Islam

[Leonid]

Adonis "What did you quote?"-Repentance., chapter 9. Qur’an.

Adonis "Do you even have an understanding of the verses that you copied and pasted?”-I do, maybe too well. After all this is all about myself. I'm a Jew, infidel and atheist. You cannot trust me, make treaties with me, and actually not even allowed to talk with me since a priori I'm a liar." Allah beareth witness that they verily are liars. (9:107)

"Allah and Muhammad are not bound by treaties made with idolaters"(9.1.

You should kill me if you can find me. ""Slay the idolaters wherever you find them." (9.5)

And here is the source of very popular believe that Jews are notorious exploiters and blood-suckers "9:34 O ye who believe! Lo! many of the (Jewish) rabbis and the (Christian) monks devour the wealth of mankind wantonly and debar (men) from the way of Allah. They who hoard up gold and silver and spend it not in the way of Allah, unto them give tidings (O Muhammad) of a painful doom, (9:34) "Give tidings (O Muhammad) of a painful doom" to the rich and greedy Christian monks and Jewish rabbis." (See also Karl Marx who repeats these verses almost verbatim).

In the view of all these teachings I would like to ask you few questions.

1. How Israelis and Arabs can negotiate, let alone sign any treaty when according to 9.1; 9.107; such a treaty doesn't worth its paper? How Arabs ever could live in peace together or even close to Jews in their proposed Palestinian state when they ordered to "fight those of the disbelievers who are near to you," (9.123)? After all they are very close, just stone throw from Israel.

2. How Muslims around the Globe can live and function among infidels when they not allowed to deal with them in any meaningful way? How Muslim can make any agreement (business or otherwise) with infidel, if he knows that they are all liars? How infidel can make such an agreement if he knows that Muslim has no obligations to keep it? In the view of 9.123 how infidels could allow to Muslims even to live close to them if they want to avoid war? In other words how Muslims who follow Qur'an to the letter could peacefully co-exist with infidels? Since I know for a fact that vast majority of Muslims do live in peace with their non-Muslim neighbors, and get involved with them in various contractual agreements, I conclude that they do it in spite of Qur'an's teaching, as it presented in Repentance. They are "light" Muslims. If you have different explanation, I'd be glad to learn it.

Edited March 15, 2010 by Leonid

[Libertarian Muslim]

Adonis "Do you even have an understanding of the verses that you copied and pasted?”-I do, maybe too well. After all this is all about myself. I'm a Jew, infidel and atheist. You cannot trust me, make treaties with me, and actually not even allowed to talk with me since a priori I'm a liar." Allah beareth witness that they verily are liars. (9:107)

No, you clearly don't know what they mean and the situation that they were revealed.. Your response shows that very clearly.. You're so emotional.. So irrational..

You should kill me if you can find me. ""Slay the idolaters wherever you find them." (9.5)

If that were really the meaning of the verse then upon conquering much of the Pagan tribes we'd have indeed massacred them, all of them.. But we didn't..

And here is the source of very popular believe that Jews are notorious exploiters and blood-suckers "9:34 O ye who believe! Lo! many of the (Jewish) rabbis and the (Christian) monks devour the wealth of mankind wantonly and debar (men) from the way of Allah. They who hoard up gold and silver and spend it not in the way of Allah, unto them give tidings (O Muhammad) of a painful doom, (9:34) "Give tidings (O Muhammad) of a painful doom" to the rich and greedy Christian monks and Jewish rabbis." (See also Karl Marx who repeats these verses almost verbatim).

I'm sorry but if you say that many of the Rabbis and Monks at the time were not cheating religious adherents from their wealth to hoard it for themselves then most certainly you'd be a liar. It historically has been a huge problem.. It doesn't state that Jews are notorious exploiters and bloodsuckers at all, those are your words.. It is referring to the many of the clergymen.. That's really quite clear from the verse.. Stop making it into something it clearly isn't..

In the view of all these teachings I would like to ask you few questions.

1. How Israelis and Arabs can negotiate, let alone sign any treaty when according to 9.1; 9.107; such a treaty doesn't worth its paper? How Arabs ever could live in peace together or even close to Jews in their proposed Palestinian state when they ordered to "fight those of the disbelievers who are near to you," (9.123)? After all they are very close, just stone throw from Israel.

When you try and apply verses that were made then for a particular situation into today's world and different situations then of course you're going to think that, but those verses were revealed at a time that the Muslims had treaties with Jewish and Pagan tribes in question and both groups kept breaking the treaties, thus the verse was revealed for Muhammad to honor the treaties as much as possible to their end date and not to extend the treaty beyond the date that was agreed upon and to instead go to war and fight to subdue the groups that were attacking the Muslims..

If it were the case that these verses were applicable for eternity then upon conquering Jerusalem we would have massacred all of the Jews and Christians where we found them, but instead we cleaned the Temple Mount which the Romans had desecrated with all of their rubbish and invited the Jews to come back and worship and live freely in the land.. We'd also have massacred the Jews when they fled to the Muslim lands fearing Christian persecution.. If it was truly our intention and wish we'd have wiped the Jews out long ago whilst Europe was still trying to do so.. We could have done so quite easily.. But we didn't.. Instead we protected them from the Christians.. Why? Because that is our duty to God.. To protect the rights of innocent people from harm..

2. How Muslims around the Globe can live and function among infidels when they not allowed to deal with them in any meaningful way? How Muslim can make any agreement (business or otherwise) with infidel, if he knows that they are all liars? How infidel can make such an agreement if he knows that Muslim has no obligations to keep it? In the view of 9.123 how infidels could allow to Muslims even to live close to them if they want to avoid war? In other words how Muslims who follow Qur'an to the letter could peacefully co-exist with infidels? Since I know for a fact that vast majority of Muslims do live in peace with their non-Muslim neighbors, and get involved with them in various contractual agreements, I conclude that they do it in spite of Qur'an's teaching, as it presented in Repentance. They are "light" Muslims. If you have different explanation, I'd be glad to learn it.

It's interesting.. When Muhammad pbuh left Mecca to go to Medina, he was in possession of much of the wealth and belongings of the Pagans who trusted him with their wealth and goods even though they hated his beliefs.. Upon leaving he left Ali, his cousin to give all the property and wealth back to the owners of that, despite the horrible oppression the Muslims faced from these people..

You, like many others seem to associate the word Kafir with the word Infidel.. Do you even understand the meaning of the word Kafir? Do you really think it just means infidel? If not, then what does it mean?

I doubt there's even one Kafir alive today..

[Mike11]

Its hard for me to understand Islam. In Protestant Christianity everything comes down to interpretations of the Bible which are set in stone forever. The Koran however is a historic document that you need to understand the context of. I read the Koran a few years ago and to be honest I was blown away by by the first book, which seemed racist and violent to the core. It was only later that I learned about the relationship with some Jewish tribes in Medina which is what that section of the Koran was addressing and when Muhammad defeated these Jewish enemies his punishment, for the time, was extremely civilized. This is part of what Adonis was saying in terms of denouncing the Jewish and Christian clergy, you need to know the historic context.

Adonis,

If you wouldn't mind educating us further here, what does "Kafir" mean? My recollection is similar to Leonid, it seems to me Islam does have a built in distrust of non-Muslims. It respects People of the Book yes but what about Atheists, Pagans etc? According to the Wiki a Kafir can be defined as someone who is a physical enemy of Muslims, so anyone who lives peacefully with or beside Muslims should be treated with kindness and justice (which seems perfectly alright to me). But it also seems to apply more broadly to all those who reject Allah in willful disbelief (islamonline seems to confirm this) which seems to justify attacks and persecutions against those who are not People of the Book.

I'm not trying to be a prick but I don't know much about Islam, could you clarify this for us?

Edited March 15, 2010 by Joel Mac Donald

[Libertarian Muslim]

Its hard for me to understand Islam. In Protestant Christianity everything comes down to interpretations of the Bible which are set in stone forever. The Koran however is a historic document that you need to understand the context of. I read the Koran a few years ago and to be honest I was blown away by by the first book, which seemed racist and violent to the core. It was only later that I learned about the relationship with some Jewish tribes in Medina which is what that section of the Koran was addressing and when Muhammad defeated these Jewish enemies his punishment, for the time, was extremely civilized. This is part of what Adonis was saying in terms of denouncing the Jewish and Christian clergy, you need to know the historic context.

Hi Joel,

I'm not quite sure what you mean by the first book this is one of the shortest chapters of the Qur'an, Surah Fatihah. What racist things did you find that was racist and hardcore violence?

Adonis,

If you wouldn't mind educating us further here, what does "Kafir" mean? My recollection is similar to Leonid, it seems to me Islam does have a built in distrust of non-Muslims. It respects People of the Book yes but what about Atheists, Pagans etc? According to the Wiki a Kafir can be defined as someone who is a physical enemy of Muslims, so anyone who lives peacefully with or beside Muslims should be treated with kindness and justice (which seems perfectly alright to me). But it also seems to apply more broadly to all those who reject Allah in willful disbelief (islamonline seems to confirm this) which seems to justify attacks and persecutions against those who are not People of the Book.

I'm not trying to be a prick but I don't know much about Islam, could you clarify this for us?

I don't mind at all, I think you ask questions with a sincere wish to understand and I'm happy to oblige..

A Kafir is not just someone who doesn't believe in Islam or God because they don't know or it hasn't been proven to them..

Rather, a Kafir is someone who knows very well that Islam is the truth and still refuses to accept it.. Not only does it mean that they refuse to accept it for themselves, but they try to say to others that it's not true and try to conceal that truth from others and try and persecute those who are preaching it including by using violence..

That is the real meaning of Kafir, we're talking about one who knowingly conceals truth to prevent people from finding God even though they know it is the truth...

That is a terrible crime to commit..

Edited March 15, 2010 by Adonis Vlahos

[anonrobt]

Its hard for me to understand Islam. In Protestant Christianity everything comes down to interpretations of the Bible which are set in stone forever. The Koran however is a historic document that you need to understand the context of. I read the Koran a few years ago and to be honest I was blown away by by the first book, which seemed racist and violent to the core. It was only later that I learned about the relationship with some Jewish tribes in Medina which is what that section of the Koran was addressing and when Muhammad defeated these Jewish enemies his punishment, for the time, was extremely civilized. This is part of what Adonis was saying in terms of denouncing the Jewish and Christian clergy, you need to know the historic context.

Hi Joel,

I'm not quite sure what you mean by the first book this is one of the shortest chapters of the Qur'an, Surah Fatihah. What racist things did you find that was racist and hardcore violence?

Adonis,

If you wouldn't mind educating us further here, what does "Kafir" mean? My recollection is similar to Leonid, it seems to me Islam does have a built in distrust of non-Muslims. It respects People of the Book yes but what about Atheists, Pagans etc? According to the Wiki a Kafir can be defined as someone who is a physical enemy of Muslims, so anyone who lives peacefully with or beside Muslims should be treated with kindness and justice (which seems perfectly alright to me). But it also seems to apply more broadly to all those who reject Allah in willful disbelief (islamonline seems to confirm this) which seems to justify attacks and persecutions against those who are not People of the Book.

I'm not trying to be a prick but I don't know much about Islam, could you clarify this for us?

I don't mind at all, I think you ask questions with a sincere wish to understand and I'm happy to oblige..

A Kafir is not just someone who doesn't believe in Islam or God because they don't know or it hasn't been proven to them..

Rather, a Kafir is someone who knows very well that Islam is the truth and still refuses to accept it.. Not only does it mean that they refuse to accept it for themselves, but they try to say to others that it's not true and try to conceal that truth from others and try and persecute those who are preaching it including by using violence..

That is the real meaning of Kafir, we're talking about one who knowingly conceals truth to prevent people from finding God even though they know it is the truth...

That is a terrible crime to commit..

Then what is someone who knows very well that Islam is a lie, that there is indeed no god, and that all religions are, however gloriously ritualized, just primitivisms that do not address the reality of what it is to be human and to flourish as humans, that there is no 'truth' being concealed but an exposure of this lie?

Edited March 15, 2010 by anonrobt

[Robert Campbell]

The majority of Muslims don't believe that forcing underage girls into marriage is a divinely ordained institution, in fact it goes against Islamic law as a whole and children can't accept contracts and marriage is a contract between two people. The only places that I know that this occurs are in Yemen, Kurdistan and Afghanistan.. These are rare in comparison to the population of Muslims around the world. In fact I'd dare say that this type of perversion occurs in the West in far greater numbers than it does in the Middle East.

Adonis,

I didn't mean to imply that underage girls are forced into marriage throughout the Muslim world. For instance, Sa'udi Arabia has many social pathologies (and you and I would probably agree about several of them) but child brides don't rank high among these.

Still, underage girls are forced to marry in other countries besides Yemen, Kurdistan, and Afghanistan (though Afghanistan appears to be worst in the world, in terms of overall prevalence). A quick check of Internet material on child brides refers to the rural parts of three other predominantly Muslim countries with large populations: Egypt, Pakistan, and Bangladesh. In two other large countries, India (where forcing underage girls into marriage is a bad old Hindu tradition), and Ethiopia (where Christianity, Islam, and several other religions are practiced), child brides aren't predominantly Muslim.

As for the prevalence of this "perversion" in the West, if you are going to issue such indictments, you need to back them with data. In the United States, child brides are found in places like Hilldale, Utah. They are a source of concern where Mormons too reactionary to obey a church ruling from 1890 can be found, but child marriage won't make the top 10 or even the top 20 on the social problems list in any other part of the country. So where are the child brides? Are they in Ireland? Greece? Finland? Peru? Australia? Brazil? Nicaragua? Jamaica? Slovakia?

Robert Campbell

[Robert Campbell]

No, not all Muslims do believe as I do [about the interpretation of Qur'an 9:5 and 9:29], but the overwhelming majority believe as I do.. If that were not the case, we'd have overwhelmed your nations by now..

Adonis,

I am sure that many Muslims believe as you do, but ... the overwhelming majority?

Your comment about "overwhelming your nations" may have been meant in jest. But it isn't particularly funny.

Let's put things in the geopolitical perspective familiar to Hobbes or Machiavelli or Kissinger.

For two or three centuries there just haven't been Muslim military powers capable of executing a program of conquest against non-Muslim powers. Not since the Ottoman army was turned away from the gates of Vienna in 1683. Certainly not since Napoleon's invasion and short-term occupation of Egypt in 1798.

There are different ways people might adjust to such political realities. They could forgo aggressive pursuits, as some clearly have done.

But they might also continue to believe themselves under an obligation to wage war against non-Muslims, while recognizing that the prospects of success are so poor that they don't dare try it. This, in turn, could breed guilt and resentment about not fighting and dominating, instead of an inward turn away from fighting and dominating.

And, then, they see that Pakistan has nukes, and Iran is hell-bent on getting them, and the Sa'udi royal house is pulling in all kinds of revenue from non-Muslims and investing it in spreading salafism far and wide ... and fighting and dominating start looking like realistic prospects again.

Robert Campbell

[dan2100]

King David and many others from ancient times revered by Jews carried out atrocities when fighting. So what?

Military geniuses?

(I really hate double standards.)

Michael

King David is not the only one. The Old Testament recounts many genocides. (No doubt, some of them are made up or exaggerated.) For instances, read Joshua 10 and Judges 1.

[dan2100]

I'm not sure what the "Youngest Wife" thing has to do with this -- unless you're using that as a measure of violence against women. Your test, though, might have come out very different had you asked:

Murders committed by people professing the religion of: Jesus_______ Buddha________Mohammed________

Don't you agree?

(If my memory's correct, too, we don't have good records on any of the three -- least of all on Buddha and almost as little on Jesus. So, we don't know even if they existed or what their characters and actions were like if they did. We know a bit more about Mohammed, though I'd be careful because most (or all?) of the biography of him comes from believers and was only written down, if my memory's correct, years after his death. Of course, the expectation here would be that the biography would be made more appealing from the stand post of whoever's doing the writing of it. This works much better, though, in the favor of making Buddha and Jesus look more peaceful and honorable than they might have been -- were they real people. (The surprising thing would be that anything questionable survives at all.))

Lot's of stuff in there, but I don't think we disagree on much. Sure, it's a good point that lots of murders have been committed in the name of the "prophets".

Historic accuracy of Jesus/Buddha aside, it's not really central to my point. My point is what are the characteristics of the central figures (accurate or not - doesn't matter) according to doctrine that the believers choose to believe and revere. In this case it doesn't matter if it's true, they choose to worship them, that's what's important.

One of them is described as a violent murderous pedophile warlord who killed hundreds (600-900) men (prisoners IIRC) himself. One of them married a 9 year old girl (or was she 6?). This is a "holy" man? A peaceful man? A deity worthy of worship?

For the record, I don't think any of them are worthy of worship. But I get your point, but this is partly from a selective reading of the Christian Bible. Surely, as far as we know, Jesus didn't going on a killing spree, but at least some of his rhetoric is militaristic -- especially the "sword" verse in Matthew 10:34: "Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword." And the other sword passage in Luke 22:36: "Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one." (This might make it more believable that there actually was a Jesus person -- not literally the Son of God or having supernatural powers, but an anti-Roman sectarian Jewish cult leader or agitator. This might make the crucifixion story more believable too: the Romans would eagerly eliminate any serious threat to their rule in Palestine, so they promptly executed Jesus. (It would make it unlikely, though, the Romans would allow Jewish leaders to have any say in this. A clear threat to Roman rule would not need any local approval to deal with -- at least, in my opinion, not in Palestine at that time.))

The figures mentioned in the Old Testament (Hebrew Bible) are even more clearly militaristic -- such as Joshua and King David. (And some of this might be more a reflection of how these religions evolved. Judaism likely grew out of polytheistic religions in Israel at that time -- via, first, mono idolatry and then into monotheism. Probably during this time, though the Ancient Israelis were stuck between rival empires, they basically were a separate people and, for long periods of time, not under direct foreign rule. Chances are, much of the Hebrew Bible was written in the aftermath of wars with foreign powers, civil wars, and the like -- where the writers clearly were on the winning side. Much of the New Testament, though, was composed and written down by people -- regardless of how much was factual -- who were in Roman occupied lands (Palestine, Asia Minor, etc.) and there was almost no question that the Romans had no rivals to their power in these lands (they successfully put down the three major revolts). Early Christians, wanting to differentiate themsevles from the Jews and likely being perceptive of the near impossibility of a military challenge to Rome would, don't you think, tone down any direct militaristic rhetoric? They might even, say, play down anything military Jesus or his clique participated in.)

For Buddha, I would actually count him as peaceful, but does this matter? It's not so much what the founders of these religions do that matters for us, but how their followers interpret this. Some followers might take a more militaristic, intolerant interpretion on their founders' messages; others might not. This is why we have people like Philo -- who seemed to want to build bridges with the Romans so that Jews would be tolerated. Other the other hand, looking at Buddhism, which seems a peaceful, tolerant religion par excellence, one need merely look at Zen Buddhism in Japan to see how militaristic it can become. See Zen at War by Brian Daizen Victoria for how Zen Buddhism not only didn't try to curb militarism, intolerance, and jingoism, but was at their forefront, leading the charge, in Japan.

[bmacwilliam]

For the record, I don't think any of them are worthy of worship. But I get your point, but this is partly from a selective reading of the Christian Bible. Surely, as far as we know, Jesus didn't going on a killing spree, but at least some of his rhetoric is militaristic -- especially the "sword" verse in Matthew 10:34: "Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword." And the other sword passage in Luke 22:36: "Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one." (This might make it more believable that there actually was a Jesus person -- not literally the Son of God or having supernatural powers, but an anti-Roman sectarian Jewish cult leader or agitator. This might make the crucifixion story more believable too: the Romans would eagerly eliminate any serious threat to their rule in Palestine, so they promptly executed Jesus. (It would make it unlikely, though, the Romans would allow Jewish leaders to have any say in this. A clear threat to Roman rule would not need any local approval to deal with -- at least, in my opinion, not in Palestine at that time.))

The figures mentioned in the Old Testament (Hebrew Bible) are even more clearly militaristic -- such as Joshua and King David. (And some of this might be more a reflection of how these religions evolved. Judaism likely grew out of polytheistic religions in Israel at that time -- via, first, mono idolatry and then into monotheism. Probably during this time, though the Ancient Israelis were stuck between rival empires, they basically were a separate people and, for long periods of time, not under direct foreign rule. Chances are, much of the Hebrew Bible was written in the aftermath of wars with foreign powers, civil wars, and the like -- where the writers clearly were on the winning side. Much of the New Testament, though, was composed and written down by people -- regardless of how much was factual -- who were in Roman occupied lands (Palestine, Asia Minor, etc.) and there was almost no question that the Romans had no rivals to their power in these lands (they successfully put down the three major revolts). Early Christians, wanting to differentiate themsevles from the Jews and likely being perceptive of the near impossibility of a military challenge to Rome would, don't you think, tone down any direct militaristic rhetoric? They might even, say, play down anything military Jesus or his clique participated in.)

For Buddha, I would actually count him as peaceful, but does this matter? It's not so much what the founders of these religions do that matters for us, but how their followers interpret this. Some followers might take a more militaristic, intolerant interpretion on their founders' messages; others might not. This is why we have people like Philo -- who seemed to want to build bridges with the Romans so that Jews would be tolerated. Other the other hand, looking at Buddhism, which seems a peaceful, tolerant religion par excellence, one need merely look at Zen Buddhism in Japan to see how militaristic it can become. See Zen at War by Brian Daizen Victoria for how Zen Buddhism not only didn't try to curb militarism, intolerance, and jingoism, but was at their forefront, leading the charge, in Japan.

Wandering now, old testament and other points are not central to what I'm saying. I'm talking about the central figures and how they are depicted in doctrine. One of them is a total scumbag, and while all should very well be rejected by a rational mind, the question of what cultural/legal/politcal effects might result from worshiping a scumbag is a relevant question. Maybe it matters very little in the big picture - quite possible. But it's like the story of John Smith and the mormons. It's not violent - just outragiously obvious lies and fabrications - but really easy to dismiss. Mohammed is the same, very easy to dismiss on rational grounds, but based more on violence and other disgusting personal qualities.

Bob

[Leonid]

Adonis "Do you even understand the meaning of the word Kafir...I doubt there's even one Kafir alive today..?"

Kafir in Arabic means exactly what kofer in Hebrew means-active rejection of faith. Semitic root "K,F,R," means strong and complete denial. It is much stronger than just infidel which means unbeliever of certain religion. Christians or religious Jews are infidels. Atheists like myself are kafirs.

As I understand, you claim that all chapter 9 or at least its parts which describe relation between Muslims and non-Muslims are null and void, not applicable anymore. Can you prove that your claim is based on any explicit fatwa of acceptable Muslim religious authority? Historical evidences aren't proof. It's quite possible that people acted not in accordance with Qur'an's teaching, but in spite of it. Protection of innocent obviously presupposes definition of innocent. According to Qur'an Jews and Christians are not innocent, far from it. "9:29 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...9:73 O Prophet! Strive against the disbelievers and the hypocrites! Be harsh with them. Their ultimate abode is hell, a hapless journey's end".

Adonis: "I'm sorry but if you say that many of the Rabbis and Monks at the time were not cheating religious adherents from their wealth to hoard it for themselves then most certainly you'd be a liar."

I'm a liar by your definition, a priory, so to say. But you, pious Muslim, can you substantiate this claim of yours by any evidence, except reference to Qur'an? If not-that you will be a liar doomed to eternal fire of Hell. BTW, you didn't address the issue of contractual agreements and mutual trust between righteous Muslim and infidel liar. Such an agreement must be haram according to Qur'an.

Edited March 15, 2010 by Leonid

[dan2100]

For the record, I don't think any of them are worthy of worship. But I get your point, but this is partly from a selective reading of the Christian Bible. Surely, as far as we know, Jesus didn't going on a killing spree, but at least some of his rhetoric is militaristic -- especially the "sword" verse in Matthew 10:34: "Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword." And the other sword passage in Luke 22:36: "Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one." (This might make it more believable that there actually was a Jesus person -- not literally the Son of God or having supernatural powers, but an anti-Roman sectarian Jewish cult leader or agitator. This might make the crucifixion story more believable too: the Romans would eagerly eliminate any serious threat to their rule in Palestine, so they promptly executed Jesus. (It would make it unlikely, though, the Romans would allow Jewish leaders to have any say in this. A clear threat to Roman rule would not need any local approval to deal with -- at least, in my opinion, not in Palestine at that time.))

The figures mentioned in the Old Testament (Hebrew Bible) are even more clearly militaristic -- such as Joshua and King David. (And some of this might be more a reflection of how these religions evolved. Judaism likely grew out of polytheistic religions in Israel at that time -- via, first, mono idolatry and then into monotheism. Probably during this time, though the Ancient Israelis were stuck between rival empires, they basically were a separate people and, for long periods of time, not under direct foreign rule. Chances are, much of the Hebrew Bible was written in the aftermath of wars with foreign powers, civil wars, and the like -- where the writers clearly were on the winning side. Much of the New Testament, though, was composed and written down by people -- regardless of how much was factual -- who were in Roman occupied lands (Palestine, Asia Minor, etc.) and there was almost no question that the Romans had no rivals to their power in these lands (they successfully put down the three major revolts). Early Christians, wanting to differentiate themsevles from the Jews and likely being perceptive of the near impossibility of a military challenge to Rome would, don't you think, tone down any direct militaristic rhetoric? They might even, say, play down anything military Jesus or his clique participated in.)

For Buddha, I would actually count him as peaceful, but does this matter? It's not so much what the founders of these religions do that matters for us, but how their followers interpret this. Some followers might take a more militaristic, intolerant interpretion on their founders' messages; others might not. This is why we have people like Philo -- who seemed to want to build bridges with the Romans so that Jews would be tolerated. Other the other hand, looking at Buddhism, which seems a peaceful, tolerant religion par excellence, one need merely look at Zen Buddhism in Japan to see how militaristic it can become. See Zen at War by Brian Daizen Victoria for how Zen Buddhism not only didn't try to curb militarism, intolerance, and jingoism, but was at their forefront, leading the charge, in Japan.

Wandering now, old testament and other points are not central to what I'm saying. I'm talking about the central figures and how they are depicted in doctrine. One of them is a total scumbag, and while all should very well be rejected by a rational mind, the question of what cultural/legal/politcal effects might result from worshiping a scumbag is a relevant question. Maybe it matters very little in the big picture - quite possible. But it's like the story of John Smith and the mormons. It's not violent - just outragiously obvious lies and fabrications - but really easy to dismiss. Mohammed is the same, very easy to dismiss on rational grounds, but based more on violence and other disgusting personal qualities.

My original point on this thread was to point out that scriptural determinism is incorrect -- at least when it comes to most followers of a given religion. I think my statements were within the ambit of that. When you brought up the central figures of each religion -- interestingly, you left out Judaism whose central figure is probably Moses and the written material usually attributed to him is not pacific by most measures -- I thought this was not going to tell us much about the problem at hand here -- which I took to be that of Muslims being more violent than everyone else, I responded by pointing out it's not so much the central figures that matter, but what worshippers of the religion do regardless of what you believe the message of their central figure is. The fact is, for all religions you've mentioned, at least some of their followers have interpreted the message of their faith as one to go out and slaughter.

And, let me add to this, that message has, in all the cases I've mentioned -- Buddhism, Christianity, Islam, and Judaism -- been interpreted as one, on some occasions by some of the followers, genocidally. This should lead us to look for other factors -- other than what the scriptures say -- to see why some members of a given religion would behave genocidally or at least intolerantly while others don't. For the record, I don't think, again, one can simply read off the sciptures and say, "All followers of this faith are X."

Side note: in terms of worship, I think some members of these religions would not consider some of the central figures objects of worship -- not as they use the term. E.g., I don't think Jews worships Moses (or any of the prophets or leaders), Muslims worship Mohammed, and no Buddhists I know would claim to actually worship Buddha. (Christians are a bit different here in that the central figure of Christianity is also part of their god. Jews do not, to my knowledge, think of Moses as part of their god. And ditto for Muslims with Mohammed. Buddha has a variety of interpretations -- some atheistic -- of course, so I'd set it aside here.) But I think you can substitute in "admire," "try to imitate," or "hold up as a moral ideal" in place of worship -- in which case, your statements would apply to Buddha, etc. (Of course, then one would have to ask: How many Muslims today kill that many people, head military campaigns, or marry 9 year old girls (on this last, I don't want to be an apologist, but the usual take on this is marrying 9 years back then and even, sadly, some places today was not outside the social norm)? My guess would be only a tiny number -- probably comparable to members of other faiths that have done the same.)

[Libertarian Muslim]

Adonis,

I am sure that many Muslims believe as you do, but ... the overwhelming majority?

Your comment about "overwhelming your nations" may have been meant in jest. But it isn't particularly funny.

Let's put things in the geopolitical perspective familiar to Hobbes or Machiavelli or Kissinger.

For two or three centuries there just haven't been Muslim military powers capable of executing a program of conquest against non-Muslim powers. Not since the Ottoman army was turned away from the gates of Vienna in 1683. Certainly not since Napoleon's invasion and short-term occupation of Egypt in 1798.

There are different ways people might adjust to such political realities. They could forgo aggressive pursuits, as some clearly have done.

But they might also continue to believe themselves under an obligation to wage war against non-Muslims, while recognizing that the prospects of success are so poor that they don't dare try it. This, in turn, could breed guilt and resentment about not fighting and dominating, instead of an inward turn away from fighting and dominating.

And, then, they see that Pakistan has nukes, and Iran is hell-bent on getting them, and the Sa'udi royal house is pulling in all kinds of revenue from non-Muslims and investing it in spreading salafism far and wide ... and fighting and dominating start looking like realistic prospects again.

Robert Campbell

Yes, the overwhelming majority of Muslims believe like me because if they didn't you would most definitely have war everywhere on this Earth and you would not know a night of peaceful sleep.. You foolishly assume that it's because a perceived chance of success that would prevent us but nothing could be farther from the truth, whilst we believe in the importance of tactics and strategy we also believe that ultimately God will decide the fate of the battle and should He Will that we were to succeed, we would do so and even against the worst odds, God would support us with the help of angels to bolster our ranks which occurred in the Battle of Badr..

Even if it were the case that God didn't grant us victory at that time we wouldn't care because for us, there is no concept of defeat in war like you perceive defeat (ie losing the battle and/or dying).. We believe that we either succeed in battle and are victorious over our enemies or we fight until we die and are granted martyrdom thus being rewarded by God..

It's a Win/Win situation for us and that is why you'll never destroy groups like Al-Qaeda and the Taliban through military force only, you have to educate the majority and show a better path.. In the end there will be a minute few of radicals that would have no support of the rest of the community that would be fought and expelled by the Muslims themselves..

If it were indeed the case that all Muslims thought as you believe or even a larger portion than those such as Al-Qaeda and the Taliban and the other very small groups, you'd most certainly know of it in every country that there are even the smallest groups of Muslims.. But that doesn't happen.. Why? Because the overwhelming majority of Muslims don't believe that we're supposed to go to war to fight to convert you to Islam or make you live under an Islamic State as 'dhimmis'.

We just believe that our obligations on this Earth are to worship God, practice Islam, stand up for justice and show a good example of Islam so that people can see its beauty.

[Selene]

Adonis:

Well put.

A fair statement.

To some/many here belief in an all powerful God is anathema.

Adam

[dan2100]

No, not all Muslims do believe as I do [about the interpretation of Qur'an 9:5 and 9:29], but the overwhelming majority believe as I do.. If that were not the case, we'd have overwhelmed your nations by now..

Adonis,

I am sure that many Muslims believe as you do, but ... the overwhelming majority?

Your comment about "overwhelming your nations" may have been meant in jest. But it isn't particularly funny.

It didn't strike me as funny either, but I believe his point was -- and here I think his point is wrong -- that were all Muslims basically violent fanatics, then the world would be overwhelmed by them. (I think it's wrong because this would have to count on everyone else on the planet just rolling over. Instead, such violence from one group of people would likely lead to a violent reaction by others. And the end result would be mroe mayhem, but it's not a given that the first group opting to being violent would win in such a confrontation. One need only look at history to see that violence and wars don't always end in the way the people initiating them hoped. No doubt, not a few of them would've done otherwise had they known the outcome ahead of time.)

Let's put things in the geopolitical perspective familiar to Hobbes or Machiavelli or Kissinger.

For two or three centuries there just haven't been Muslim military powers capable of executing a program of conquest against non-Muslim powers. Not since the Ottoman army was turned away from the gates of Vienna in 1683. Certainly not since Napoleon's invasion and short-term occupation of Egypt in 1798.

There are different ways people might adjust to such political realities. They could forgo aggressive pursuits, as some clearly have done.

But they might also continue to believe themselves under an obligation to wage war against non-Muslims, while recognizing that the prospects of success are so poor that they don't dare try it. This, in turn, could breed guilt and resentment about not fighting and dominating, instead of an inward turn away from fighting and dominating.

And, then, they see that Pakistan has nukes, and Iran is hell-bent on getting them, and the Sa'udi royal house is pulling in all kinds of revenue from non-Muslims and investing it in spreading salafism far and wide ... and fighting and dominating start looking like realistic prospects again.

Robert Campbell

I think tihs oversimplifies the world into Muslim and non-Muslim -- as if all of the former not only think alike to a large degree, but actually work together as a team and ditto for the latter. Instead, it might be better to look at history, including recent history, not as of a battle between Islam and the West -- no matter how much some Muslims want to see things that way.

Certainly, the examples you use -- Pakistan and Iran -- seem to show this up. The Pakistani elite seems to have obtained nukes not so much to promote Islam, but mostly, it seems, because of the threat, real or imagined, of other regional powers, such as India. The actual outcome of ten years of a nuclear-armed Pakistan seems to be a nuclear stalemate on the Indian Subcontinent. This seems unlikely to change -- and does not appear to be a prelude to Pakistan "fighting and dominating" anywhere outside that region. (Granted, it's not impossible, but the likelihood looks very small at this time and this is even regardless of what the Pakistani rulers say or believe.)

Iran also appears to be more of a case of puffery and were it to get nuclear weapons it's likely, like Pakistan, this would be more for security against real or imagined enemies. Set aside the Iranian leaderships obvious bellicose and nutty rhetoric and look at its position as a nation state. It borders one nuclear power (Pakistan), is antagonistic to others (the US, Britain -- both of which is has had problems with in the past and both of which are now involved in military operations in neighboring countries), and faces the problem of having other actually or potentially threatening states in the region. From that standpoint, I'd be surprised if they didn't pursue the nuclear option. This doesn't excuse their policies or stances, but merely seeks to uncover what might motivate them. And this sort of motivation isn't clear "Islamic." Instead, it seems to be the reason nation states pursue getting nukes. (Another case was the UK's obtaining them in the early years of the Cold War -- which seems likely to be so as not to be merely a US client state.)

Of course, the hyper-bellicose rhetoric shouldn't be ignored, but there's another case of such rhetoric regarding nuclear weapons: China. China acquired them in the early 1960s. In the times leading up to that acquisition, China's leadership used extremely bellicose rhetoric and the expectation of many at the time was that China would kick off WW3. That didn't come to pass. Why? My guess is the rhetoric is often a pose to serve something -- whether an internal constituency (remember, elites have to often unite their factions, thwart internal rivals, and keep the subject people from seeing them as the parasites they are; fiery speeches often serves this purpose -- or so it seems to me) and external actors (as a signaling device) -- rather than as a prediction of what'll actually happen.

[Robert Campbell]

Dan,

The politics of any particular Islamic country are highly complex. Much of what's going on is not a direct reflection of religious issues or commitments. On those points, I think we can agree.

What I was trying to say, and wasn't clear enough about, is that nukes in Pakistan (and their imminence in Iran) can be taken as inspiration by Islamic imperialists, even though the government of Pakistan didn't acquire nukes for the reasons that, say, Osama bin Laden, would want them, and for the present government of Iran Islamic imperialism is just one of the projects (of some of its players and factions) to be advanced by getting nukes.

Actually, it's not as though the government of Pakistan has no interest in Islamic imperialism. Asif Ali Zardari's wife was assassinated by Islamic imperialists, yet he can't stop powerful individuals in the army and the spy services from helping the Taliban, in order to keep Afghanistan subservient to Pakistan (and block the influence of the dreaded Indians). He can't even get them to stop aiding Lashkar-e-Taiba, which is a danger inside Pakistan as well as in India. Still, he and his party and their coalition partners obviously don't share the imperialists' agenda. Now what happens if one of the Islamic imperialist groups seizes control of the central government in Pakistan, and puts those nukes in the service of its agenda?

Iran has stopped being a theocracy and become a military dictatorship using religion as a legitimizing pretext (a little like Poland after General Jaruzelski seized power). But the government's support for Hezbollah, circulation of Protocols of the Elders of Zion, and repeated proclamations about annihilating Israel are all rhetorically backed with religious appeals; in that respect, they don't look very different from its imposition of chadors on women or its persecution of Baha'is.

I'll try to pick up again tomorrow with other issues that you and Adonis have raised.

Robert Campbell

[Brant Gaede]

That's an awfully sophisticated and concise analysis, Robert. I've not yet read one better.

--Brant

[Xray]

(# 65)

Very powerful verses! One can learn how Islam values life and promotes peace, cooperation, friendship, mutual trust and respect with non-Muslims. And most important- I didn't quoted Jihad watch or some other filthy Zionist source. I quoted Allah himself!

See also http://prophetofdoom.net/Islamic_Quotes.Islam

Adonis Vlahos:

What did you quote? Do you even have an understanding of the verses that you copied and pasted?

...

Perhaps you should try studying what you see there.. Rather than just copying and pasting and trying to comment on it without actually studying.. Otherwise you just seem ignorant..

This is the classic 'believer argument' one runs across all the time in discussions with advocates of a faith: "You don't understand the quotes you presented from the source of our faith."

The believer's motive is to stop criticism of the faith, so if the critics give up at that early point by letting themselves be impressed by a mere allegation that "they have not understood", they play into the believer's hands since (s)he now has the critics exactly where (s)he wants them.

Therefore to counter the believers' attempts at keeping the critic at bay, it is crucial for the critic to keep insisting, thus reducing the believers' wriggle room, until it's showdown time and they have to put their cards on the table.

Paying attention to unanswered questions is useful as well since they are a good indicator of where the believer does not want to go because it could mean showdown time.

For example, Selene asked Adonis in # 49:

Selene: Another question that has been addressed alludes to how you represent libertarianism to your Muslim networks. For example, when you are at your Mosque, how do you incorporate libertarian concepts into the Qur'anic discussions that you are engaged in as part of your religion.

Adonis did NOT reply. No surprise there.

For imo it is IMPOSSIBLE for an advocate of libertarianism to be at the same time an advocate of stoning. Totally impossible.

This is a contradiction so glaring that I'm surprised how little Adonis has been challenged on it on this forum where the law of non-contradiction is considered to be fundamental by many.

(# 67)

AV: Muslims are forbidden from having a sense of humor..

What does a sense of humor being forbidden for Muslims mean for your life? Does it mean you won't permit yourself to have a sense of humor because it is considered immoral?

BTW, I have had Muslim pupils to whom music was on the "forbidden" list as well ...

Another example of the believer not answering crucial questions:

View Post Adonis Vlahos, on 14 March 2010 - 09:26 PM, said:

The majority of Muslims don't believe that forcing underage girls into marriage is a divinely ordained institution, in fact it goes against Islamic law as a whole and children can't accept contracts and marriage is a contract between two people. The only places that I know that this occurs are in Yemen, Kurdistan and Afghanistan.. These are rare in comparison to the population of Muslims around the world. In fact I'd dare say that this type of perversion occurs in the West in far greater numbers than it does in the Middle East.

Robert Campbell replied: (bolding mine)

RC:

Adonis,

I didn't mean to imply that underage girls are forced into marriage throughout the Muslim world. For instance, Sa'udi Arabia has many social pathologies (and you and I would probably agree about several of them) but child brides don't rank high among these.

Still, underage girls are forced to marry in other countries besides Yemen, Kurdistan, and Afghanistan (though Afghanistan appears to be worst in the world, in terms of overall prevalence). A quick check of Internet material on child brides refers to the rural parts of three other predominantly Muslim countries with large populations: Egypt, Pakistan, and Bangladesh. In two other large countries, India (where forcing underage girls into marriage is a bad old Hindu tradition), and Ethiopia (where Christianity, Islam, and several other religions are practiced), child brides aren't predominantly Muslim.

As for the prevalence of this "perversion" in the West, if you are going to issue such indictments, you need to back them with data. In the United States, child brides are found in places like Hilldale, Utah. They are a source of concern where Mormons too reactionary to obey a church ruling from 1890 can be found, but child marriage won't make the top 10 or even the top 20 on the social problems list in any other part of the country. So where are the child brides? Are they in Ireland? Greece? Finland? Peru? Australia? Brazil? Nicaragua? Jamaica? Slovakia?

Robert Campbell

Imo Adonis did not reply to this question by RC because he can't provide any evidence supportig his claim.

As for those Muslim communities allowing child brides, I'm sure that they, if asked, will quote some Koran passage from which they "derive" the right ...

RC: Your comment about "overwhelming your nations" may have been meant in jest. But it isn't particularly funny.

A lot can be revelaed in jest. But since, per Adonis's own words, Muslims are not allowed to have a sense of humor, he probably was serious about it.

Adonis -

Regarding your optimism displayed on another thread about muslims taking over the world via high birthrates: what you have completely left out of the equation is that the contact with a culture allowing more freedom can be of powerful influence to muslim immigrants as well, getting them to question the premises of her religion. For example, in the past few years, books have been published here in Germany written by Muslims scathingly accusing the mental and physical prison they had to grow up in.

In some cases, it led to them shedding their faith altogether.

I'm convinced that in the future, there is going to be a veritable (and long overdue) landslide of people leaving the procrustes bed of their religious denomination and that this movement will finally take over to islam as well.

More and more will opt for sapere aude instead of seeing themselves as "slave to the Creator", as you described yourself.

Edited March 20, 2010 by Xray

[Robert Campbell]

Yes, the overwhelming majority of Muslims believe like me because if they didn't you would most definitely have war everywhere on this Earth and you would not know a night of peaceful sleep. You foolishly assume that it's because a perceived chance of success that would prevent us but nothing could be farther from the truth, whilst we believe in the importance of tactics and strategy we also believe that ultimately God will decide the fate of the battle and should He Will that we were to succeed, we would do so and even against the worst odds, God would support us with the help of angels to bolster our ranks which occurred in the Battle of Badr.

Even if it were the case that God didn't grant us victory at that time we wouldn't care because for us, there is no concept of defeat in war like you perceive defeat (ie losing the battle and/or dying).. We believe that we either succeed in battle and are victorious over our enemies or we fight until we die and are granted martyrdom thus being rewarded by God..

It's a Win/Win situation for us and that is why you'll never destroy groups like Al-Qaeda and the Taliban through military force only, you have to educate the majority and show a better path. In the end there will be a minute few of radicals that would have no support of the rest of the community that would be fought and expelled by the Muslims themselves.

If it were indeed the case that all Muslims thought as you believe or even a larger portion than those such as Al-Qaeda and the Taliban and the other very small groups, you'd most certainly know of it in every country that there are even the smallest groups of Muslims. But that doesn't happen.. Why? Because the overwhelming majority of Muslims don't believe that we're supposed to go to war to fight to convert you to Islam or make you live under an Islamic State as 'dhimmis'.

We just believe that our obligations on this Earth are to worship God, practice Islam, stand up for justice and show a good example of Islam so that people can see its beauty.

Adonis,

The battle of Badr took place, according to what I have read, in 624. That was a while ago.

Do devout Muslims believe that there has been any military action since that time in which God sent angels into battle to assure victory for a group of Muslim fighters? (Not a rhetorical question—I have no idea of the correct answer.)

I am reasonably sure that many in the Muslim world will judge victory and defeat in war the exact same way that ordinary Christians or Hindus or Wiccans or believers in the traditional Fang religion do. In the exact same way that ordinary atheists do.

In the 1700s, the Dey of Algiers, the Sultan of Morocco, and the Pashas of Tripoli and Tunis invoked Islamic commandments to justify their policy of sponsoring pirate fleets, which preyed on shipping in the Mediterranean, and captured non-Muslims either to hold them for ransom or to make slaves out of them. Sometimes they would extract tribute or take bribes, in return for temporarily ordering their pirates not to seize ships with certain flags.

When asked by foreign diplomats to quit doing this, these governments actually maintained that they were under a religious obligation to wage jihad against non-Muslims.

They eventually stopped sponsoring pirate fleets.

Was this because imams with a better understanding of Islam got their attention? I'm assuming there were some such imams at the time. If so, however, they didn't have a whole lot of leverage, politically speaking.

It was because the British, American, and French navies attacked their fleets and the fleets' home harbors. That's why the US Marines sing about "the shores of Tripoli," a place no US Marine has been to, in a professional capacity, in close to 200 years. There's been no need for them to go back; piracy has become a dead letter in the Mediterranean.

The rulers of these places did not press onward with their fleets, in the assurance that if God favored their cause, he would send angels in as reinforcements. Nor does it seem that were they much assured by the prospects of heavenly rewards for death in battle.

Now you could say that the rulers of these North African territories weren't very good Muslims, and that their sponsorship of the "Barbary pirates," as they used to be called, was un-Islamic. I am reasonably sure that this is your position.

But the waging of war in the Muslim world has, for a very long time, been primarily in the hands by those whose interpretation of Islamic teachings is not much more likely to pass muster with you. Whether it was the Ummayyad caliphs, or the Assassins, or the Ottoman Emperors, or Gamal Abdel Nasser, or the most recent leader of the secesssionists in Aceh, or the tribal elders of South Waziristan, or, I would hazard to say, the present dictator in Iran, none of these are people, in the end, whose fidelity to Islam would much impress you. They don't look like the kinds of people who set a good example and let the rest of the world see the beauty of the Islamic religion.

Yet you often speak of Muslims as a huge, united "We."

Wouldn't that huge, united "We" have to include all of those not-terribly-Islamic leaders, and those who do their bidding out of confidence in their not-terribly-Islamic ideology—as well as those who don't consider these leaders terribly Islamic but comply with them out of fear, and those who find their words and deeds repugnant and refuse to support them at any cost?

So how strong is your actual solidarity with a great many self-declared Muslims?

The King of Sa'udi Arabia considers himself a Muslim. The operatives in his mutawwain profess Islam.

The dictator of Iran considers himself a Muslim. As do the leg-breakers in his basij.

And on it goes.

As a libertarian, or merely a person with classical liberal leanings, wouldn't your sympathies have to be with a lot of non-Muslims in today's world, in a great many cases where self-declared Muslims are attacking them or tyrannizing over them?

For instance, wouldn't they have to be with the Baha'is who have not been able to leave Iran, over Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and the leg-breakers he sends after them?

Robert Campbell

[Xray]

As a libertarian, or merely a person with classical liberal leanings, wouldn't your sympathies have to be with a lot of non-Muslims in today's world, in a great many cases where self-declared Muslims are attacking them or tyrannizing over them?

A person who advocates stoning of those violating the moral codex of his religion can't have classical liberal leanings. Impossible.

This contradiction in Adonis's posts sticks out so much that I ask myself why he has not been confronted directly with it by Objectivists and/or Libertarians here.

Edited March 20, 2010 by Xray

[Robert Campbell]

Xray,

Oh no, I haven't overlooked Adonis's advocacy of stoning for adultery, even as supposedly restricted by the need for four witnesses to an overt act.

I've been trying to get a more complete picture of his view of shari'a, and up to now I don't feel I've been all that successful.

Adonis has tried to limit the scope of prohibitions against irtidad or ridda (apostasy) and of all the endless denunciations of kuffaar ("unbelievers"), but hasn't really clarified how many other Muslims subcribe to his preferred interpretation.

I quoted four ahadith on another thread—two that have been taken to authorize the execution of gay men, and two that call for cursing effeminate men and mannish women, and turning them out of one's house. No response yet. He may think those ahadith are bogus, but they're from the sunan of Abu-Dawud and the sahih of Bukhari, which means a lot of believers consider them authentic.

Robert Campbell

[9thdoctor]

This contradiction in Adonis's posts sticks out so much that I ask myself why he has not been confronted directly with it by Objectivists and/or Libertarians here.

I did, I seem to recall the phrase “bridge too far”. It was probably on the original thread when Adonis joined. Should we all keep harping on it? Start calling him Jabbaesque names to drive him off?

It’s been interesting for me.

[BaalChatzaf]

Islam, the religion, is the foulest collection of evil memes every assembled by the human intellect. It is a religion that rots human minds.

Of all the worlds major religions, Islam has yet to detoxify itself.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Robert Campbell]

Here is a link to one of the questions I asked Adonis on another thread, concerning the treatment of gays and lesbians under shari'a:

http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=8058&view=findpost&p=92083

Robert Campbell

[Leonid]

Since Adonis, our only source of learned opinion on Islam, constantly avoids to give any substantiated answers and uses generalizations instead (like "We believe etc...) I've decided to substitute him by Imam Muhammad al-Asi who provides straight and clear answers in regard to our subject matter. The learned Imam is a columnist of "Crescent" magazine, a respectful international publication which is affiliated with The Institute of Contemporary Islamic Thought (ICIT) with branches in Toronto, London, Pretoria and Karachi.

In regard to the question of bigotry and prejudice Imam writes " there will always be some Christians and some Jews who will be able to overcome their prejudice and bigotry, recognize the truth of the Qur'an and Islam and then to declare their allegiance to this truth."

Since, as far as I know none of participants of this thread, except Adonis, have made such a declaration yet, according to the authorized Islamic view, they all bigots including Adam and Michael. Moreover all Jews are racists since " Deep down in the recesses of their psychology is racist interpretation of Scripture that denies Muhammad (saw) his status as prophet and apostle because he is not Israeli"

Imam is also good in psychologizing.

In regard to the Khaybar' Jews, contrary to Adonis’ claim, that ayaat about Jews irrelevant today, Imam provides the full story:

"At the time these ayaat were revealed, there were Muslims in Madinah and Arabia who had close and diverse ties with Yahud (Jews). Yahud at that time still had weight and influence in Madinah. Their economic leverage in Madinah combined with their military might in Khaybar left strong impression on the Muslims who would always calculate for ' the Jewish factor". It took direct words from Allah to those types of Muslims-relevant now as well as then -to relieve the Muslims of their inclinations to appease these covenant-violators... "and they (Yahud) have been clamped with dhillah and maskanah [chagrin and bewilderment]" (2; 61)."

So now we know exactly why Prophet had slaughtered Jews of Khaybar. This is not rocket science. They were traders who had created wealth, economic leverage, which Muhammad and his hordes wanted to loot and Allah readily supplied them with religious justification to do so. History repeats itself. The learned Imam explains that " the descendants of Khaybar are being reminded of what it means to be with Allah: they see how Hisbullah, Islamic Jihad and Hamas are demonstrating the meaning of this Holy and Hallowed Book. The military dedicated Muslims in Southern Lebanon, in the West Bank and in the Ghazzah do not go begging for political leverage and military hardware from the US or Europe. They went to Allah asking Him only for whatever assistance He could provide for their jihad" ("Crescent International, January 2007 pg34-35).

Now, if anybody on this thread is still thinking that Islam is religion of peace, mutual trust, prosperity, freedom and brotherhood of all people, I suggest to re-read these words of the honorable Imam with noble intentions and to think again.

Edited March 21, 2010 by Leonid