been God’s will, he could certainly have exacted retribution from them (himself), but (he lets you fight) in order to test you, some with others. But those who are slain in the way of God, he will never let their deeds be lost.”
61:4 “Truly God loves those who fight in His cause in battle array, as if they were a solid cemented structure.”
I think quote mining is a horrible practice to prove ones point. If text’s are meant to be twisted to ones pov then you might as well just become a relativist.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Very simply, what is the fatwa or hadith that allows such goings on?[/quote]
Fatwahs or Hadiths aren’t part of the “basic premises” of Islam. What you’re looking for is called a Surah, from the Quran.
I don’t think there is a direct command to kill unbelievers in the Quran. There are quite a few surahs about them meeting a terrible doom, but Allah reserves the right to do the killing himself.
The surah that do command to kill are generally given in the context of an aggression with instructions to stop the fighting and killing once you’re left alone.
Of course, any number of surahs about killing can be twisted to support the “kill the unbelievers” nutcases. There’s also quite a few of them about making life hard for unbelievers, not associating with them, ignoring them and so on…
[quote]haney1 wrote:
If you go quote mining you can find these.
2:190-193 “Fight in the cause of God those who fight you … And slay them wherever ye catch them … And fight them on until there is no more tumult or oppression and there prevail justice and faith in God …”[/quote]
My version reads: (emphasis mine)[i]
[2:190] You may fight in the cause of GOD against those who attack you, but do not aggress. GOD does not love the aggressors.
[/i](There’s a footnote that reads: *2:190 All fighting is regulated by the basic rule in 60:8-9. Fighting is allowed strictly in self-defense, while aggression and oppression are strongly condemned throughout the Quran.)[i]
[2:191] You may kill those who wage war against you, and you may evict them whence they evicted you. Oppression is worse than murder. Do not fight them at the Sacred Masjid, unless they attack you therein. If they attack you, you may kill them. This is the just retribution for those disbelievers.
[2:192] If they refrain, then GOD is Forgiver, Most Merciful.
[2:193] You may also fight them to eliminate oppression, and to worship GOD freely. If they refrain, you shall not aggress; aggression is permitted only against the aggressors.[/i]
Indeed. Unfortunately, it’s how many believers use their Holy Books.
[quote]pookie wrote:
haney1 wrote:
If you go quote mining you can find these.
2:190-193 “Fight in the cause of God those who fight you … And slay them wherever ye catch them … And fight them on until there is no more tumult or oppression and there prevail justice and faith in God …”
My version reads: (emphasis mine)[i]
[2:190] You may fight in the cause of GOD against those who attack you, but do not aggress. GOD does not love the aggressors.
[/i](There’s a footnote that reads: *2:190 All fighting is regulated by the basic rule in 60:8-9. Fighting is allowed strictly in self-defense, while aggression and oppression are strongly condemned throughout the Quran.)[i]
[2:191] You may kill those who wage war against you, and you may evict them whence they evicted you. Oppression is worse than murder. Do not fight them at the Sacred Masjid, unless they attack you therein. If they attack you, you may kill them. This is the just retribution for those disbelievers.
[2:192] If they refrain, then GOD is Forgiver, Most Merciful.
[2:193] You may also fight them to eliminate oppression, and to worship GOD freely. If they refrain, you shall not aggress; aggression is permitted only against the aggressors.[/i]
[/quote]
That is what I get for quote mining answering-islam.org.
I think quote mining is a horrible practice to prove ones point. If text’s are meant to be twisted to ones pov then you might as well just become a relativist.
Indeed. Unfortunately, it’s how many believers use their Holy Books.
[/quote]
Well if Christian’s in America are an indication of how many people actually read their holy books, then I would say 10% actually read their books. Of that 10%, I would guess 8% are nuts, 1% don’t understand it at all, and 1% know, and attempt to practice it.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
What I was looking for was a BASIC PREMISE, part of the Islamic ‘mission statement’ that allows the violence.
[…]
Very simply, what is the fatwa or hadith that allows such goings on?[/quote]
Simply stated, there isn’t.
Going deeper, Islamic law is derived from the Quran, Hadith and consensus. The Quran clearly prohibits unwarranted violence. Some verses, when taken out of context become ambiguous as demonstrated by Haney1’s post. The Quran is not a collection of laws. It should be read in its entirety before one can make up his/her mind about the message.
The Hadith came in support of the core message presented in the Quran. i.e: Violence = Bad.
The consensus of the Ummah (community of Muslims) is unambiguous. In excess of 99% of Muslims oppose such acts. And for a good reason: It’s what the Quran and the prophet preached.
The tricky part is when a handful of people considers that the whole Ummah are nothing more than heretics. Those guys usually have some sort of guru who then starts issuing fatwas, which in their eyes supersede the Ijma’a (consensus) of the “heretics”, when in fact the role of the consensus was exactly to delegitimize such sects.
The idea being that the Muslim is supposed to educate himself and do his own interpretation of the Quranic text, then in case of doubt, resort to the more plain Arabic Hadith (as opposed to the imagery-filled poetry of the Quran). The ultimate resort when one can’t deduce the proper course of action from the two texts, is to follow the majority of what the Ummah is doing.
To sum up, it should come as no surprise that fatwas issued by Azzawahiri are circulating in pro-Taliban areas. Those largely analphabet people usually memorize the Quran without trying to understand it.
Instead, they rely on their chief to chew it for them and come up with simple to follow guidelines. When the guy happens to be a buddy of Ben-Laden, the worst can happen as illustrated by the OP.
Hope this clears things up.
[quote]haney1 wrote:
That is what I get for quote mining answering-islam.org. :-)[/quote]
It was pointed out to me a while ago that the translation I was using at the time sucked big time.
I’ve since noticed that a lot of sites critical of Islam tend to use “convenient” translations that seem to omit important nuances from the text.
That’s a bit odd, though.
You’d think that someone who really believes in God and the Bible would make that his #1 task on his To-Do list. If God truly exists and the Bible is really his Word, then what could ever be more important than reading the directives the Creator of you and the entire universe wrote for you?
Of course, a lot more people claim to believe for the social usefulness of such a claim, rather than really actually believe. Or so their actions and words reveal.
Is the Prophet the greatest example for Islamic behavior? Meaning, can one interpret what his words really meant, by looking at his actions?
[quote]lixy wrote:
The consensus of the Ummah (community of Muslims) is unambiguous. In excess of 99% of Muslims oppose such acts.
[/quote]
Where are you getting this figure? I’ve never seen this statistic before.
[quote]pookie wrote:
It was pointed out to me a while ago that the translation I was using at the time sucked big time.
I’ve since noticed that a lot of sites critical of Islam tend to use “convenient” translations that seem to omit important nuances from the text.
[/quote]
I would not doubt this. convenient truth is a reality for those who care less about the actual truth.
Most would rather not be bothred by actually doing some work on their own. The saying “cause the Bible says so” should be replaced with “because my pastor says the Bible says so”.
Yes and no. I would say most people who believe to do so because that is what they are taught. Skeptic’s in thier eyes are rather silly since they rationalize based off of pascal’s wager (even if they have never heard of it).
So they really believe all of the things in the Bible. Where they fall short is easily dismissed by saying I am not perfect, just forgiven, or it becomes a situational ethic for them (If you have never read mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis then I recommend even for the none believer).
It is very sad…
I walk into church every Sunday, and I sympathize with Christ when He over threw the table’s in the Temple.
Not for the same reason of course(ie. stealing from God).
[quote]haney1 wrote:
Most would rather not be bothred by actually doing some work on their own. The saying “cause the Bible says so” should be replaced with “because my pastor says the Bible says so”.
[/quote]
I have seen a TV discussion where Jerry Falwell basically told a Jesuit monk that he did not understand the bible and to shut up.
I did not know who Falwell was at that time, but that got me convinced that wisful thinking might be part of his interpretation.
[quote]orion wrote:
haney1 wrote:
Most would rather not be bothred by actually doing some work on their own. The saying “cause the Bible says so” should be replaced with “because my pastor says the Bible says so”.
I have seen a TV discussion where Jerry Falwell basically told a Jesuit monk that he did not understand the bible and to shut up.
I did not know who Falwell was at that time, but that got me convinced that wisful thinking might be part of his interpretation.
[/quote]
Fallwell was an alumni at the college my parents went to. Which incidentially was a findamentalist Bible college. I can testify that he was way too extreme.
Here’s one:
“Caedite eos. Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius”
“Kill them (all). God will know his own.”
Arnaud Amaury, papal legate, 1208, following the fall of Beziers.
[quote]TQB wrote:
Here’s one:
“Caedite eos. Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius”
“Kill them (all). God will know his own.”
Arnaud Amaury, papal legate, 1208, following the fall of Beziers.[/quote]
Nice dig!
[quote]TQB wrote:
Here’s one:
“Caedite eos. Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius”
“Kill them (all). God will know his own.”
Arnaud Amaury, papal legate, 1208, following the fall of Beziers.[/quote]
…and Christians are still following that, right?
I must praise Christians for not taking such things seriously any more. Can we hope for the extremist Muslims to do the same? Someday?
I think we can all agree that every religion has had its fuck ups right? The extremest muslims just happen to be having there’s right now.
[quote]pookie wrote:
Stamping out sects is extremely rare. The general tendency is for more rifts and splits as the religion ages. Mergers of disagreeing sects is almost unheard of.
[/quote]
This hasn’t been true for most of the history of the church. Prior to the reformation and collapse of catholic hegemony there only a handful of Christian sects in broad existence and each was defined primarily by the territory of its exclusive jurisdiction.
Yet the full list of so called heresies significant enough to be remembered by name numbers in the many dozens; those mentioned in the sources but not named number in the hundreds to thousands. The significance of the Reformation was not that it was the first reform movement, quite far from it.
Rather it was the first reform movement to succeed-- in other words not be exterminated with maximal brutality-- within the Church’s own back yard. You can thank the Turks in part for helping to fund the Protestant revolts. Too bad it didn’t happen while Christianity was still colorful.
[quote]etaco wrote:
This hasn’t been true for most of the history of the church. Prior to the reformation and collapse of catholic hegemony there only a handful of Christian sects in broad existence and each was defined primarily by the territory of its exclusive jurisdiction. [/quote]
You’re right. I was thinking of voluntary mergers between sects. I should amend my previous post to say that “stamping out” was, at one time, quite common.