The thread moved very quickly while I was asleep. I will address posts by the three main posters against my position (Buz, Canadian Steve, and Faith) in this singular reply. Let me start by repeating that I am NOT arguing militant fundamentalist Islam does not pose a serious problem, nor am I attempting to argue that such fundamentalists don't consider their position to be the "true" and "literal" reading of the Quran.
What I am arguing is that Islam is NOT inherently antidemocratic (at least no more so than Xianity or Judaism), and that current militant fundamentalist Islam does not exhibit the true literal reading of the Quran. They most certainly do stick to a singular INTERPRETATION of text, and perhaps a culturally POPULAR interpretation of the text, but that is not synonymous with having the correct literal interpretation.
I am trying to have a serious discussion of this point and have presented links, as well as sections of texts including multiple interpretations to make my argument. Is it possible to have that same seriousness and courtesy granted to me? If it is obvious what the literal meaning is in the text, it seems to me that the text is all we need to be discussing.
BUZ...
I'm sure you're aware by now of how much authority the Hadiths and Saunas have with most Muslim clerics. Muhammed's writings often were such that clarification and order was needed.
That is a clear cut statement that militant Islam cannot be using a literal interpretation of the Quran, and indeed uses much scholastic or clerical interpretation as source material. I'm not sure why you cannot admit that modern fundamentalist Islam is interpretive rather than literal, given that you make the statement above.
... peace meant total submission from the perspective of Muhammed and his followers. Infidel freedom and independence meant war in the eyes of the intolerant expansionists, simple as that.
This is a disappointing response given the excellent source material I gave to you. You didn't even address the obvious problems with your citation. Why were your numbers wrong, and why was the quote conveniently missing the end statements of 39, and the whole of 40? They did not use the term peace, so your claim above does not work against it. Let's look at it again...
Here is 38-40,
from this site, giving three different translations...
008.038
YUSUFALI: Say to the Unbelievers, if (now) they desist (from Unbelief), their past would be forgiven them; but if they persist, the punishment of those before them is already (a matter of warning for them).
PICKTHAL: Tell those who disbelieve that if they cease (from persecution of believers) that which is past will be forgiven them; but if they return (thereto) then the example of the men of old hath already gone (before them, for a warning).
SHAKIR: Say to those who disbelieve, if they desist, that which is past shall be forgiven to them; and if they return, then what happened to the ancients has already passed.
008.039
YUSUFALI: And fight them on until there is no more tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in Allah altogether and everywhere; but if they cease, verily Allah doth see all that they do.
PICKTHAL: And fight them until persecution is no more, and religion is all for Allah. But if they cease, then lo! Allah is Seer of what they do.
SHAKIR: And fight with them until there is no more persecution and religion should be only for Allah; but if they desist, then surely Allah sees what they do.
008.040
YUSUFALI: If they refuse, be sure that Allah is your Protector - the best to protect and the best to help.
PICKTHAL: And if they turn away, then know that Allah is your Befriender - a Transcendent Patron, a Transcendent Helper!
SHAKIR: And if they turn back, then know that Allah is your Patron; most excellent is the Patron and most excellent the Helper.
Even if one uses the same translation of the first verse as you did (though as you see here it is 38 and not 39), the rest do not literally state that world domination is the goal. This appears to suggest an end with the enemy refusing to fight them further, not eliminated from existence. Are you going to deal with the problem this raises?
And as far as your response above, you said that "peace" means total submission, here is the text again...
008.060
YUSUFALI: 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 Allah and your enemies, and others besides, whom ye may not know, but whom Allah doth know. Whatever ye shall spend in the cause of Allah, shall be repaid unto you, and ye shall not be treated unjustly.
PICKTHAL: Make ready for them all thou canst of (armed) force and of horses tethered, that thereby ye may dismay the enemy of Allah and your enemy, and others beside them whom ye know not. Allah knoweth them. Whatsoever ye spend in the way of Allah it will be repaid to you in full, and ye will not be wronged.
SHAKIR: And prepare against them what force you can and horses tied at the frontier, to frighten thereby the enemy of Allah and your enemy and others besides them, whom you do not know (but) Allah knows them; and whatever thing you will spend in Allah's way, it will be paid back to you fully and you shall not be dealt with unjustly.
008.061
YUSUFALI: But if the enemy incline towards peace, do thou (also) incline towards peace, and trust in Allah: for He is One that heareth and knoweth (all things).
PICKTHAL: And if they incline to peace, incline thou also to it, and trust in Allah. Lo! He, even He, is the Hearer, the Knower.
SHAKIR: And if they incline to peace, then incline to it and trust in Allah; surely He is the Hearing, the Knowing.
Your interpretation first of all has to be admitted is NOT LITERAL, and must be an interpretation. Second your interpretation does not make sense. It says if their enemy inclines toward peace, then they should as well. How can that possibly be interpreted as their enemy must submit to Islam under force of arm? Using your interpretation of the word peace that verse means either that they must then convert to their enemy's religion, or that they are free not to submit to allah unless their enemy does?
Try again. And once again I ask you to put this into context with the verses dealing with disbelievers. The literal reading of that is pretty clear.
CANADIAN STEVE...You have outstanding issues regarding what Islam is both with me and Chiro. That you materialize here to repeat your original claims as if they have not been dealt with elsewhere and have been awaiting your answers is not fair. I am not going to repeat everything again for you. You may go to chiro's link and deal with where you left off with him or me. Or you can deal with what I have presented here from the texts.
You mention that there are punishments prescribed by law. If it is in the Quran and you feel it is pertinent to the issue under discussion then post the passages, don't give me articles where someone tells me what may be said somewhere (especially articles which undercut your own argument). I really don't see how method of punishment is pertinent to this discussion. You want to view graphic violence for punishment/deterrence as bad, but we just killed over 10K innocent people in much more gruesome ways for the same reason. Yes we do not cut off hands of thieves, nor do we behead murderers. Instead we steal time from people's lives (sometimes destroying them financially, mentally, and socially) for theft, and inject drugs which kill murderers on a cellular level which is not as graphic. And like I said, if they are not citizens then we cut them up as we will, crime or no.
You also argue the "purity" of Xianity by using an ad hominem argument against mohammed. But let me deal with how you pose Xianity is different.
jesus was not those things. he never married. he led no soldiers. he slaughtered no tribes. He took no slaves. he never has sex with a child. But had he, then the faith would have been seriously different.
There is no proscription in the Bible against marriage, leading soldiers, slaughtering tribes, taking slaves, nor having sex with children. Thus whether Jesus did or did not do such things is besides the point. Historically, Jesus was in a much different position than Mohammed was and so comparing what they did or did not do is not exactly honest as a method of showing what a religion is about or based on.
More importantly, and a point you have always shown great cowardice in dealing with, David did all of those things that you indict Mohammed for doing. In fact, if we take the Bible literally King David's exploits make Mohammed look like a pantywaist. And for Xianity to be a true religion David must be thought to be a rightful King and Jesus to be his descendant. So regardless of what Jesus did, he is NOTHING and his authenticity is zero, unless one holds in esteem a bloodthirsty, adulterous, fornicating, most likely bisexual, pederast.
Indeed I am always amazed at your attempt to point fingers on this issue. Moses alone was a brutal murderer of innocent children, even babies. David was horrific in his brutality and legendary in his sexual escapades. These are the foundations of your religion.
FAITH...I urge you again to show literal statements made within the Quran, which support your position, and deal with the sections I have posted. If it is obvious, then it should be easy.
You are advocating tolerating a genuine dangerous evil.
No one here is discussing tolerance of militant fundamentalist Islam. I am 100% against them. I was against them when Reagan, Bush Sr, and Rummy were supporting them and saying how great they were, as well as when the Bush's and Cheney's were trying to do business with them.
Now deal with the issue, what does the Quran say given a literal read? Is it what the militants say is literal, or is that their interpretation? Show evidence and deal with the text I have presented.
Loving the Muslim neighbor means showing them the falseness of their religion and their need of Jesus Christ. What everybody is recommending here about accepting Islam is really hatred.
I'm just glad to see that Xianity is so much more tolerant than the Islam they portray. Oh by the way, when did I say people should accept Islam? I think all three of your religions are whack jobs. I think militants must be fought and moderates tolerated (in all of your religions). I'd recommend accepting agnostic atheism.
All I, and I think everyone else, was saying is that "true/literal" Islam is not what you say it is. That doesn't make it any more right or worthy of being accepted.
Those laws exacted (and continue to exact) far greater punishment than the crime deserved, along the lines of a life for a tooth, two eyes, an ear and a nose for an eye, while the Mosaic law is noted for fitting the punishment to the crime, which is what the formula for perfect justice, "eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth" exemplifies.
Explain where the eye is in the following (from Leviticus)...
20:9 For every one that curseth his father or his mother shall be surely put to death: he hath cursed his father or his mother; his blood shall be upon him.
20:10 And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.
20:11 And the man that lieth with his father's wife hath uncovered his father's nakedness: both of them shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.
20:12 And if a man lie with his daughter in law, both of them shall surely be put to death: they have wrought confusion; their blood shall be upon them.
20:13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.
20:14 And if a man take a wife and her mother, it is wickedness: they shall be burnt with fire, both he and they; that there be no wickedness among you.
20:15 And if a man lie with a beast, he shall surely be put to death: and ye shall slay the beast.
20:16 And if a woman approach unto any beast, and lie down thereto, thou shalt kill the woman, and the beast: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.
20:27 A man also or woman that hath a familiar spirit, or that is a wizard, shall surely be put to death: they shall stone them with stones: their blood shall be upon them.
... and that's the tip of the iceberg. Even doing sacraments wrong can get you killed.
Given that you say Xianity is compatible with democracy, please explain how the mosaic laws imply democracy is possible, and any passages which discuss democracy in any fashion. I might ask what the end gov't is supposed to be for all humanity. Is it a giant election with Jesus v Satan for the Presidency and cherubs and demons for Congress?
This message has been edited by holmes, 03-29-2006 01:30 PM
holmes
"Some day the piecing together of dissociated knowledge will open up such terrifying vistas of reality, and of our frightful position therein, that we shall either go mad from the revelation or flee from the light into the peace and safety of a new dark age." (Lovecraft)
™ Version 4.2