Islam: What the West Needs to Know

Gkhan · February 10, 2008, 8:32pm

[quote]lixy wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Some really weird stretches here to dismiss the disproportionate threat of Islamic Jihad.

What do you mean by “disproportionate”?[/quote]

You tell us.

When bashing the US and it’s allies, you said this:

“And thanks to Saudi petrodollars, there are plenty of Wahabi mosques all over the world preaching hatred and other such things. So if a terrorist attack took place tomorrow in Paris, it’ll likely be carried out by French dudes. And if NY is targeted again, Americans will be behind it.”

Now to stick up for Muslims, do you still think there are only a few thousand(?) muslim wackjobs in the world?

How does this work? On one hand the Saudis are threatening the entire world. On the other hand, it’s just a small group of people doing this.

Gkhan · February 11, 2008, 2:40am

[quote]Chushin wrote:
Yeah, I’ve suspected from the outset of this discussion that we would arrive, at some point, at you stating that the West is ultimately responsible for terrorism…
[/quote]

Nevermind the fact that the Soviet Union backed the Nationalistic movement and they backed dictators in the Middle East. So either way, you’ve got dictators in control.

Also, the SU funded and armed various terrorist organizations throughout the world. And yet, the US somehow the cause of terrorism because we helped the backstabbing Muslims kick the Soviets out of Afghanistan???

Did we back Black September? The PLO? The Red Army Brigades? The Viet Cong? The Baadar-Meinhof Gang? (sp)
The Muslim Brotherhood? Hell freaking no!

TGun was right in arguing about Lixy’s one sided view of things.

Sifu · February 11, 2008, 2:43am

To get back to the movie. I think they raise some valid issues. One of the biggest problems we are facing in the west is people are being lied to. The big lie we are being told is that mohammad was a compassionate man of peace just like Jesus.

Sure Christianity has gone through some bad times where Christians have done some barbaric acts. But Jesus the founder was not a slave owning killer like mohammad was. So it is wrong to put islam into the context that it is merely going through the same growing pains that Christianity went through. These two religions have vastly different underlying philosophies.

Varqanir · February 11, 2008, 2:54am

[quote]Sifu wrote:
. But Jesus the founder was not a slave owning killer like mohammad was. So it is wrong to put islam into the context that it is merely going through the same growing pains that Christianity went through. These two religions have vastly different underlying philosophies.

[/quote]

Then again, Jesus was a Jew, whose religion was, after all, founded by Moses, a slave-owning killer.

Beowolf · February 11, 2008, 3:21am

[quote]Varqanir wrote:
Sifu wrote:
. But Jesus the founder was not a slave owning killer like mohammad was. So it is wrong to put islam into the context that it is merely going through the same growing pains that Christianity went through. These two religions have vastly different underlying philosophies.

Then again, Jesus was a Jew, whose religion was, after all, founded by Moses, a slave-owning killer.[/quote]

Technically, Moses didn’t start Judaism but w/e…

Out of the three, Mohamed is the most likely (by far actually) to have actually existed. Jesus only probably existed in some form or another, and Moses probably did NOT exist.

So comparing them gets a bit awkward.

Christianity still has plenty of passages OK’ing stuff like child beating, wife beating, slavery, segregation, gay beating, teenager beating, and just so you know, the “till death” is implied in each of these :).

Varqanir · February 11, 2008, 6:03am

[quote]Beowolf wrote:
Varqanir wrote:
Sifu wrote:
. But Jesus the founder was not a slave owning killer like mohammad was. So it is wrong to put islam into the context that it is merely going through the same growing pains that Christianity went through. These two religions have vastly different underlying philosophies.

Then again, Jesus was a Jew, whose religion was, after all, founded by Moses, a slave-owning killer.

Technically, Moses didn’t start Judaism but w/e…

[/quote]

Well, if you want to get really technical, you’re right. “Judaism” as such didn’t start until the split of the tribes into the two kingdoms of Israel and Judea, but for our purposes, I’m counting back to the origin of Mosaic Law.

If, on the other hand, you want to go all the way back to Abraham, fine, as long as you realize that Muslims trace their religion back to Abraham as well (sons of Ishmael, you know). A further complication arises when you consider that Abraham, Moses, David, Solomon, and Jesus himself are all considered prophets of Islam.

And since “Muslim” is simply Arabic for “one who is subservient to God”, I doubt if any of these gents would object to being called such.

So. We have Islam, Christianity, and Judaism, all of which trace their roots back to Abraham, a liar, a cheat, a thief, and a slave owner, who fathered children not only with his slave girl, but also with his sister.

Nobody has the moral high ground. We should just get over it.

WIP · February 11, 2008, 7:11am

[quote]Sifu wrote:
Thank you for the offer WIP. That is very gracious of you. Would you explain this one. Please.

“Forbidden to you are…married women, except those you own as slaves.” (Surah 4:20-, 24-)

[/quote]

I’ll start with the verse in its entirety.

Shakir 4:19] O you who believe! it is not lawful for you that you should take women as heritage against (their) will, and do not straiten them in order that you may take part of what you have given them, unless they are guilty of manifest indecency, and treat them kindly; then if you hate them, it may be that you dislike a thing while Allah has placed abundant good in it.

[Shakir 4:20] And if you wish to have (one) wife in place of another and you have given one of them a heap of gold, then take not from it anything; would you take it by slandering (her) and (doing her) manifest wrong?

[Shakir 4:21] And how can you take it when one of you has already gone in to the other and they have made with you a firm covenant?

[Shakir 4:22] And marry not woman whom your fathers married, except what has already passed; this surely is indecent and hateful, and it is an evil way.

[Shakir 4:23] Forbidden to you are your mothers and your daughters and your sisters and your paternal aunts and your maternal aunts and brothers’ daughters and sisters’ daughters and your mothers that have suckled you and your foster-sisters and mothers of your wives and your step-daughters who are in your guardianship, (born) of your wives to whom you have gone in, but if you have not gone in to them, there is no blame on you (in marrying them), and the wives of your sons who are of your own loins and that you should have two sisters together, except what has already passed; surely Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.

[Shakir 4:24] And all married women except those whom your right hands possess (this is) Allah’s ordinance to you, and lawful for you are (all women) besides those, provided that you seek (them) with your property, taking (them) in marriage not committing fornication. Then as to those whom you profit by, give them their dowries as appointed; and there is no blame on you about what you mutually agree after what is appointed; surely Allah is Knowing, Wise.

[Shakir 4:25] And whoever among you has not within his power ampleness of means to marry free believing women, then (he may marry) of those whom your right hands possess from among your believing maidens; and Allah knows best your faith: you are (sprung) the one from the other; so marry them with the permission of their masters, and give them their dowries justly, they being chaste, not fornicating, nor receiving paramours; and when they are taken in marriage, then if they are guilty of indecency, they shall suffer half the punishment which is (inflicted) upon free women. This is for him among you who fears falling into evil; and that you abstain is better for you, and Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.

So, here, the Quran says forbidden to you are married women, except those you own as slaves.

The first thing you must understand, is that there is no concept of slavery in Islam, all humans are equal. Slave in this context, simply refers to ‘butler’ or ‘maid.’

Thus, at the time when the Quran was written, maids used to work at the houses of other men. As men are not allowed to look at women in Islam, the rules here are relaxed, to make the work of a maid more practical. Thus, it doesn’t mean that that you aren’t ‘forbidden’ from them, it simply means, that these ‘maids’ or ‘slaves’ may work in your house, hence the use of the word ‘except’, as such maids were very common (and still are) in Arab culture.

DrSkeptix · February 11, 2008, 7:11am

[quote]Varqanir wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
Varqanir wrote:
Sifu wrote:
…
So. We have Islam, Christianity, and Judaism, all of which trace their roots back to Abraham, a liar, a cheat, a thief, and a slave owner, who fathered children not only with his slave girl, but also with his sister.

Nobody has the moral high ground. We should just get over it.[/quote]

Now…wait a moment. You take Abram’s “lie” to Pharaoh and Sarai’s “lie” to Abimelech, well, literally?

Sources.

Genesis 11 does not, of course, list Sarai’s parentage. But in Gen 11:31, “terah took Abram, his son…and Sarai, his daughter-in-law…and they went with them from UR of the Chaldees to go to the land of Canaan.”

What of customary treatment of daughters-in-law?

“Like Abram, many ancient Semites were Nomads and it was customary for the daughter-in-law to be officially adopted as a full daughter in case her husband is to die while she is traveling with his family. According to Genesis 12.5, Sarai left her family to set out for the land of Canaan, which puts her in this same position as suggested in the ancient tablets of Mari (an ancient Semite city of Abram’s time). This suggests that Sarai was not Abram’s half-sister, but adopted sister by law. Thus, Abram did not lie, nor did he commit incest.” (Wiki, which almost gets this right.)

Abram, a slave owner? Yes, customarily. A liar? Yes, out of fear, first of Pharaoh, and secondly of Abimelech? A cheat? I do not know of what you speak. Perhaps the purchase of cave at Machpelah, or the negotiation with God over Sodom and Gomorrah? If so, more credit to the cheater. Fathered a child by his wife’s slave girl…customary to the childless, and pointedly a cause of enduring difficulty. But incest, no…not as I read the text.

…

I offer this as one more criticism of the use of religious texts. Use them to make a point, you will find other points. If the argument is that Abram/Abraham is not in possession of higher moral ground by example, so it stands in Genesis: these are not heroes, they are humans, and their moral faults are not excused. Their moral authority is derived from something outside our judgment.

WIP · February 11, 2008, 7:19am

[quote]Chushin wrote:
WIP wrote:
I’ve seen some reference made regarding the Quran.

Please quote the relevant verses and I will explain what they mean. You can’t just say the Quran says this or that without:

Stating the verse.
Stating it in FULL.
Stating its context.
Stating the most widely accepted interpretation.

The reason why some verses appear dubious is because of the above mentioned factors, thus, I will clarify each of these points regarding any verse in question.

Fire away.

These are the quotes that I was asking about:

“Believers, take neither Jews nor Christians for your friends.” (Surah 5:51)

“Muhammad is God’s apostle. Those who follow him are ruthless to the unbelievers but merciful to one another.” (Surah 48:29)

“Prophet make war on the unbelievers and the hypocrites and deal rigorously with them. Hell shall be their home.” (Surah 9:73)

Thanks in advance for your help.[/quote]

The Jews/Christians verse refers directly to another verse. It does not say Jews/Christians in general.

Relations with other people are governed by the basic rule in 5:57 & 60:8-9. The Jews and Christians who cannot be friends are specifically mentioned in 5:57; they are the ones who mock and ridicule the believers, or attack them, not in general.

[5:57] O you who believe, do not befriend those among the recipients of previous scripture who mock and ridicule your religion, nor shall you befriend the disbelievers. You shall reverence GOD, if you are really believers.

The basic ruling on relationships with other people in Islam are highlighted below:

[60:8-9] GOD does not enjoin you from befriending those who do not fight you because of religion, and do not evict you from your homes. You may befriend them and be equitable towards them. GOD loves the equitable. GOD enjoins you only from befriending those who fight you because of religion, evict you from your homes, and band together with others to banish you. You shall not befriend them. Those who befriend them are the transgressors.

I’ll do the other verses later. A little pressed for time.

WIP · February 11, 2008, 7:49am

[quote]Chushin wrote:
WIP wrote:
Sifu wrote:
Thank you for the offer WIP. That is very gracious of you. Would you explain this one. Please.