• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Is Islam an evil religion?

Status
Not open for further replies.
DC, has his discussion threads mixed up.

He asked me something addressed in this thread in another one.

He thinks I am "paranoid" because not all muslism think the way that the video in this discussion thread says.

Well, not all Nazis supported death camps.

Not all Catholic priests are (can't think of a politically correct term here).

That does not matter. It does not matter of some muslims are good or even if most muslims are good. That has nothing really to do if Islam is good or not.

I did not want my kid baptised in a Catholic church. I guess you could call me paranoid. But sometimes the "paranoid" survive when others do not.

I am sure Condi Rice thought the Israelis and the Germans were paranoid when they warned her about 9-11.

as i said several times, the exptremists that do interpret the Koran similar to the way your video did have a real war on their ass.
not just some wannabe warriors on the net that are not intersted in details about their alleged enemy.
 
IMHO there's a difference between the occupying force and whatever worship they happen to bring with them. Sweden waged what can only be called expansionist, imperialistic warfare all over northern Europe (most notably Poland) during the 17th century, and like the Moors there was a lot of religious arguments used as justification for territorial expansion. However, no one would think of this as a "protestantic invasion" in the way arabic and turkish expansion is called "muslim aggression". Empire builders have generally used religious views (like "the white mans burden") as justification for expansion, but it's generally only when it comes to islam that the religion in itself is conflated with the expansionist politics it's used to justify.

Well, there must be something particularry objectionable about Islam to the Greeks. I think over 90 percent of the country is orthodox christian. I confess I don't know all the details as to why. But saying it is becuse Christianity is bad is just supposition.

I do not think we can pass judgement on them.
 
If The bible is taken literally its at least as bad as Islam if not worse. Most xtians skip the bad parts or water them down. Buddists used to have live skinning as a punishment so religion in general is pretty much bad.
 
as i said several times, the exptremists that do interpret the Koran similar to the way your video did have a real war on their ass.
not just some wannabe warriors on the net that are not intersted in details about their alleged enemy.

I do not think interprtation is as flexable in Islam as it is in other religions.

And I know from personal first hand experience that every calm, peace loving and seemingly meek Muslim that I have personally known also supports the idea of murdering Salmon Rushdie.

So the idea that there are some peaceful law abiding Muslims does not mean anything to me from my experience with them so far. That ain't paranoia, brother.
 
Last edited:
If The bible is taken literally its at least as bad as Islam if not worse. Most xtians skip the bad parts or water them down. Buddists used to have live skinning as a punishment so religion in general is pretty much bad.

Good thing the vast majority of christian sects don't do that, then.

They have moved on. They have evolved.

So, in that light, pushing muslism to do the same is rational, expected and just.
 
I do not think interprtation is as flexable in Islam as it is in other religions.
And I know from personal first hand experience that every calm, peace loving and seemingly meek Muslim that I have personally known also supports the idea of murdering Salmon Rushdie.

So the idea that there are some peaceful law abiding Muslims does not mean anything to me from my experience with them so far. That ain't paranoia, brother.

how would you know, you said yourself you are not interested in details.
those details have been shown to you, but you did never accept it because it contradicted your paranoid world view.
 
There are about 500 verses in the Quran that speak of Allah’s hatred for non-Muslims and the punishment that he has prepared for their unbelief. There is also a tiny handful that say otherwise, but these are mostly earlier verses that many scholars consider to be abrogated by the later, more violent ones.

You don't know a single thing about naskh, why it arose, who follows the doctrine, how it's applied, or even which verses are abrogated by which!

What verse or verses abrogates 2:256 ("There is no compulsion in religion")? What fuquha or faqih have declared it abrogated?

What verse or verses abrogates 60:7-8 ("It may be that Allah will bring about friendship between you and those whom you hold to be your enemies among them; and Allah is Powerful; and Allah is Forgiving, Merciful. Allah does not forbid you respecting those who have not made war against you on account of (your) religion, and have not driven you forth from your homes, that you show them kindness and deal with them justly; surely Allah loves the doers of justice.")? What fuquha or faqih have declared them abrogated?

You'll note that both of the above quoted passages are not from earlier "peaceful" Meccan suras, but from later "warlike" Medinan suras (the second sura was revealed in 2 AH, the 60th sura was revealed in 7 or 8 AH, right before the conquest of Mecca).

As for Sura 109, any true Quran scholar will point out that the purpose of the verse was to distinguish Islam from the gods of the Quraysh (one of which was named "Allah") rather than to advocate religious tolerance for non-Muslims. At the time that he narrated this very early verse, Muhammad did not have any power, and thus no choice but to be "tolerant" of others. By contrast, there was no true tolerance shown when he returned to Mecca with power many years later and demanded the eviction or death of anyone who would not convert to Islam. In fact, he physically destroyed the cherished idols of the people to whom he had previously addressed in Sura 109.

It was not a message of "tolerance" even at the beginning, so there was no issue of Muhammad having "no choice but to be "tolerant" of others." It's a declaration of separateness, a sort of theological washing of hands. "You can follow whatever false gods you want," it's saying, "but I'm going to follow Allah, and you're going to be on your own when we're both held accountable before God."

As Maududi wrote on his tafsir:

Thus, in Surah Yunus, it was said: "If these people deny you, say to them: I am responsible for my deeds and you are responsible for yours: you are not accountable for what I do, and I am not accountable for what you do." (v. 41). Then further on in the same Surah it was said: "O Prophet, say: O mankind, if you are still in doubt concerning my Faith, know that I do not worship those whom you worship beside Allah, but I worship that Allah alone, Who has the power to cause your death." (v. 104). In Surah Ash-Shu'ara it was said: "If they disobey you, tell them: I am not responsible for what you do." (v. 216). In Surah Saba it was said: "Say to them: you will not be questioned for the errors we have committed, nor shall we be answerable for what you are doing. Say, our Lord will gather us together, then He will judge between us rightly." (w. 25-26). In Surah az-Zumar: "Tell them plainly: O my people, do whatever you will, so shall I. Soon you shall come to know as to whom comes the disgraceful torment and who gets the enduring punishment." (w. 39-40).

Yusuf Ali says of these verses:

’I, having been given the Truth, cannot come to your false ways: you, having your vested interests, will not give them up. For your ways the responsibility is yours: I have shown you the Truth. For my ways the responsibility is mine: you have no right to ask me to abandon the Truth. Your persecutions will be vain: the Truth must prevail in the end’. This was the attitude of Faith then: but it is true for all time. Hold fast to Truth, "in scorn of consequence".

Ibn Kathir calls this sura "the Declaration of Innocence from Shirk [idolatry]".


For those of you who don't want to (or are unable to) watch the video, the only difference is that this version has an additional 50 seconds quoting verses on abrogation at the end.

Here's a transcription...

The Qur'an on abrogation:

Sura 2:106
We do not abrogate a verse or cause it to be forgotten except that We bring forth [one] better than it or similar to it. Do you not know that Allah is over all things competent?

Sura 16:101
And when We substitute a verse in place of a verse -- and Allah is most knowing of what He sends down -- they say "You, [O Muhammad], are but an inventor [of lies]." But most of them do not know.

Sura 17:86
And if We willed, We would surely do away with that which We revealed to you. Then you would not find yourself concerning it an advocate against us.

PLEASE FEEL FREE TO MIRROR THIS VIDEO

More info on abrogation:
http://tinyurl.com/abrogations1

More info on taqiyya:
http://tinyurl.com/taqiyya1

Part of the problem is that the word translated as "verse", ayah or آية , can also mean commandment, law, or divine message in general. The only way to tell is from context.

Take the first of the verses quoted above, for instance, 2:106. The translation as given (and promoted by the video) certainly implies that specific individual verses of the Qur'an can be replaced by later verses. But if you read that whole chunk of the second sura, you'll see that it's Muhammad addressing other "People of the Book", about their doubts regarding this new message from God (because they'd already received messages from God in the form of the Torah and the Bible).

87 We gave Moses the Book and followed him up with a succession of apostles; We gave Jesus the son of Mary Clear (Signs) and strengthened him with the holy spirit. Is it that whenever there comes to you an apostle with what ye yourselves desire not, ye are puffed up with pride?- Some ye called impostors, and others ye slay!

88 They say, "Our hearts are the wrappings (which preserve Allah.s Word: we need no more)." Nay, Allah.s curse is on them for their blasphemy: Little is it they believe.

89 And when there comes to them a Book from Allah, confirming what is with them,- although from of old they had prayed for victory against those without Faith,- when there comes to them that which they (should) have recognised, they refuse to believe in it but the curse of Allah is on those without Faith.

90 Miserable is the price for which they have sold their souls, in that they deny (the revelation) which Allah has sent down, in insolent envy that Allah of His Grace should send it to any of His servants He pleases: Thus have they drawn on themselves Wrath upon Wrath. And humiliating is the punishment of those who reject Faith.

91 When it is said to them, "Believe in what Allah Hath sent down, "they say, "We believe in what was sent down to us:" yet they reject all besides, even if it be Truth confirming what is with them. Say: "Why then have ye slain the prophets of Allah in times gone by, if ye did indeed believe?"

92 There came to you Moses with clear (Signs); yet ye worshipped the calf (Even) after that, and ye did behave wrongfully.

93 And remember We took your covenant and We raised above you (the towering height) of Mount (Sinai): (Saying): "Hold firmly to what We have given you, and hearken (to the Law)": They said:" We hear, and we disobey:" And they had to drink into their hearts (of the taint) of the calf because of their Faithlessness. Say: "Vile indeed are the behests of your Faith if ye have any faith!"

94 Say: "If the last Home, with Allah, be for you specially, and not for anyone else, then seek ye for death, if ye are sincere."

95 But they will never seek for death, on account of the (sins) which their hands have sent on before them. and Allah is well-acquainted with the wrong-doers.

96 Thou wilt indeed find them, of all people, most greedy of life,-even more than the idolaters: Each one of them wishes He could be given a life of a thousand years: But the grant of such life will not save him from (due) punishment. For Allah sees well all that they do.

97 Say: Whoever is an enemy to Gabriel-for he brings down the (revelation) to thy heart by Allah.s will, a confirmation of what went before, and guidance and glad tidings for those who believe,-

98 Whoever is an enemy to Allah and His angels and apostles, to Gabriel and Michael,- Lo! Allah is an enemy to those who reject Faith.

99 We have sent down to thee Manifest Signs (ayat); and none reject them but those who are perverse.

100 Is it not (the case) that every time they make a covenant, some party among them throw it aside?- Nay, Most of them are faithless.

101 And when there came to them an apostle from Allah, confirming what was with them, a party of the people of the Book threw away the Book of Allah behind their backs, as if (it had been something) they did not know!

102 They followed what the evil ones gave out (falsely) against the power of Solomon: the blasphemers Were, not Solomon, but the evil ones, teaching men Magic, and such things as came down at babylon to the angels Harut and Marut. But neither of these taught anyone (Such things) without saying: "We are only for trial; so do not blaspheme." They learned from them the means to sow discord between man and wife. But they could not thus harm anyone except by Allah.s permission. And they learned what harmed them, not what profited them. And they knew that the buyers of (magic) would have no share in the happiness of the Hereafter. And vile was the price for which they did sell their souls, if they but knew!

103 If they had kept their Faith and guarded themselves from evil, far better had been the reward from their Lord, if they but knew!

104 O ye of Faith! Say not (to the Messenger. words of ambiguous import, but words of respect; and hearken (to him): To those without Faith is a grievous punishment.

105 It is never the wish of those without Faith among the People of the Book, nor of the Pagans, that anything good should come down to you from your Lord. But Allah will choose for His special Mercy whom He will - for Allah is Lord of grace abounding.

106 None of Our revelations do We abrogate or cause to be forgotten, but We substitute something better or similar: Knowest thou not that Allah Hath power over all things?

107 Knowest thou not that to Allah belongeth the dominion of the heavens and the earth? And besides Him ye have neither patron nor helper.

108 Would ye question your Messenger as Moses was questioned of old? but whoever changeth from Faith to Unbelief, Hath strayed without doubt from the even way.

109 Quite a number of the People of the Book wish they could Turn you (people) back to infidelity after ye have believed, from selfish envy, after the Truth hath become Manifest unto them: But forgive and overlook, Till Allah accomplish His purpose; for Allah Hath power over all things.

Note how this translation (Yusuf Ali's) has "revelations" instead of "verses" in 2:106. This, and every instance where it mentions "signs" and "messages" are all the same word in the Arabic original, ayah or ayat (plural).

In other words, 2:106 isn't talking about later verses of the Qur'an replacing earlier verses, but the later revelation of the Qur'an itself replacing the earlier revelations given to Jews and Christians.

This has led scholars like Asad to reject the concept of naskh completely, saying of 2:106

ome scholars conclude from the above passage that certain verses of the Qur'an have been "abrogated" by God's command before the revelation of the Qur'an was completed. Apart from the fancifulness of this assertion - which calls to mind the image of a human author correcting, on second thought, the proofs of his manuscript - deleting one passage and replacing it with another - there does not exist a single reliable Tradition to the effect that the Prophet ever, declared a verse of the Qur'an to have been "abrogated". At the root of the so-called "doctrine of abrogation" may lie the inability of some of the early commentators to reconcile one Qur'anic passage with another: a difficulty which was overcome by declaring that one of the verses in question had been "abrogated". This arbitrary procedure explains also why there is no unanimity whatsoever among the upholders of the "doctrine of abrogation" as to which, and how many, Qur'an verses have been affected by it; and, furthermore, as to whether this alleged abrogation implies a total elimination of the verse in question from the context of the Qur'an, or only a cancellation of the specific ordinance or statement contained in it. In short, the "doctrine of abrogation" has no basis whatever in historical fact, and must be rejected.
 
Last edited:
Yes I am saying that, by definition, it is tolerance. Not invading is a different issue. England, Scotland, France, when all were Catholic, invaded one another all the time. The Turks invaded Muslim Iran and Muslim Syria and Muslim Egypt. So what?

Answer my point.

Where are the Spanish Muslims and Jews?
.
In the DNA of most Spaniards today... :)
 
Bill

Well, there must be something particularry objectionable about Islam to the Greeks. I think over 90 percent of the country is orthodox christian. I confess I don't know all the details as to why. But saying it is becuse Christianity is bad is just supposition.

It took me about 30 seconds on wiki to find "details as to why" (I already knew, of course)
In 1923, under the terms of the Treaty of Lausanne, the Muslims living in Greece were required to immigrate to Turkey; whereas, the Christians living in Turkey were required to immigrate to Greece in an "Exchange of Populations". The Muslims of Thrace and the Christians of Istanbul and the islands of Gökçeada and Bozcaada (Imvros and Tenedos) were the only populations not exchanged.

As to the Jewish community, it
currently amounts to roughly 5,500 people, concentrated mainly in Athens, Thessaloniki, Larissa, Volos, Chalkis, Ioannina, Trikala and Corfu, while very few remain in Kavala and Rhodes. It is composed largely of two groups, the Romaniotes, Jewish communities dating back to Antiquity, and the Ladino-speaking Sephardim, who arrived from Spain and settled chiefly in Thessaloniki during Ottoman times.
the Ottomans are the Turks who in 1492 admitted the Spanish Jews in the circumstances already described by me in this thread. Unlike the Christians, they tolerated the Jews. But the Jewish communities were almost annihilated during the German occupation of 1941 to 1945. The Germans were Christians.

In fact, some 97% of Greeks are Eastern Orthodox.

Let us summarise. Greece is almost entirely Christian because Greek Christians threw out the Muslims (while Turkish secular nationalists were throwing out the Christians). Other Christians annihilated the Jews. During the period of Islamic dominance, Jews, Christians and Muslims all lived in both countries. The Ottoman Turkish Empire was a despotic place, with a decrepit regime - but it was famous for its religious tolerance, remarkable by the standards displayed in Europe at that time.
 
Last edited:
You don't know a single thing about naskh, why it arose, who follows the doctrine, how it's applied, or even which verses are abrogated by which!

What verse or verses abrogates 2:256 ("There is no compulsion in religion")? What fuquha or faqih have declared it abrogated?

What verse or verses abrogates 60:7-8 ("It may be that Allah will bring about friendship between you and those whom you hold to be your enemies among them; and Allah is Powerful; and Allah is Forgiving, Merciful. Allah does not forbid you respecting those who have not made war against you on account of (your) religion, and have not driven you forth from your homes, that you show them kindness and deal with them justly; surely Allah loves the doers of justice.")? What fuquha or faqih have declared them abrogated?

You'll note that both of the above quoted passages are not from earlier "peaceful" Meccan suras, but from later "warlike" Medinan suras (the second sura was revealed in 2 AH, the 60th sura was revealed in 7 or 8 AH, right before the conquest of Mecca).



It was not a message of "tolerance" even at the beginning, so there was no issue of Muhammad having "no choice but to be "tolerant" of others." It's a declaration of separateness, a sort of theological washing of hands. "You can follow whatever false gods you want," it's saying, "but I'm going to follow Allah, and you're going to be on your own when we're both held accountable before God."

As Maududi wrote on his tafsir:



Yusuf Ali says of these verses:



Ibn Kathir calls this sura "the Declaration of Innocence from Shirk [idolatry]".




Part of the problem is that the word translated as "verse", ayah or آية , can also mean commandment, law, or divine message in general. The only way to tell is from context.

Take the first of the verses quoted above, for instance, 2:106. The translation as given (and promoted by the video) certainly implies that specific individual verses of the Qur'an can be replaced by later verses. But if you read that whole chunk of the second sura, you'll see that it's Muhammad addressing other "People of the Book", about their doubts regarding this new message from God (because they'd already received messages from God in the form of the Torah and the Bible).



Note how this translation (Yusuf Ali's) has "revelations" instead of "verses" in 2:106. This, and every instance where it mentions "signs" and "messages" are all the same word in the Arabic original, ayah or ayat (plural).

In other words, 2:106 isn't talking about later verses of the Qur'an replacing earlier verses, but the later revelation of the Qur'an itself replacing the earlier revelations given to Jews and Christians.

This has led scholars like Asad to reject the concept of naskh completely, saying of 2:106

thankyou for your scholarship, ANTPogo.:)
 
Most members of the Charles Manson family were not murders and they did not "interpret" Manson's commands to kill innocent people "literally".

I guess people who were against them in California were "paranoid".

ANTPogo, what is your interpretation of "Jihad"?
 
Last edited:
Most members of the Charles Manson family were not murders and they did not "interpret" Manson's commands to kill innocent people "literally".

I guess people who were against them in California were "paranoid".

That's a bad analogy. A better analogy to your position would be thinking people are justified in treating all Beatles fans as potential mass murderers because of how the Manson family interpreted their music.

ANTPogo, what is your interpretation of "Jihad"?

My interpretation is irrelevant, since I'm not a fuqaha. I'm not even Muslim.

If you want to know how both the word and the concept of "jihad" is interpreted, you can start by reading the works of people who are both those things. I helpfully quoted a variety of interpretations across the spectrum from moderate to crazy in the other thread.
 
Last edited:
That's a bad analogy. A better analogy to your position would be thinking people are justified in treating all Beatles fans as potential mass murderers because of how the Manson family interpreted their music.

That is a different analogy. Better? You are looking at a different concept and thus redirecting my point to brush it aside because you don't what to address it. I think the idea that since most of the Manson family were not killers we should not think of them entirely as such is disturbing and unsettling and means something you do not want to address.

Let me rephrase the question.

When Mohammed talked about Jihad, do you think he was he talking about "inner struggle"?
 
Last edited:
I do not think interprtation is as flexable in Islam as it is in other religions.

It's pretty flexible. Look at the varieties of clothing worn in predominately Muslim countries. Everything from mandatory covering head to foot, to blue jeans and sneakers. Islam is interpreted differently, practiced differently and so on. It varies from person to person, mosque to mosque, nation to nation. Very much like another desert religion since adopted by a billion people all over the planet.

There's three mosques in this town, each one thinks the others are heretics.
 
It's pretty flexible. Look at the varieties of clothing worn in predominately Muslim countries. Everything from mandatory covering head to foot, to blue jeans and sneakers. Islam is interpreted differently, practiced differently and so on. It varies from person to person, mosque to mosque, nation to nation. Very much like another desert religion since adopted by a billion people all over the planet.

There's three mosques in this town, each one thinks the others are heretics.

And that's the future of Islam in the West. They have no popes, no central authority. Without government-enforced orthodoxy they're going to splinter up like Protestants, when you have multiple mosques in the same town, Muslims will shop them for the one whose teachings they like best, just like Christians.
 
OK, Antipogo, lets go with your Beatles analogy.

Consider The White Album interpretation and the Quran's interpretation. You say there are two ways to interpret them. Peaceful and Wack-Job Violent. How would you find out which one is accurate and which one is not.

Easy.

Fortunately when the Manson Family were around so were the Beatles. You could ask them. I am sure if you asked Paul and John if Charlie was right in his interpretation they would say "no" and call the cops.

After 9-11 there were lot of talk about the intrepretaion of the word "Jihad". There was the peaceful one and there was the wack-job violent one. The press and everyone could not accept that the wack-job violent one was more accurate. Mohammed must have ment the more peaceful interpretation.

It did not matter what was correct. It mattered what was politically correct.

But if someone wants to be a "true muslim" what is the more "accurate" interpretaion, not the one "everyone wants to believe"?

What do you think the most accurate interprtation of "Jihad" is by what Mohammed meant, AntPogo? Please do not avoid this question.
 
OK, Antipogo, lets go with your Beatles analogy.

Consider The White Album interpretation and the Quran's interpretation. You say there are two ways to interpret them. Peaceful and Wack-Job Violent. How would you find out which one is accurate and which one is not.

Easy.

Fortunately when the Manson Family were around so were the Beatles. You could ask them. I am sure if you asked Paul and John if Charlie was right in his interpretation they would say "no" and call the cops.

After 9-11 there were lot of talk about the intrepretaion of the word "Jihad". There was the peaceful one and there was the wack-job violent one. The press and everyone could not accept that the wack-job violent one was more accurate. Mohammed must have ment the more peaceful interpretation.

It did not matter what was correct. It mattered what was politically correct.

But if someone wants to be a "true muslim" what is the more "accurate" interpretaion, not the one "everyone wants to believe"?

What do you think the most accurate interprtation of "Jihad" is by what Mohammed meant, AntPogo? Please do not avoid this question.

when the violent interpertations is the correct one, why does the majority of Muslims not interpret it that way or even act on it and start this violent jihad?
 
I already told you, Bill. My interpretation doesn't matter. Many, many Muslims, both moderate and not so moderate, have written about their interpretations. I've already given you some of them. Read them, then you tell me who has it "right" - people like Rauf and Asad, or people like Khomeini and Maududi.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom