What's with the Muslim "God is great!" bit?

[Achán hiNidráne]

What I mean by this question is this: Why is it that the exclamation Allahu akbar, i. e. "God is great," so often used by Muslims committing atrocious acts?

What the posessed the Crusaders to shout "God wills it!" as they murdered and pillaged their way through the Middle East 900 years ago?

Justification? Arrogance? Spite?

ETA: The same "in your face" attitude that some see directed at the losing fans at a modern sporting event?

That is not even the whole of it. They also say God is merciful.

Well of course Allah (or Jesus, or L. Ron Hubbard, or Cthulhu... OK, maybe not) is merciful... to those who believe in him and are willing to kiss his almighty rear end. Everyone else is pretty much fried.

 

[154]

http://www.truthtube.tv/

 

[HansMustermann]

.
Any country that is free of control by the Koran.
.
.
You mean other than these from the Koran?
.
"Quran tells Muslims to kill the disbelievers wherever they find them (Q. 2:191), to murder them and treat them harshly (Q. 9:123), slay them (Q. 9:5), fight with them, (Q. 8: 65 ) even if they are Christians and Jews, humiliate them and impose on them a penalty tax (Q. 9: 29). Quran takes away the freedom of belief from all humanity and tell clearly that no other religion except Islam is accepted (Q. 3: 85). It relegates those who disbelieve in Quran to hell (Q. 5:10), calls them najis (filthy, untouchable, impure) (Q. 9: 28). It orders its followers to fight the unbelievers until no other religion except Islam is left (Q. 2: 193). It says that the non-believers will go to hell and will drink boiling water (Q. 14: 17). "
.
I guess one might make a stretch and say these parts of the Koran legitimize murder, which means the answer to "which religion" would be Islam.

Geeze, you're usually smarter than that. Have you actually read the frikken thing? Including the verses before and after those numbers? Or are you just quoting propaganda points out of context.

I mean, let's take that Sura 2, verse 191, just because it's the first you name. The fact that it's verse 191, should tell you that it's not the only one in the Sura. There may be, you know, context. And here if frikken is:

2:190 "Fight in the cause of Allah those who fight you, but do not transgress limits; for Allah loveth not transgressors."

Get it, lemming? That slaying in the name of Allah is of those who fight you. It's about self-defense, not an incitation to violence.

But wait, it doesn't stop there:

2:192 "But if they cease, Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful."

Teh oops, doesn't sound so aggressive after all.

2:193 "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."

My emphasis. And yep, it's not so aggressive after all.

Yes, I get it, idiot fundies need to take verses out of context to have something to pick on. You don't have to do the same thing, though, you know?

And please, at least read the actual verses before quoting such stupidities. You're essentially just taking a BS-er's word there. Which is kinda gullible.

 

[DC]

.
Any country that is free of control by the Koran.
.
.
You mean other than these from the Koran?
.
"Quran tells Muslims to kill the disbelievers wherever they find them (Q. 2:191), to murder them and treat them harshly (Q. 9:123), slay them (Q. 9:5), fight with them, (Q. 8: 65 ) even if they are Christians and Jews, humiliate them and impose on them a penalty tax (Q. 9: 29). Quran takes away the freedom of belief from all humanity and tell clearly that no other religion except Islam is accepted (Q. 3: 85). It relegates those who disbelieve in Quran to hell (Q. 5:10), calls them najis (filthy, untouchable, impure) (Q. 9: 28). It orders its followers to fight the unbelievers until no other religion except Islam is left (Q. 2: 193). It says that the non-believers will go to hell and will drink boiling water (Q. 14: 17). "
.
I guess one might make a stretch and say these parts of the Koran legitimize murder, which means the answer to "which religion" would be Islam.

So in other words, you believ in the interpretation that Osama Bin Laden and the Taliban are using, while most Muslims Organizations world wide say, no thats not correct Interpretation.

And looking at countries like Iran shows that even those nutty wackos are not killing the unbelievers or people of other faiths. there still is a Jewish community in Iran. they don't get killed where ever they are found.

Because you know, the Koran is long, and a lot of other nonsense written in it says they should not kill. and it looks like the vast majority of muslims does not kill others.
Just like Jews stopped stoning farmers for planting 2 different plants on the same field. The OT still says to do that.
Also do Christians not burn down whole cities and kill all and everything in that city. and it still is in the New Testament.

But surely, when you believe to have more knowledge abut the Koran as the vast majority of Moslems, you maybe should join Osama and fight for the only true way of Islam........

i doubt you are living in a real world.

 

[Robin]

Quran tells Muslims to kill the disbelievers wherever they find them

Not disbelievers but idolaters or polytheists. This part refers to the polytheistic arabs of Mecca with whom Muhammad was at war.

It orders its followers to fight the unbelievers until no other religion except Islam is left (Q. 2: 193).

Adding to what Hans says above, note that the Quran does not say to stamp out other religions:

2:62 Those who believe (in the Qur'an), and those who follow the Jewish
(scriptures), and the Christians and the Sabians,- any who believe in
Allah and the Last Day, and work righteousness, shall have their reward
with their Lord; on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve​

Christians and Jews are considered to be believers in Allah.

Elsewhere it says to leave unbelievers alone.

It says that the non-believers will go to hell and will drink boiling water

Yes it does - just like Christianity it says that those who don't believe in God will go to Hell.

Islam is a little less intolerant than Christianity in this respect. Under Christianity only Christians will be saved, under Islam Christians and Jews will be saved along with Muslims.

 

[Robin]

And, no, Islam does not say that it is OK to murder:

[5:32] Because of this, we decreed for the Children of Israel that anyone who murders any person who had not committed murder or horrendous crimes, it shall be as if he murdered all the people. And anyone who spares a life, it shall be as if he spared the lives of all the people. Our messengers went to them with clear proofs and revelations, but most of them, after all this, are still transgressing.​

 

[DC]

.
Any country that is free of control by the Koran.
.
.
You mean other than these from the Koran?
.
"Quran tells Muslims to kill the disbelievers wherever they find them (Q. 2:191), to murder them and treat them harshly (Q. 9:123), slay them (Q. 9:5), fight with them, (Q. 8: 65 ) even if they are Christians and Jews, humiliate them and impose on them a penalty tax (Q. 9: 29). Quran takes away the freedom of belief from all humanity and tell clearly that no other religion except Islam is accepted (Q. 3: 85). It relegates those who disbelieve in Quran to hell (Q. 5:10), calls them najis (filthy, untouchable, impure) (Q. 9: 28). It orders its followers to fight the unbelievers until no other religion except Islam is left (Q. 2: 193). It says that the non-believers will go to hell and will drink boiling water (Q. 14: 17). "
.
I guess one might make a stretch and say these parts of the Koran legitimize murder, which means the answer to "which religion" would be Islam.

 

[HansMustermann]

Not disbelievers but idolaters or polytheists. This part refers to the polytheistic arabs of Mecca with whom Muhammad was at war.

Indeed. But again, even for those, only as long as they attack or oppress the Muslims.

As a historical note: Muhammad wasn't treated as just yet another leader of yet another nutter sect. As soon as he started preaching against the idolatry that was the official religion, the reaction was (unsurprisingly) _very_ negative.

As the number of his followers grew, and basically started to be a credible threat to the status quo, that turned to persecution. And I mean "persecution" as in: people were killed, and some even tortured to death. (Although Muhammad himself seems to have been spared any physical violence to avoid a feud with his clan.) Soon muslims started emigrating just to keep their lives, culminating with the whole sect moving to Medina.

At that point, Mecca took the time to make itself even more of a dick and confiscated the wealth of all muslims. Which, needless to say, didn't make those love the polytheists of Mecca any better.

In response to that injustice, the emigrant muslims started attacking the caravans to/from Mecca. (Which also puts the "OMG, Muhammad was a bandit" propaganda point into context. Those guys didn't raid everyone's caravans or anything.)

Mecca responded by sending soldiers, which culminated in the battle of Badr, a major victory for Muhammad's forces, although estimated to have been outnumbered 3 to 1.

Mecca at that point seems to have taken that as a major loss of face -- and you have to understand that in that culture the personal and clan honour and prestige weren't just worth status, but alliances, trade treaties and hegemonies depended on it -- and started an all-out war against Medina. At the peak of the conflict an army of 10,000 (which was immense for the area: by comparison at Badr they had sent about a tenth of that, and the Muslims had been only 300) besieged Medina but failed.

The fight ended in a truce, which Mecca soon broke by funding and arming another clan to attack Medina. Muhammad wasn't amused with the situation of having a truce but being attacked anyway, and asked that Mecca chooses one of three outcomes:

1. they pay reparations to the families of those killed in those attacks, or

2. they disavow their new alliance with the clan attacking Muhammad, or

3. they declare the truce null and void. (Effectively putting them back into the war where they had declared war on Muhammad.)

Mecca chose #3. At that point Muhammad was in a position to raise his own 10,000 man army and basically blitzed into Mecca. (And as a proof of that, you know, lack of mercy of Islam and all, he actually pardoned all but 10 who had personally insulted him. About half of those would be pardoned anyway later.)

That's the kind of conflict where Muhammad was urging his followers to fight the polytheists. It wasn't just picking on some innocent neighbours, but on some people who had declared war on him, were killing his followers wherever they could find any, and destroying their crops.

I hardly think that self-defense is some kind of evil act, either back then or nowadays.

 

[TimCallahan]

really ?
so they don't celebrate the life of young dead soldiers then because they were so patriotic that they died for their country,
http://militarytimes.com/valor/

You are like many others, equating the beliefs of extremists with the religious ideals of Islam

thats bad, its like saying all Christians are paranoid survivalists intent on bringing down the Government

There's a significant difference between honoring a fallen soldier, who fell in battle against others armed as he was, and celebrating some kid who blew himself up in order to kill five other unarmed teenagers.

No, it is not my intention to equate the beliefs of all Muslims with those of terrorists. However, the association of a phrase such as, "God is great!" with acts such as beheading an unarmed journalist, killing thousands of people in a suicide attack or celebrating when one's son kills his fellow teenagers, strikes me as appalling. I am equally appalled by Christian "right to life" activists who assassinate abortion doctors and bomb birth-control clinics in the name of life.

 

[TimCallahan]

.
Well, find something to praise about Islam.
We'll wait.

Reading the Qur'an, I was impressed by Muhammad's concern for orphans and the injunctions against exploiting them. This isn't surprising, since Muhammad was orphaned early in his life and depended greatly on the protection of a number of his uncles.

Islam also stresses charity. One of the five pillars of Islam is to pay out 1/8 (12.5%) of one's income to support the poor.

It is noteworthy that Al Qaeda operatives living in Afghanistan reportedly lived well, while all about them the Afghans were living in poverty. Likewise, the actions of suicide bombers could be seen as being at odds with at least some of what is said in the Qur'an. Unfortunately, as with the Bible, you can find verses in the Qur'an so sopport both sides of many arguments.

 

[I Ratant]

Like the Bible, anything can be justified with the proper excerptions of what you want it to say.
Unfortunately there's so many different versions of the book which any authority can claim is THE book, and make pronouncements and fatwas to suit his personal biases with supporting text.
They really need to separate church and state, to get to where they derailed themselves 500 years ago, and actually contribute to the betterment of society and mankind.

 

[TimCallahan]

. . . . They really need to separate church and state, to get to where they derailed themselves 500 years ago, and actually contribute to the betterment of society and mankind.

As to separation of church and state, the separation of temporal and ecclesiastical powers in western and central Europe was probably a fortuitous event. When the Western Roman Empire collapsed and ceased to be, the Pope, unlike the Patriarch of Constantinople, found himself without a protector, but also without a master. The formula by which Charlemagne saved the Pope from the ravages of the Lombards, and the Pope crowned Charlemagne emperor, effectively established a two track system of separation of powers that paved the way for separation of church and state.

Its noteworthy that this separation of powers did not take place in either the Byzantine Empire or Czarist Russia. Thus, it's not a specifically Christian phenomenon. The only Muslim nation to experience any effective secularization of government seems to be Turkey. This happened because the mullahs and such were associated with the corruption of the Ottoman empire. Thus, the Ataturk was able to sweep their powers away. Unfortunately, at present, Islamists associated with revolutionary regimes and opposition to the west. We may have to ride out a century during which the rabidly sectarian forces in Islam discredit themselves enough to be spurned by the general populace.

 

[HansMustermann]

Like the Bible, anything can be justified with the proper excerptions of what you want it to say.

Unfortunately all major religions are like that. Look at what Tibetan Buddhism ended up justifying, for example. But, yeah, the Quran too.

Unfortunately there's so many different versions of the book which any authority can claim is THE book, and make pronouncements and fatwas to suit his personal biases with supporting text.

Actually, not exactly. There is exactly one version of it. The Shia have a different version of the Sunnah (deeds and sayings and manner of acting of Muhammad and his companions, but basically unlike our Gospels they are mostly a good example or context) and Hadith (narations of what Muhammad said or did, used mostly as context to understand what is really meant), but the same Quran.

There are several translations to other languages, but they _are_ aware of the problem and basically the only authoritative version is the original Arabic version. Also, the one everyone is encouraged to use, if they can.

That said, it is true that anyone can proclaim their own interpretation of some issue based on the Quran, a.k.a., a fatwa. (Though most will also cross-reference with the relevant parts of the Hadith and Sunnah, something most "OMG Islam is evil" quote mining doesn't do. Most imams would know not just what for example the verses before and after 2:191 say, but also when and in what context it was given, and how the Prophet acted in a circumstance similar to the one at hand. So the potential for abuse is somewhat more contained than you seem to think, but admittedly not by much.)

The downside is that nobody is forced to take it seriously.

On the whole, though, it's no different from what Rabbis and fundie ministers do all the time. The Muslims just have a word for it: fatwa. Which unfortunately most of the West grossly misunderstands.

They really need to separate church and state, to get to where they derailed themselves 500 years ago, and actually contribute to the betterment of society and mankind.

Separating the church from state is not something any religion does. It's something that _states_ do.

And with any religion, some do, some don't. E.g., if you think the Vatican separates church from state, I have some logging rights in Sahara to sell

The same happens for muslims. Most states have a strong separation between church and state (trivial example: Turkey,) some are practically theocracies (trivial example: Saudi Arabia,) some are at various points in between.

 

[I Ratant]

...

The downside is that nobody is forced to take it seriously.

On the whole, though, it's no different from what Rabbis and fundie ministers do all the time. The Muslims just have a word for it: fatwa. Which unfortunately most of the West grossly misunderstands.
...

.
Well, in the West, those fire and brimstone God-shouters can't condemn persons to death and expect to not be held accountable if some of their loons actually kill someone.
In Islam, some -do- take it seriously, and will murder those on the list.
But recently I've read Arabia is getting upset with some of the really stupid fatwas being pronounced, and trying to get these controlled. Which can lead to a central control of the religion, which it surely needs.

 

[HansMustermann]

Short of reforming the Caliphate -- which I don't think anyone can -- good luck with establishing any kind of control outside their borders. Seriously. Not to mention that even while the Ottomans claimed the Caliph title, everyone else pretty much ignored that, and it even caused the Wahhabi movement as a reaction to that.

Also, dunno, on the topic of fatwas vs minister pronouncements, it seems to me that for both some people do, some people don't. There _are_ nutters who killed some gay or shot abortion doctors just because their minister called that evil. So the big difference is...?

Also, condemning people to death is hardly what fatwas are generally about. The one on Salman Rushdie and a couple of others are an exception and criticized by most muslims as stepping over the line. And I really mean a couple. Fatwas are not some kind of Sharia law and are supposed to be doctrine clarifications, rather than anything else. I.e., proclaiming that Mickey Mouse is evil and Muslims should not watch such cartoons is well within what fatwas are supposed to be about. Condemning someone to death is debatable if it even qualifies as a fatwa.

But really, you seem to overestimate how binding they are. There are fatwas against smoking and needless to say, people still buy cigarettes even in Iran. There are fatwas proclaiming suicide bombing haram (forbidden) and, well, you can see how much _that_ helped. There is a fatwa that women can work together with men if they breast-feed those men, but I don't think anyone actually got that in their contracts and HR policies

 

[aviolet4u]

And, no, Islam does not say that it is OK to murder:

[5:32] Because of this, we decreed for the Children of Israel that anyone who murders any person who had not committed murder or horrendous crimes, it shall be as if he murdered all the people. And anyone who spares a life, it shall be as if he spared the lives of all the people. Our messengers went to them with clear proofs and revelations, but most of them, after all this, are still transgressing.​

hmmm too bad this isn't always followed through with unfortunately. Even if these terrorists see American and Israeli governments as bullies, they still kill civilians including their fellow muslims for goodness sakes. Such a shame.

 

[154]

Quran 8:12: "Instill terror into the hearts of the unbelievers;"

Quran 2:191: "... kill the disbelievers wherever we find them …"

Quran 8:12: "Your Lord inspired the angels with the message: 'I will terrorize the unbelievers. Therefore smite them on their necks and every joint and incapacitate them. Strike off their heads and cut off each of their fingers and toes.'"

Quran 8:7: "Allah wished to confirm the truth by His words: 'Wipe the infidels out to the last.'"

Quran 8:59: "The infidels should not think that they can get away from us. Prepare against them whatever arms and weaponry you can muster so that you may terrorize them. They are your enemy and Allah's enemy."

Quran 9:29: "Fight those who do not believe in Allah, nor in the latter day, nor do they prohibit what Allah and His Apostle have prohibited, nor follow the religion of truth, out of those who have been given the Book, until they pay the tax in acknowledgment of superiority and they are in a state of subjection."

Quran 47:4: "Strike off the heads of the disbelievers" and, after making a "wide slaughter among them, carefully tie up the remaining captives."

Hadith Sahih Muslim (41:6985): "Abu Huraira reported Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying: 'The last hour would not come unless the Muslims will fight against the Jews and the Muslims would kill them until the Jews would hide themselves behind a stone or a tree and a stone or a tree would say: Muslim, the servant of Allah, there is a Jew behind me; come and kill him; but the tree Gharqad would not say, for it is the tree of the Jews.'"

Quran 9:5: "When the sacred forbidden months for fighting are past, fight and kill the disbelievers wherever you find them, take them captive, torture them, and lie in wait and ambush them using every stratagem of war."

 

[154]

hmmm too bad this isn't always followed through with unfortunately. Even if these terrorists see American and Israeli governments as bullies, they still kill civilians including their fellow muslims for goodness sakes. Such a shame.

Are these "terrorists" the "extremists" and "hijackers" of "the religion of peace"
or the true followers of Mohammad?

 

[Marduk]

Are these "terrorists" the "extremists" and "hijackers" of "the religion of peace"
or the true followers of Mohammad?

They all believe in a hate filled vengeful God don't they ?
just like you

I think you are continuously trying to demonize Islam because it draws attention away from people like yourself, its just ironic you can't see what a hypocrite you are

after all, should we add up all the people killed, raped and tortured by fundementalist christians in the name of their God compared to the equivalent moslems in the name of Allah the moslems wouldn't even be close. If the point youre trying to make is that the Koran instructs moslems to kill non moslems and the Bible doesn't then that doesn't make all the raping, torturing, murdering Christians look too clever does it, at least the Moslems could say "Gods fairy tale book told me to do it"
whats your excuse ?

 

[HansMustermann]

154, we just discussed the problem of quotes taken out of context, and I already gave an example of exactly one of your cherry-picked phrases out of context. Put in context, it doesn't say that. And, ffs, you shouldn't even need my help there. The fact that your canned talking points don't even quote a full verse, but need to carve just half of it to make it sound bad, should already give you a hint that some dishonesty is involved.

So you're trying to prove... what? That even having it disproven in the same thread won't discourage a bigotted idiot from repeating canned propaganda points?