Reference in the koran, please?

[JAR]

We can just as easily put the argument forward for Christianity or Judaism. Or point out the absurdities of those religions too.

I agree. In fact, the Old Testament has a story about this man named Samson. He causes a building to collapse, thus killing himself and a large number of heathens.

Does this remind anyone of the World Trade Center incident?

A portion of Christians and Jews might one day interpret this story as a justification for suicide bombings against infidels.

 

[hisham]

The same way xians and jews do, they just ignore or rationalise away the parts that they don't agree with.

For Jews the situation is more complicated and they have many sources because Judaism was created by the Persians.

 

[DrBenway]

Couldn't one just as well ask:

How do the Christians reconcile the contradiction between these ideas:

1. The Bible is the literal word of God
2. The Bible teaches that Christians ought to either subjugate non-believers or kill them.
3. Christians ought not subjugate or kill non-believers

Obviously, we (most of us) know that in general, Christians don't believe or follow everything written in the Bible. Just as most muslims are not following everything written in the Quran.

Your statement above, "The Bible teaches that Christians ought to either subjugate non-believers or kill them," simply is not true.

 

[DrBenway]

The same way xians and jews do, they just ignore or rationalise away the parts that they don't agree with.

I don't think most religious people would find your comment flattering.

Can you ask your Muslim friend how he reconciles the contradiction above, or would that be awkward?

 

[aerocontrols]

Your statement above, "The Bible teaches that Christians ought to either subjugate non-believers or kill them," simply is not true.

I would also be interested in seeing the passages Bjorn is talking about.

MattJ

 

[aerocontrols]

For Jews the situation is more complicated and they have many sources because Judaism was created by the Persians.

Does anyone else think this claim deserves its own thread?

 

[DrBenway]

Usually, even though it's not specifically mentioned, they proclaim that all war and fighting should be in self defense. Therefore, the commandment to kill is to kill people who have already made the commitment to kill you.

I've heard this explanation also. I've heard it used by people who condemn the suicide bombers, but I've also heard it used by people who support the suicide bombers. Osama bin Laden claims to be fighting a defensive jihad against American Imperialism.

Thus, if I'm hoping to sort out the mellow Muslims from the rest, the "kill the infidel, but only in self-defense," doesn't help me much.

It's my feeling that all real religious tolerance and freedom rests upon a rejection of any literal reading of holy scripture. Once the fact of human interpretation and re-interpretation is accepted, no political or relgious leader can claim to be absolutely correct. Where there's room for discussion and debate, there's freedom.

The Sufis are not literalists. I'm still looking for the non-literalists among the Sunnis. Wherever they are, may their numbers grow.

 

[plindboe]

YUSUFALI: Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.

PICKTHAL: Fight against such of those who have been given the Scripture as believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, and forbid not that which Allah hath forbidden by His messenger, and follow not the Religion of Truth, until they pay the tribute readily, being brought low.

SHAKIR: Fight those who do not believe in Allah, nor in the latter day, nor do they prohibit what Allah and His Messenger 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

It's just a matter of how you interpret the word "fight". You can fight with words or with swords. So this might as well be verses that ask muslims to argue for their religion.

002.191
YUSUFALI: And slay them wherever ye catch them, and turn them out from where they have Turned you out; for tumult and oppression are worse than slaughter; but fight them not at the Sacred Mosque, unless they (first) fight you there; but if they fight you, slay them. Such is the reward of those who suppress faith.

PICKTHAL: And slay them wherever ye find them, and drive them out of the places whence they drove you out, for persecution is worse than slaughter. And fight not with them at the Inviolable Place of Worship until they first attack you there, but if they attack you (there) then slay them. Such is the reward of disbelievers.

SHAKIR: And kill them wherever you find them, and drive them out from whence they drove you out, and persecution is severer than slaughter, and do not fight with them at the Sacred Mosque until they fight with you in it, but if they do fight you, then slay them; such is the recompense of the unbelievers.

This verse is about people who have invaded your country and oppress/persecute your people.

008.065
YUSUFALI: O Prophet! 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.

PICKTHAL: O Prophet! Exhort the believers to fight. If there be of you twenty steadfast they shall overcome two hundred, and if there be of you a hundred (steadfast) they shall overcome a thousand of those who disbelieve, because they (the disbelievers) are a folk without intelligence.

SHAKIR: O Prophet! urge the believers to war; if there are twenty patient ones of you they shall overcome two hundred, and if there are a hundred of you they shall overcome a thousand of those who disbelieve, because they are a people who do not understand.

047.004
YUSUFALI: Therefore, when ye meet the Unbelievers (in fight), smite at their necks; At length, when ye have thoroughly subdued them, bind a bond firmly (on them): thereafter (is the time for) either generosity or ransom: Until the war lays down its burdens. Thus (are ye commanded): but if it had been Allah'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 Allah,- He will never let their deeds be lost.

PICKTHAL: Now when ye meet in battle those who disbelieve, then it is smiting of the necks until, when ye have routed them, then making fast of bonds; and afterward either grace or ransom till the war lay down its burdens. That (is the ordinance). And if Allah willed He could have punished them (without you) but (thus it is ordained) that He may try some of you by means of others. And those who are slain in the way of Allah, He rendereth not their actions vain.

SHAKIR: So when you meet in battle those who disbelieve, then smite the necks until when you have overcome them, then make (them) prisoners, and afterwards either set them free as a favor or let them ransom (themselves) until the war terminates. That (shall be so); and if Allah had pleased He would certainly have exacted what is due from them, but that He may try some of you by means of others; and (as for) those who are slain in the way of Allah, He will by no means allow their deeds to perish.

It seems that these verses are also about war, like the 002.191 verse, and it seems to me that the word "unbelievers" is used to describe the enemy. So the verses doesn't tell believers to kill anyone who doesn't believe, but instead tell believers to kill the enemy in the event of war.

Of course this is dangerous because it's open to interpretation. Terrorists interpret it to kill anyone who is on the same side of the enemy(occupiers of Palestine), while more moderate muslims interpret it only as self defense.

Peter

 

[DrBenway]

It's just a matter of how you interpret the word "fight". You can fight with words or with swords. So this might as well be verses that ask muslims to argue for their religion.

From context, the fight refers to force of arms. Note this:

"until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued."

The "Jizya" is a special tax required of non-Muslims living under Muslim rule.

Islam is both a religion and a political ideology, which includes a detailed system of law.

 

[aerocontrols]

It's just a matter of how you interpret the word "fight". You can fight with words or with swords. So this might as well be verses that ask muslims to argue for their religion.

Please explain how that verse can possibly be interpreted as 'fighting with words'. No reasonable thinking person could come to that conclusion. All three translations give this:

Fight them until they pay the tax and are subdued

So how will that work based on your (somewhat generous) interpretation?

Unbeliever: I do not believe in/follow Allah according to your tradition.

Muslim: Let us discuss it, then.

(words follow)

Unbeliever: You have failed to convince me, and I remain an atheist/Christian/Hindu/Jew/whatever. However, since your argument was so skillful, I will acknowledge your superiority, feel myself subued/subjugated, and agree to pay a special tax.

Is this your reasoning? That this is what the Koran is suggesting in this passage? If I have mischaracterized what you are suggesting, please indicate how you believe one might convince me with words to acknowledge the superiority of Islam and pay a tax yet remain an unbeliever.

MattJ

 

[specious_reasons]

I've heard this explanation also. I've heard it used by people who condemn the suicide bombers, but I've also heard it used by people who support the suicide bombers. Osama bin Laden claims to be fighting a defensive jihad against American Imperialism.

Thus, if I'm hoping to sort out the mellow Muslims from the rest, the "kill the infidel, but only in self-defense," doesn't help me much.

It's my feeling that all real religious tolerance and freedom rests upon a rejection of any literal reading of holy scripture. Once the fact of human interpretation and re-interpretation is accepted, no political or relgious leader can claim to be absolutely correct. Where there's room for discussion and debate, there's freedom.

The Sufis are not literalists. I'm still looking for the non-literalists among the Sunnis. Wherever they are, may their numbers grow.

I think the distinguishing point would be when my (moderate) Muslim friends say that killing one person is killing all of humanity. The other (paraphrased) thing I've heard them say is, "everything in moderation." Is suicide bombing a reasonable approach to defeating Western Imperialism?

As to some of the quotes Baker produced, I have read a few of those in context. I got the impression that 002.191 was someting of the concept, "If you have to fight, kick their a**." That, in itself doesn't bother me. It's unfortunate that the Koran, as with most religious texts, needs to be iterpreted to avoid it causing harm.

 

[plindboe]

Good points DrBenway & aerocontrols, I agree with you and will withdraw that possible interpretation.

I tried searching on google for the word "Jizya", and it seems though that this tax has only existed few times during history. Once Mohammed imposed the tax, and a couple of times hundreds of years ago it was imposed on hindus in India.

Peter

 

[Bjorn]

Your statement above, "The Bible teaches that Christians ought to either subjugate non-believers or kill them," simply is not true.

Deuteronomy (and other similar quotes):

13:6
If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which is as thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which thou hast not known, thou, nor thy fathers;

13:7
Namely, of the gods of the people which are round about you, nigh unto thee, or far off from thee, from the one end of the earth even unto the other end of the earth;

13:8
Thou shalt not consent unto him, nor hearken unto him; neither shall thine eye pity him, neither shalt thou spare, neither shalt thou conceal him:

13:9
But thou shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people.

Not true?

 

[aerocontrols]

Good points DrBenway & aerocontrols, I agree with you and will withdraw that possible interpretation.

I tried searching on google for the word "Jizya", and it seems though that this tax has only existed few times during history. Once Mohammed imposed the tax, and a couple of times hundreds of years ago it was imposed on hindus in India.

Peter

It's my understanding that the Taliban made 'nonbelievers' (even Shia) pay it.

 

[aerocontrols]

Deuteronomy (and other similar quotes):

Not true?

Is there a difference between someone who encourages apostasy and an unbeliever? It would seem so to me. The passage is very specific about who should be killed, and it doesn't say atheists like me who mind our own business.

Perhaps your other examples are more damning. I recall reading various verses that came pretty close to what you claim, but I don't recall something as clear as can be found in the Koran.

MattJ

 

[DrBenway]

Deuteronomy (and other similar quotes):

Not true?

Your quote stands in stark contradiction to the teachings of Jesus, as well as the example of his life. Christians have reconciled this contradiction, in a manner which reassures me that I don't need to fear for my life, if I somehow happen to entice a Christian into idolatry.

The primary resolution of this contradiction: the notion that the Bible stories are not to be taken as literal directions from the mouth of God. Most mainstream Christian sects are not Bible literalists.

Another resolution, embraced by even the Christian fundamentalists: Christians are no longer "under the Law (i.e., the Old Testament), but are now "under Grace." Salvation requires only faith in Jesus' life and work; the new law, replacing the Old Testament laws, is simply to love God and one's fellow man. No killing of infidels required.

 

[DrBenway]

Is there a difference between someone who encourages apostasy and an unbeliever? It would seem so to me.

I think any religion which advocates killing non-belivers, whether those non-believers are talkative or not, ought to be condemned.

 

[aerocontrols]

I think any religion which advocates killing non-belivers, whether those non-believers are talkative or not, ought to be condemned.

Yes.

I have more concern, however, for religions that advocate killing them because they are unbelievers.

 

[DrBenway]

I tried searching on google for the word "Jizya", and it seems though that this tax has only existed few times during history. Once Mohammed imposed the tax, and a couple of times hundreds of years ago it was imposed on hindus in India.

Muslim countries, like non-Muslim countries, tax all persons under their jurisdiction. In the case of Muslim citizens, the tax may be called "zakah," while for non-Muslims it may be thought of as "jizya."

The point of the verse originally quoted, as I take it, is that the non-believers ought to be fought until they are made subject to Muslim rule.

 

[DrBenway]

I have more concern, however, for religions that advocate killing them because they are unbelievers.

Oh. Maybe because I'm a talkative person, I view the distiction between unbelievers who talk about their views to believers, verses unbelievers who mind their own beeswax, as moot.