need some counter information: my brother said that in the Koran, it says

[sam sarrha]

to kill all Infadels... I have AADD and just cant get through crap like that.. he posits that they intend to kill us all.

he is a poor brainwashed person that should know better but he started listening to the Stupid made up bible prophesy tapes..

thanks for any help... actually there are different versions of the Koran.. i doubt it would be in any of the for western versions if it really existed.. i have heard of this debate before,

[gratuitous]

1. Here's your standard reply

Prove it. Where does it say that in the Koran? What is the text? What is the context? Without those three crucial pieces of information, your brother is spouting gibberish (at best) or bearing false witness against his neighbor (and the Bible has some pretty hard things to say about such folks).

[IrateCitizen]

2. It says much the same thing in the OT of the Bible, as well.

There are plenty of passages in which God commands his followers to kill every man, woman and child after taking over a city of nonbelievers by war or deceit.

[sam sarrha]

21. In Genesis says that god has provided land for his chosen and will kill

all before them... the Zionist reason for taking Palestine

but that sounds like Genocide to me..

[shadowknows69]

27. fine...then let God do the killing

maybe he's just on a less impatient time schedule. I don't read that as "God said he was going to kill our enemies so lets do it for him."
maybe if the brimstone don't fall from heaven it means God doesn't necessarily want them dead. IE. LEARN TO FREAKIN GET ALONG WITH EACH OTHER!!!

[Bucky]

3. According to the Snopes

Snopes debunks one bit of bunk that was running around the internet a few weeks ago. Check it out.

Rumor:
Quran (9:11) -- For it is written that a son of Arabia would awaken a fearsome Eagle. The wrath of the Eagle would be felt throughout the lands of Allah and lo, while some of the people trembled in despair still more rejoiced; for the wrath of the Eagle cleansed the lands of Allah; and there was peace.

Origins:
No, this isn't a legitimate quotation from the Quran (or Koran), the sacred text of Islam. The chapter and verse citation quoted above is a leg-pull, an obvious play on the USA's (the Eagle) launching of military action against Afghanistan and Iraq (the "lands of Allah") in response to the September 11 terrorist attacks on America organized by Osama bin Laden (the "son of Arabia awakening a fearsome eagle"). That the chapter and verse selection match the date of the terrorist attacks (9:11) is another giveaway to the joke.

Depending upon which translation of the Quran one uses, the section corresponding to chapter 9, verse 11 actually reads something like this:

But if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, they are your brethren in faith; and We make the communications clear for a people who know.

[revree]

4. Ask him to show you the exact passage in the Koran...

chances are he never even read it and just heard it on right wing hate radio...

[Bush was AWOL]

5. It depends on how you interpret the Quran

The Quran also says do not kill innocent people.

Stricter interpretations of the Quran like Wahhabism may call for the killing of all those they view as infidels, but I don't think that was the original intention when the book was written, nor do I think it is the view of the majority of the Muslim world.

[On the Road]

14. Original Intention

Stricter interpretations of the Quran like Wahhabism may call for the killing of all those they view as infidels, but I don't think that was the original intention when the book was written."

Actually, if the Koran is ambiguous, it's more likely that it WAS the original intention to kill nonbelievers, and that the command to was tempered or downplayed over period of time. That's the way most religions evolve.

[Bush was AWOL]

16. You are probably correct

I was thinking that the Quran had been distorted over the years by those who had an agenda to carry out, like Bin Laden, for example.

[On the Road]

22. I Actually Don't Know the History of Islam Very Well

but I know that the early supporters of Mohamad were not afraid of conquest, to put in mildly. But eventually militarism became a liability -- other values are more important to a peaceful, prosperous society. And it creates unnecessary enemies as well. A Muslim state that supports the kind of activity as 7th-century Muslims will have enormous difficulty in a post-911 world.

Despite what their leaders may say, religions adapt. Not many Jews support the kind of genocide advocated in Joshua. Most Muslims do not support killing innocent civilians as a protest against Western aggression. Most Christians have retreated from harsher policies of earlier centuries.

There is a sense in which Osama bin Laden may have a better reading of the original intent of the Koran than a leader like Ayatollah Sistani, who advocates working with Americans. Hard-line purists tend to be sectarians or outlaws in any religion.

[GiovanniC]

6. There Are Things in the Quran that Can Be Interpreted That Way

However, I don't think you can hold the Bible and make that claim at the same time and have any kind of moral superiority. Both holy books have that kind of crap.

[bullimiami]

7. the christians are bathed in blood from the crusades.

sponsered, sanctioned and blessed. And not the Bush Crusade has another 100,000 or so plus slaughtered. How many dead are enough for him?


Tell him to get over it and deal with people and not religious dogma and superstition.

[Name removed]

10. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[itaintoveryet]

15. please give some

information. please give accurate time and historical dates and supporting documentation before posting. answer me this : which muslim armies invaded Malaysia and Indonesia ? i just saw some recent statistics that since 1934 to today there has been a 234% increase in converts to Islam in Europe and US; tell me which muslim forced anyone to convert at gunpoint, swordpoint or anyother weaponry ?

[the other rick]

31. The soldiers

of Abu Bakr and the other Caliphs. Of the Sultans and Emirs. The conquest of Christian lands by Muslim armies stretched from Syria to Spain, Egypt to Hungary. Monasteries were looted and burned, priests, monks, and nuns were killed or enslaved. Christian churches were often converted to mosques. The common man who did not convert was forbidden to own or carry weapons, ride a horse, hold any position of authority, and paid a tax for being a non-Muslim.

These are facts of history. To ignore them to to deny reality. At the time of the 'blood soaked crusaders' Muslim ships of local religious/secular leaders practiced piracy in the Med (not a sin if it was against infidels, was the argument) and captives were sold to the robust Muslim slave economy. The conquest of Spain and the attempts to invade France were openly to conquer Christian lands for the glory of Islam.

Neither side is blameless.

[hel]

33. Non-Muslims were second-class citizens in Ottoman Empire.

But they were allowed to live and practice their own religion, unlike in the Christian lands at the time.

[the other rick]

35. *IF*

They were Jewish, Christian, or Zoroastrian, gave up the majority of their rights, paid a tax designed to be burdensome and humiliating, never gathered in public, never publically displayed any indication of their faith, and never prayed aloud or read their holy writings aloud, then - yeah, they were free to practice their religion.

Of course, you seem to have forgotten the Jewish areas of many parts of Europe of the time. Whie they were under similar burdens, they were there.

[hel]

43. Jews were allowed during certain time frames

and only in certain countries. England first deported all Jews, then after some decades created a Jew neighborhood and invited them (only so that they could be converted to Christianity, and conditions set for the second coming of the Christ might bu fulfilled). Spain forced all Jews to leave the country, any left were murdered. (A sizable amount went to Ottoman Empire, which embraced them -or should I say, their money and professional knowledge-). France has a similar history.

If Ottomans had forced all Christians to convert, Eastern Europe would be completely Muslim right now. They lived under Ottoman rule for centuries. For the time, Ottoman Empire was the more enlightened one in their constant battle with the 'West', i.e. Europe.

I'm also challenging your assertion that they were not allowed to pray in public. Greek orthodox and catholic churches were operational in Istanbul. There were special Christian or Jewish schools for their kids. They had their own cemeteries, their own neighborhoods. They had their own courts. They even had most of Istanbul's commerce under their control. I'm not suggesting they were never prosecuted or were treated as equals, but they were living their lives.

[the other rick]

45. Ooops

Sorry, a great deal of eastern Europe is Muslim, and has been so since being under Islamic rule. And as I posted elsewhere in this thread, it was possible for churches to exist, but they had to be unmarked and Muslims could no see what was going on inside.

As far as the "enlightened" Ottoman Empire - you are aware that they had a thriving slave trade, that non-Muslims could not testify in court, etc., right? That attacks on the Christian populations there did occur? That the reasons that Jews had their own cemeteries and courts is becay=use the were forbidden to mingle?

And don't forget the original thread, here. This was all (and is still) supported by the Qu'ran.

[hel]

46. Oh come on.

You are judging 'enlightment' in today's standards, not of the times. I really don't want to get into that kind of unjust comparison fight, thank you very much.

[Bucky]

8. About separate English-translations of the Koran...

The Qu'ran is the transcription of the revelation of God. No real Muslim would fake a translation. It would be heresy and a mortal sin. There are some variations in translation. In particular the extremist Wahabbists (the people like Bush's buddies Bandar and Osama) push a slightly more incidiary version of the Qu'ran in American prisons in order to recruit people who are angry at society. No one is soft peddling the prejudice in the Qu'ran because it's actually a pretty tolerant book, as far as holy books go.

The Wahabbist mis-translation in one passage tries to paint Jews and Christians as immoral. But the full text of the Muslim holy book preaches religious tolerance of all people from monotheistic religions that are based on divine revelation (ie, People of the Book; since Mohammed's time Zoroastrians have been included in this group as well).

[alfredo]

38. They see christ as a prophet.

What do Muslims think about Jesus?
Muslims respect and revere Jesus (SAW) and await his Second Coming. They consider him one of the greatest of God's messengers to mankind. A Muslim never refers to him simply as 'Jesus', but always adds the phrase 'upon him be peace'. The Quran confirms his virgin birth (a chapter of the Quran is entitled 'Mary'), and Mary is considered the purest woman in all creation.

The Quran describes the Annunciation as follows: 'Behold!' the Angel said, 'God has chosen you, and purified you, and chosen you above the women of all nations. O Mary, God gives you good news of a word from Him, whose name shall be the Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, honored in this world and the Hereafter, and one of those brought near to God. He shall speak to the people from his cradle and in maturity, and shall be of the righteous.'

She said: 'O my Lord! How shall I have a son when no man has touched me?' He said: 'Even so; God creates what He will. When He decrees a thing He says to it, "Be!" and it is.' (Quran, {3.42::qs3.42}-7)

http://www.themodernreligion.com/comparative/christ/jesus_muslimfeel.htm

[immoderate]

44. My information (admittedly hearsy)

says that Muslims should kill enemies of Islam. This may have been translated in various ways. I would love a clarification from someone with more direct knowledge.

--IMM

[sangh0]

9. Sounds like the DUers who attack Christians because of what the Bible says

But then again, on DU it's OK to attack Christians, but not Muslims.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x2792191

[aquart]

12. Really?

I thought it was only okay to attack the Jews. I guess it's perspective.

[sangh0]

13. Actually, we're both kind of right

There are a few groups in addition to Jews and Christians that have been approved for attacks, such as southerners.

[GiovanniC]

17. I Thought It Was Atheists and Agnostics

I just found out today that atheists and agnostics have no morals or ethics because morals and ethics don't mean anything unless they are enforced by an invisible man in the sky.

[sangh0]

18. One thread

I noticed you say nothing about the link I posted. Once again, a DUer rightfully complains about intolerance towards one group (ie atheists and agnostics) while ignoring intolerance towards another (ie the religious)

If you re-read that thread that argued that atheists are more likely to be mass murderers you'll see that I object to intolerance against atheists as vehemently as I object to intolerance against the religious.

And I'll also point out that the thread that argued against atheists was locked, while the thread that tries to do the same to Christians is still going strong

[GiovanniC]

19. I Wasn't Responding to You Per Se, and Actually Didn't See That Thread

I'm also not an atheist or an agnostic, but a Protestant Christian who was raised Baptist. I found out that agnostics and atheists were not moral or ethical while doing research to debunk a fundy Christian who stated that the religion of Islam is all about killing infidels (and lo, there's a thread about that today too). I thought it was ludicrous to make the claim that someone can't be moral or ethical unless they believe in your religion or some variation of it, as the site I read earlier stated.

In reality, I am tolerant of every religion but I don't want any of them shoved down anyone's throat, including my own. There are people who are trying very hard to draw these religious lines around us all, and right now they are succeeding.

[sangh0]

20. My bad

YOu responded to a post of mine that spoke of intolerance on DU, so I assumed you were referring to DU.

I'm glad to hear that you are tolerant of religion, and I share your opposition to those who are intolerant of athiests. However, though it si certainly not YOUR fault, I would like to point out that non-bigoted Christians are also being subjected to the same sort of attacks that the atheists are experiencing. Catholics who vote for pro-choice politicians, Protestants who don't beat their children or obey their pastors, etc are all being portrayed by the theocrats as fake Christians.

The followers of Christ are having their name (ie "Christians") hijacked out from under them. The Religious Left is fighting back, but they are getting little assistance from the rest of the left. And while they are fighting back, there are DUers who say they should give up and shut up because they are discomforted by hearing liberals speak about God. They cannot tolerate any talk of religion, abd the interpret any talk of God as "shoving your religion down my throat"

[MattBaggins]

26. Strange... I've spent my life being attacked for being an atheist

I'm immoral, a satanist(don't believe in a god yet somehow I supposedly believe in an even more absurd mythical creature).

Atheist bookstores everywhere. Atheists on the street corner every Sunday screaming at people, telling them they are going to die and be tortured. Atheists presidents sticking their middle fingers in the faces of believers teling them they aren't citizens. Atheists trying to get big statues of Darwin in every court house and telling us that's the way its always been becuase America was founded as a secularist society.

[sangh0]

37. You mean you haven't been attacked for being a Christian?

DO you suppose it has something to do with the fact that you're NOT a christian?

And do you really think that the intolerance of atheists by Christians proves that there is no intolerance of Christians on the left?

And do you think the attacks on atheists justifies the intolerant remarks on DU that were directed at southerners?

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

42. *Ahem*

[seabeyond]

11. mohummod says it

says, lie, become one of them, whtever needs to be done

and we also have that in the christian bible. they both exactly paralell each other in amazing ways.

only the fundamentalist interprets it this way, or use to anyway, and only the christian fundamentalist says kill in the lords name, and gods army

[sam sarrha]

24. Judaism, Christianity and Islam are ALL cults of Abraham..is why

[seabeyond]

41. yep......n/t

[Bridget Burke]

25. Which Sura?

And which translation are you using?

[sam sarrha]

29. that is what i am asking. the work is to disjointed for anyone with ADD

to read.

[shadowknows69]

23. the key is...not to do things to make us considered infidels

if tables were turned and the white man had gotten the screws put to them like we have done to muslims for centuries don't you think we'd be engaging in the same practices in a desperate attempt to be heard in the midst of what we felt was our planned extinction? No matter how badly we want to share our glorious democracy with people it isn't going to work until they ask for it unanimously. Until then we just look like invaders.

[sam sarrha]

28. actually the way i think it works, is that if your religion has a Book

written during the life of its prophet you are safe, you will just be subgated... but like the Buddhists whose Book were written down after the death of its originator.. you are in deep shit and fair game... thus the brewing storm in Thailand's Islamic insurgency.. they need to just call that what it is soon to be Invasion and genocide, like Darfur.

[SujiwanKenobee]

32. Lots of apparent quotes providing justification can be found--

but like the problem many religions have, humans filter it through their own emotional/mental lenses to justify what they want to see. There is also the historical context to be considered.

Here's a link that has some answers to this precise question. You have to scroll down past the interchange between 2 researchers on who will answer the question to
this interchange:
http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=183355

Subject: Re: islam and current events: 1 of 5
Answered By: digsalot-ga on 31 Mar 2003 19:54 PST
Well, having figuratively bashed about the head and shoulders by my
fellow researchers...

[sam sarrha]

39. sorry but the explanation didnt convince me they dont mean it...

[hel]

30. Actually Christians are not regarded as infidels in Koran.

They are the "people of the book", just like Jews. Koran says earlier books were sent by Allah as well, Koran is only the most up-to-date version of his word. Koran commands to treat people of the other books gently, and advises not trying to convert them by force.

Atheists and apostates, and those who fight against jihad, now that is another story... Bin Laden interprets Koran so that anybody who is not Muslim or Muslim enough is the enemy of Islam. So he is right in his own reasoning.

That doesn't prove anything. Any holy book can be interpreted in many ways. People's actions are their own choosing, religion is only a mean to justify committing murder.

(No I don't know the exact suras)

[the other rick]

34. The 'people of the book'

Refers to (in the Islamic view) 'failed monotheists'. These are primaily Jews and Christians, although Zoroastrians are included. In lands were Islam is the law (after conquest, usually), Muslims can destroy any religious structure of any other religion unless a specific treaty prevents it (and that has a 10 year limit). People of other religions cannot build or expand existing houses of worship and cannot worhip in public (where a Muslim can see). These groups (Zimmis in Arabic) cannot read their scriptures aloud, nor pray aloud, even in their own homes.

There can be no public display of religious symbols and writings cannot be public (including TV or radio). Zimmi men cannot marry Muslim women. Zimmi fathers cannot participate in the marriage of a Muslim daughter, not arrange her marriage. Zimmi cannot swear oaths nor give legal testimony. All zimmis must pay a tax that is designed to shame, humiliate, and oppress them. No zimmi may be a supervisor of a Muslim in business. Zimmi funerals and feasts cannot be public gatherings.

Some interpretations of Ijma also indicate that zimmi must allow Muslim travellers to stay in their places of worship and shelter, feed, and comfort them for 3 days or (if they are sick) until they are well.

While much of this comes from the Hadith and Ijma, it is firmly rooted in the Qu'ran (see 9:29, 3:85-3:89, 4:141, 63:8, 58:22)

And 'pagans' (non-monotheists) are treated thus:
"...then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, an seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem; but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practise regular charity, then open the way for them: for God is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful. (Qu'ran 9:5)"

In other words, Christians, Jews, and Zoroastrians can give up all authority, self-defense, and most rights and stay if they pay a tax. Everyone else, though, must convert or die.

[noonwitch]

36. He needs to read up in his Bible, especially the Old Testament

God routinely has the Israelites slaughter whole towns and cities, either because they are all sinners and Baal worshippers or so that the Israelites can have more land. There are even a couple occasions when God approves of ripping babies from the wombs of women. I can't give specific scripture citations, but I would guess the Books of Genesis, Exodus, Joshua, Judges, etc., are good starting places.

[slutticus]

40. Ahhhh...the old testament. God's pre-zoloft days