Islam: what do you think?

[Rocknrule]

Recently, out of pure interest, I began researching the similarities and differences between Christianity and Islam. The last thing in the world I want to be is religiously intolerant, but I was shocked at some of the things I found out about Islam (and I made sure I researched only non-rightwing sources). For example, the 72 virgins for dying for Allah bit is actually in the Koran, not just in the Al-Qaeda training manual like I used to think. I know there are Christian fanatics as well as Muslim fanatics, and I am ashamed to share the same religion as them. What do you think: is Islam really an inherently violent religion or is that only RW propaganda?

[Mandate My Ass]

1. RW propaganda (eom)

[Redstone]

2. No, it's not inherently violent.

Redstone

[manic expression]

65. No, it's not, at all n/t

[ixion]

3. read the Old Testament

all the older religions were far more violent by today's standards.

[4bucksagallon]

8. Amen to that!!

[Bill McBlueState]

4. it has a violent history

just like Christianity has a violent history. Also, the sacred texts of both religions contain a lot of violence and exhortations to violence.

But ultimately, violent people use their religion to justify their violence, and peaceful people use their religion to justify their peacefulness.

[rainy]

11. well said!

[Solo_in_MD]

12. And a violent present

which is how it is being viewed by non-muslims today. The imposition of the Sharia in formerly secular areas is not helping either.

[stangoodwin]

31. Inherent violence?

There is (was?) a Mosque in Iraq that once boasted the third biggest dome in the world.
A young Italian/Australian architecture student went to have a look at it many years ago. The plane dropped him in the oppressively hot desert and he hated the place, just wanted to get out as quick as he could. But he was stuck there for eighteen hours…he saw the sun set over the Mosque…he saw the sun rise over the Mosque…he fell in love and was still there twelve years later.
The first seven years he (and local villagers) devoted to matching the glaze of the azure blue tiles and replacing those lost from the exterior of the dome.
It was decade before they managed to get scaffolding up to the interior rim of the dome. From the ground they could see the square marble blocks mounted on the interior rim…each one carved with ‘Allah Akbah’ on the face. They calculated that the carving of the praise of God alone represented the work of forty stonemasons over forty years.

When they got the scaffolding up to the rim they discovered that not only was the face of each block so carved…but the sides, the tops and the back of each block was also so carved. Do the math…generations of stonemasons had carved the praise of God in places that could not be seen.

Why?

In part…because they could. They were at peace with everyone in every direction for
thousands of miles and hundreds of years. ‘Peace Dividend’- praise God.

The “inherent violence” of the preceding endlessly warring tribes was subsumed in a uniting cosmology. The uniting cosmology of Islam may have (like all others) been initially *facilitated* ‘by the sword’…but it was *maintained* by the recognition of its peace dividend outcome.

If you desire to carve, sing or write the praise of anything in the future…you will require a cosmology that transcends the current warring tribalism.

[Bill McBlueState]

33. interesting that you mention cosmology

This is a little off-topic for the thread, but I think any cosmology that, as you put it, transcends tribalism has to be one based on empirical evidence. By that I mean what physicists and astronomers are doing to understand cosmology. And what other scientists are doing to understand the world on this side of the atmosphere.

Contrast this with the notion of received truth that characterizes religious cosmology. When truth about the world is handed down by gods instead of observed by humans, everyone's going to have different ideas about the world that depend on what they believe their gods have told them. That's a recipe for war.

But when you learn about the world through observation, it's an inherently democratic process because everyone can agree about the answer. In practice, it may take complicated mathematics and expensive equipment to deduce the nature of the world, but these findings can in theory be made accessible to everyone. Religious revelation, on the other hand, will always be restricted to the people who hear the voices of gods, and the rest of us just have to take their word for it.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

56. You may find this interesting

It is a hadith (saying of the Prophet-pbuh):

Read the Koran if it keeps you from doing ill, and if
you recite the Koran and are not prevented from
wrongdoing, then you are not truthful in reading the
Koran.

taken from this website:

http://darvish.wordpress.com/

[mmonk]

5. I think all three of the Abraham religions

have at least the potential to be violent. None allow the legitimacy of anyone who thinks differently. Therefore, people who do not share their religion, are in their eyes, lesser human beings. This inevitably leads to intolerance and eventually dehumanization.

[undeterred]

6. Guess which religions have women getting their father drunk to have sex

with him so they can get pregnant and carry on the family name?

You have to look at the totality, not just isolated passages, and you have to look at the history of the religion as it actually exists, both the good and the bad.

[YOY]

7. I find the 6th Sura to be a bit nasty...

It seems to say some nasty stuff about Christians, Jews, and Hindus (Pagans).

The rest of it reads like a pretty well laid out lawbook. It even has clauses and subclauses as well as hypothetical situations.

Most of the modern and open Muslims I know don't really heed the nasty stuff in the 6th Sura, just like most Christians and Jews don't sell their daughters into slavery and smear dung on their faces.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

47. Thanks to you,

I've started re-reading the 6th Sura, also known as The Cattle (Al An am).
I take the admonishments towards unbelievers as all unbelievers, even those who call themselves Muslim. Sufis say the only sin is to block That which is God from your being, which is done by paying attention to the nafs (ego is a loose translation), letting the nafs control you rather than the other way 'round. What you may find interesting is a Sufi sage may interpret the parts condemning those who worship more than one God not referring to the Hindus but to those who place their own wealth, status, power, at a place as important as God. One Sufi teacher told his students, "Today, I go to worship at the Krishna temple." All his students left in horror except one, who followed the teacher to the shrine. He told his teacher, "Murshid, you have told us that God is everywhere. So God is here too-that is why I worship here." This student was Haz. Moinaddin Chisti, in my spiritual lineage.

[Cocoa]

9. RW propaganda

imo

[Warpy]

10. It's RW propaganda

I have Muslim friends and their religious fervor is about the same as the garden variety Presbyterian. They say their prayers and keep the diet, but they take a lot of it with a grain of salt.

In other words, they're as reasonable about it as any other sensible believers.

One needs only to consult history for the violence inherent in Christianity and the old testament for the violence in Judaism. Most organized and codified religions have had a violent side from time to time, although the degree of violence varies greatly. The Aztecs split their victims open for daily offerings. The Buddhist sects have argued physically, but usually to the point of trading a few punches and then being disciplined by an abbot.

The monotheistic religions tend to be the least tolerant and most violent in the modern world, probably because each claims ownership of the only true god and the only true book describing how that god is to be flattered.

[anarch]

13. fanaticism of any kind is inherently dangerous

Islam, no. Christianity -- also not inherently violent. I'm of the personal belief that all religions are essentially founded with the same idea of finding and cherishing the sacred in our lives. But when you have fanatics, particularly those who are unshakeably convinced of their own righteousness, combining their zealotry with politics, it's bad news. It doesn't really matter what specific religion or sect you're talking about. Just my 2 cents....

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

48. Pir Shabda Khan

head of the Sufi Ruhaniat International, said in a recent interview (I'm paraphrasing; sorry, I have no link): All the prophets and messengers of God were messengers because the Light of God shone through-they were no longer there, only the Message and love of God. So the Light of Mohammed is the same as the Light of Christ, etc. What happens is that soon after the death of the prophet, the followers come along and say they are doing things in the name of that prophet--but the Light is not as clear, so a bit of mankind's ego gets put into the mix. As time goes on, more and more of the ego can make the religion act in a way that is not like the Message that came through. But Sufis say that all can strive to be one with God.

[blitzen]

14. bullcrap!!!....show me the 72 Virgins verse in the Qur'an...

and have fun looking, because it ain't there.

meanwhile, chew on these a bit:


“Believers, Jews, Sabaeans and Christians--whoever believes in God and the Last Day and does what is right--shall have nothing to fear or to regret.” (Qur'an 5.69)

"For every one of you We have ordained a law and a way. Had God pleased, He could have made you one community: but it is His wish to prove you by that which He has bestowed upon you. Vie (as in a race) with one another in good works, for to God you shall all return and He will explain for you your differences." (5.48)

“Among His other wonders are the creation of the heavens and the earth and the diversity of your tongues and colors” (30.21)

“O humanity! Truly We created you from a male and a female, and made you into nations and tribes that you might know each other. Truly the most honored of you in the sight of God is the most God-conscious of you. Truly God is knowing, Aware” (49.13).

[Onus]

22. Put the Quotes in Context

"Believers..." (Sura 5.69)

Sura 5.68

"Say: O People of the Book, you follow no good till you observe the Torah and the Gospel and that which is revealed to you from your Lord. And surely that which has been revealed to thee from they Lord will make many of them increase in inordinancy and disbelief; so grieve not for the disbelieving people."

Author's note about 5.68 - "This is a very severe condemnation of the contention of the Jews and the Christians. They had not preserved the Torah and the Gospel in their purity, and whatever remained of the original teachings of the prophets they did not act upon it, nor did they care for the prophecies which their own Books contained."

Sura 5.70-72

"Certainly We made a covenant with the Children of Israel and We sent to them messengers. Whenever a messenger came to them with that which their souls desired not, some (of them) they called liars and some they (even) sought to kill.

And they thought that there would be no affliction, so they became blind and deaf; then Allah turned to them (mercifully) but many of them (again) became blind and deaf. And allah is Seer of what they do.

Certainly they disbelieve who say: Allah, He is the Messiah, son of Mary. And the Messiah said: O Children of Israel, serve Allah, my Lord and your Lord. Surely whoever associates (others) with Allah, Allah has forbidden him the Garden and his abode is the Fire. And for the wrongdoers there will be no helpers."

---------------
"For every..." (Sura 5.48)

Sura 5.48 - complete

"And We have revealed to thee that which is before it of the Book and a guardian over it, so judge between them by what Allah has revealed, and follow not their low desires, (turning away) from the truth that has come to thee. For everyone of you..."

Sura 5.49

"And that thou shouldst judge between them by what Allah has revealed, and follow not their low desires, and be cautious of them lest they seduce thee from part of what Allah has revealed to thee. Then if they turn away, know that Allah desires to afflict them for some of their sins. And surely many of the people are transgressors."

----------------

"Among His other..." (Sura 30.21)

Actually Sura 30.22. Deals with creation in much the same manner as Genesis.

----------------

"O humanity!..." (Sura 49.13)

Falls under Section 2 of the Sura titled "Respect for Muslim Brotherhood". Addresses relation only with other Muslims.

[blitzen]

24. Which "context" would you like?

There are all kinds of "contexts"...Most important of which, I think, is the original socio-political context of Muhammad's message--and in THAT context (inter-tribal violence in the Hijaz and class conflict in Mecca), there is no doubt that Islam is a religion of peace.

But rather than read us disputing the question, the original poster may want to consult two excellent books on the subject: Yohanan Friedman's "Tolerance and Coercion in Islam" (Cambridge, 2003) and Abdulaziz Sachedina's "The Islamic Roots of Democratic Pluralism" (Oxford, 2001). The former is skewed slightly pro-Jewish, and the latter slightly pro-Muslim, but together they give a pretty complete account of the question.

By the way, what tafsir are you relying on, as if it is universally authorized truth? Your interpretation of 49.13, for instance, is a modern, Sayyid-Qutb (fundy-Islamist) one--it is not at all the consensus interpretation of the classical tradition.

[Onus]

26. I need to check out those two books

To answer your question, my original source is the Koran itself as translated by Maulana Muhammad Ali. (No relation to the boxer.) Which also contains the Arabic text.

The "Muslim Brotherhood" as you pointed out is indeed the author's interpretation of the section, but reading the Sura leaves no doubt as to it's accuracy. The Sura deals strictly with "believers" and how they should behave around Allah's Messenger - i.e. Muslims.

[blitzen]

28. classical Tafsir, for example al-Tabari,

debated whether such verses were addressed to all humans, or exclusively to Muslims. In general, the classical exegetes said that they were addressed to all. The "exclusivist" interpretation is the modern one. Most 20th and 21st century Islamists do not really know their own religious and legal tradition. They started out as middle-class professionals (journalists, doctors, etc.) who filled the void created after Western colonizers discouraged traditional Islamic learning. So many/most self-proclaimed Islamic "clerics" are phonies--in the sense that they have little understanding of their religious tradition. Some good stuff on this has been written by Khaled Abou El Fadl (among his many books, I would suggest "The Place of Tolerance in Islam," "Speaking in God's Name," and "The Great Theft: Wrestling Islam from the Extremists").

FYI, Maulana Muhammad Ali is a problematic figure. His main cause was as a "freedom fighter" for India's Muslims against Hindus, and so his interpretations were obviously contemporary and political

[Onus]

37. Not Relying on "Interpretation"

Sura 49.15

"The believers are those only who believe in Allah and His Messenger, then they doubt not, and struggle hard with their wealth and their lives in the way of Allah. Such are the truthful ones."

Unless otherwise specified I am quoting the direct translation. Granted there are many many passages and verses that can be interpreted differently, but Sura 49 is not one of them.

[blitzen]

42. the question we were debating was 49.13, not 49.15

49.13 is addressed to "mankind," "humanity," "people" in general. all the translations agree on this.

the "believers" are Muhammad's followers. Speaking of "context," much of the Qur'an refers to the specific circumstances of Muhammad's political revolution--his uprising against and eventual overthrow of the rich and powerful Meccans who, in his view, were oppressing the poor; and later, his military campaigns against those Arabian tribes who resisted assimilation into his growing community. Those on Muhammad's side, politically, were the "believers." Those who resisted him politically were the "infidels."

It's to be noted that Sura 49 also says this: "O you who believe, no people shall ridicule other people, for they may be better than they. Nor shall any women ridicule other women, for they may be better than they." 49.11

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

51. A Sufi interpretation

This is from Pir Shabda Khan's radio interview which I recently heard (sorry, no link)-he was asked what was meant by "Mohammeda Rasul Lilah"-his answer was that Mohammed was bringing the same Message that Jesus and all the other prophets had brought. If one reads the Qur'an with this understanding, "Messenger" means any from whom the Light of God, the Light of Truth, shines, and Sufis I know interpret it in this way.

An example Pir Shabda gave involves a famous dervish named Shems of Tabriz. Shems was in a town and a student who hadn't seen him for a while shouted, "Shems of Tabriz Rasul Lilah!" A fundamentalist Muslim, hearing this, began stoning the student for blasphemy; Shems shouted at the man, who fell down in a faint. Shems then went over to his student and said, "Please address me as Shems. Or if you must, kindly use my other name." "What is you other name?" the student asked, "Mohammed," Shems answered.

When a Sufi is in the state of Unity, he IS the Rasul, he IS Rama, Krishna, Shiva, Buddha, Abramham, Zarathustra, Moses, Jesus, and Mohammed, for the Message they all brought was the same.

[blitzen]

58. Yes, sounds like Ibn Arabi

who represents his own work "Meccan Openings" as if it is itself spoken by the voice of the Qur'an, and who teaches that there is no error in the cosmos, since all speech is spoken by God.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

49. I think I know what the problem is here

and that is different translations. My dear husband once read the same sura from three different translations, and they said very different things. So perhaps it would be instructive to know the source of your translations-do you know which sect of Islam did the translating? This might have a bearing upon how it was done.

[Zhade]

60. Put THIS in context, Nazi!

[Onus]

23. Virgins Just Not "72"

"We have created mates for them and made them virgins, matched in age, for the companions of the right hand." (56:35-38)

[blitzen]

25. here's some "context" for you

Sura 56 has nothing to do with martyrdom or suicide or terroism. It's a depiction of bliss in paradise for those who do good deeds (and suffering in hell for wrongdoers).

Why not cite this part?

"Not frivolity will they hear therein, nor any taint of ill,-
Only the saying, "Peace! Peace". (56:25-26)



You and I both know that "72 Virgins" refers to the Islamo-phobic myth that the Qur'an promises jihadists 72 virgins in paradise for killing infidels.

[Onus]

27. I was agreeing with you

It is true that the Koran doesn't promise 72 virgins. The number 72 comes from a hadith that says "'The smallest reward for the people of Heaven is an abode where there are 80,000 servants and 72 wives, over which stands a dome decorated with pearls, aquamarine and ruby, as wide as the distance from to .'"

56:25-26 refers to what "believers" will experience in heaven - peace - and doesn't offer guidance about how to conduct one's life here on earth.

[blitzen]

29. okay, sorry, i thought you were supporting the OP's

claim. Now i see what you're saying--yes, we agree.

Sura 56 in general is all about "rewards and punishments" for doing good or evil. There is no mention of anything resembling jihad. But the Islamophobes cliam that the virgins mentioned in Sura 56 are somehow to be construed as a reward for jihadists


The virgins, pearls, servants, etc., are part of what Islamic philosophers (such as Al-Farabi and Averroes) referred to as the "graphic descriptions" of Heaven and Hell. The philosophers were a bit embarrassed by some of this stuff--and they explained it by saying that Bedouins, being less "spiritual" than the more civilized inhabitants of Christian lands, required a more "grossly material" scripture.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

53. Can you identify the hadith for me, please?

For those reading this who don't know, a hadith is an account of the sayings and deeds of the Prophet (pbuh). Some hadiths are very strong, in that they were related by people known to be close to the Prophet and to be of good character (Ayesha, his wife, would be an example of this kind of source). Other hadiths are "second hand" and the chain of transmission is weak.

In any case, Muslims often argue the interpretation of hadiths, as they came from people's observation and can be subject to error. The context of the hadith can also be very important in its interpretation.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

52. From Abdullah Yusuf Ali

56: 35-38 with notes:

We have created
(their Companions)*
Of special creation
And made them
Virgin-pure (and undefiled)--
Beloved (by nature)
Equal in age--
For the Companions
Of the Right Hand.

*The pronoun in Arabic is in the feminine gender, but lest grosser ideas of sex should intrude, it is made clear that these Companions for heavnly society will be of special creation--of virginal purity, grace, and beauty inspiring and inspired by love, with the question of time and age eliminated. Thus every person among the Righteous will have the Bliss of Heavne and the Peace of Allah.

[stangoodwin]

32. Like your post/s blitzen…..

Not only are there no “72 Virgins” promised or waiting there is little or no general recognition/understanding of the origins, nature or fruits of Islam.

My understanding is that when the companions of The Carpenter asked how to spot
a true prophet from false He was explicit…”By their fruits shall ye know them”.

The small seed of Islam struggled against impossible overwhelming odds…matured to bear astoundingly nutritious fruit in ethics, law, astronomy, architecture, art, music, table manners and human conduct/interaction.

The spotted and corrupt ‘fruit’ now active in the world seems to me as much related to Islam as drinking arsenic and dancing with rattle snakes is related to Christianity.
Sure, folk do it ‘in the name of’….but so what?

In terms of general Western education and awareness I can’t work out how we end up with this “72 Virgins” crap while the past and present fruits/contributions of Islam go ignored.

From an exclusively Christian perspective one would have to ask if “every tree therefore that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire”Matt 3;10…why is the tree of Islam still standing?

I believe God is true to Her word and has “hewn down” every false fruitless ‘Sri Bagwan Baba Wiremesh Howsyourundies’ Guru/prophet and cast them on the fire of history.

The good and fruitfull trees are still standing.

[Onus]

45. Great Debate

Great debate blitzen. It's refreshing to be able to discuss such a "heavy" topic in a civilized thoughtful manner. I believe that in the end all sides are better for it. While you haven't changed my mind (and doubtless I haven't changed yours :) ), I HAVE learned from you. Hopefully everyone who stumbles across our debate can say the same.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

50. Which translation are you using?

It is interesting that it follows closly the translation I use, but with different words. Mine is "The Meaning of the Glorious Qur'an" Abdulla Yusuf Ali--it is a translation that was recommended to me by several senior Sufi teachers, and the one I have seen most used by Sufis.

Here are a couple of examples from this translation to compare with yours:

Sura 5, verse 69
Those who believe (in the Qur'an).
Those who follow the Jewish (scriptures),
And the Sabians and the Christians--
Any who believe in Allah
And the Last Day,
And work righteousness--
On them shall be no fear,
Nor shall they grieve.

5:48 (in part)
To each among you
Have We prescribed a Law
And an Open Way
If Allah had so willed,
He would have made you
A single People, but (His
Plan is) to test you in what
He hath given you; so strive
As in a race in all virtues.
The goal of you all is to Allah;
It is He that will show you
The Truth of the matters
In which ye dispute.

30:22
And among His Signs
Is the cration of the heavens
And the earth, and the variations
In your languages
And your colours;verily
In that are Signs
For those who know.

49:13
Oh mankind! We created
You from a single (pair)
Of a male and a female,
And made you into
Nations and tribes, that
Ye may know each other
(Not that ye may despise
Each other). Verily
The most honoured of you
In the sight of Allah
Is (he who is) the most
Righteous of you.
And Allah has full knowledge
And is well acquainted
(With all things).

[varkam]

15. If by inherently...

you mean that violence or justification for it is contained within, then I think you might be hard pressed to find a religion that is not inherently violent. However, there are also messages of peace and love contained within religions (e.g. NT vs. OT). IMO, it comes down to what the individual takes from the message.

[cliss]

16. I don't believe Islam is an inherently violent

religion. Certainly not more than Christianity. I think they've been maligned, for decades. Centuries, actually.

If we would just leave them alone & let them practice their own religion, the world would be a lot more peaceful place. But then, they've got oil.....

Also, they represent about 1.5 billion people on earth. That's a BIG group and we better come to grips with it. I for one am sticking up for them.

[Poll_Blind]

17. RW propaganda. The Bible, the Talmud, Torah AND the Quaran all...

...have very nasty concepts or outright instructions if you dig deeply enough. Of course, each is outweighed by the message of love they carry. However, it's the literalists who interpret these ancient text word for word that are the real problem, not so much their holy books.

PB

[Donald Ian Rankin]

63. Hang on a second

Surely the relevant contrast is not "what it says in the Bible" vs "what it says in the Quran" but "what Christians believe" vs "What Muslims believe"?

I don't think the assumption that there's a platonic form of a religion from which its followers are deviating is a valid one. I think Islam *is* the set of believes of people generally acknowledged to be Muslims.

[Onus]

18. Four and Six

Suras Four and Six are both pretty graphic. During the run up to the last election I bought a Koran and read it. I had the same question as Rocknrule.

In a historical context Christianity and Islam have been the most violent religions - to those of other faiths. With respect to Christianity this is somewhat odd because the New Testament - the part that Christianity is based on - doesn't contain a single call to violence. It actually preaches a "turn the other cheek" theme embodied by someone like Gandhi. Over time that message has finally come through. More than likely brought about by moderates who got rid of the extremists. I suspect that the violence was committed in an attempt to convert (subjugate) followers of other religions.

With it's more violent Holy Book, Jewish violence toward other faiths has been virtually non-existent. Perhaps this is due to the fact that the Torah does not call for the conversion of followers other religions.

Islam on the other hand calls for conversion of non-believers, and subjugation of other religions in a violent manner. The theme that is repeated over and over is: a) conquer a given area b) impose Sharia c) repeat. Does the book make them do it? No. As someone else has already pointed out - extremists use it to justify their actions.

Under Sharia non-Muslim residents are to be treated as follows:

It is up to the conquering leader to decide whether to a) kill all the non-believers b) allow them to convert or to remain non-believers and pay a tax c) make them slaves or d) ransom them. According to the Koran the preferred method is 'b' because it allows Muslims to keep the yoke on non-believers.

The "people" that practice Islam aren't any better or worse than the "people" that practice any other religion, but the "religion" is without a doubt more violent than most. The end result is that today most of the fighting and bloodshed today is being ignited by Muslims. (Yes I realize that Iraq was invaded by a Christian. That's why I said 'most' and not 'all'.)

[megatherium]

21. I heard an interesting quote on the BBC the other night.

I don't recall who they were interviewing, but he said that the New Testament has no instructions for Christians as to how to live as a majority group or religion, but the Koran has no instructions for Muslims as to how to live as a minority group or religion.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

54. Please cite your source

of translation. This is very important in understanding Islam. There are many different translations out there, and they don't all intrepret the suras the same way. The very fact that many Sufi orders welcome all people to their ceremonies, do not demand that a person change their faith, and celebrate all faiths-and have done so for many many years belies the idea that all Islam is intolerant.

(Examples: Sufi Order International, Sufi Movement, Sufi Ruhaniat International, Rafai, Mevlevi Order-and these are the orders I can think of off the top of my head.)

[NMMNG]

19. Islam is not inherently violent

And there is no mention of 72 virgins in the Quran:

Critic:-

You say that Muslims submit to God and that God guides them. Whenever there is a suicide bombing, or an attack of some kind on civilians by a Muslim, the regular Muslim spokes people go onto the news and reassure the American public that the attacks are not condoned or supported by "most" Muslims. They say that the attacks go against Muslim teachings and the Koran, etc. Is it true that the suicide bombings are against Muslim scriptures?

If that is the case, why do these young men volunteer for the task, and why do they think that they will be rewarded with 72 virgins after they do something that is against scripture?

Comment:-

<snip>


You are making assumptions about these people. What makes you think that they follow the Quran or understand it? What makes you think they do it to be rewarded by 72 virgins? There is no mention of 72 virgins in the Quran. Even so what makes you think that your idea of "virgins" is the same as that of the "suicide bombers", a Western label? Nor do they consider themselves as suicide bombers, but martyrs who are fighting against an injustice.

<snip>

Certainly, doing evil or killing innocent people is not allowed by the Quran but retaliation against evil is allowed and even made obligatory and no one can be regarded as innocent who supports or aids an evil or collaborate with it such as invading another country and killing its citizens. Those who do this are most certainly criminals.

<snip>





http://www.altway.freeuk.com/Answers/494-Selfwill.htm

[progdonkey]

20. the Koran gives you the virgins in Heaven...

the Bible gives them to you on Earth.

Numbers 31:

14And Moses was wroth with the officers of the host, with the captains over thousands, and captains over hundreds, which came from the battle.

15And Moses said unto them, Have ye saved all the women alive?

16Behold, these caused the children of Israel, through the counsel of Balaam, to commit trespass against the LORD in the matter of Peor, and there was a plague among the congregation of the LORD.

17Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him.

18But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.

Though, at least the Koran's virgins aren't 8-years-old.

[NMMNG]

30. If by "virgin*s*" you mean 72 of them,

please support your statement with the appropriate verses from the Koran.

[progdonkey]

34. um, was my point unclear?

I thought my point was pretty obvious that, if you want to discuss virgins being offered as prizes and you're going to think Islam has a warped morality because the Koran offers holy warriors 72 virgins when they martyr themselves, what kind of morality offers holy warriors child sex slaves (and without even having to martyr themselves, to boot)?

I honestly don't know whether the Koran actually has the whole 72 virgins thing, I quoted the Bible to show that, even assuming the 72 virgins thing is in the Koran for sake of argument, the Bible's far worse. I also don't really care whether the Koran does or doesn't, anyway, since all those religious texts are fictional BS, so arguing about particulars is like arguing over those in Star Trek episodes (though at least Trekkies don't start wars over their stupid and pointless arguments).

[NMMNG]

44. It appeared you were claiming the Koran stated "72 virgins"

Your OP stated "The Koran gives you the virgins". I was merely asking you to back that statement up if you were indeed claiming that it stated 72 virgins. Since you've clarified there's no need for that.


Islam does promise virgins, not only to men but to women, in heaven. The number "72" is never quoted (in fact no specific number is quoted). However it's not just martyrs but everyone who is admitted to Heaven that receives virgins. And people who harm innocents do not receive virgins because they don't get into heaven.


Full explanation here.

[catbert836]

35. In a lot of ways, it is just like Christianity.

Not an inherently violent religion at all. My theory regarding major religions is that they go through violent and peaceful stages. In the 14th century, Christianity was at a pretty violent point (Crusades, etc.), while Muslims were rather more intelligent and enlightened than the Christians of their day. Now, in the 14th century of Islam, it is at a particularly violent point (al-Qa'eda, etc.)

Now, consider what happened within Christianity following the Crusades: the Reformation, which was essentially a struggle within Christianity between zealots and moderates. An Islamic scholar named Reza Aslan, author of "No god but God" makes the case in his book that we are living in the beginning of an Islamic reformation. He states that the alleged struggle between Islam and the west is actually a struggle within Islam itself, between moderates and zealots, and that the West is an innocent bystander, which sometimes gets lashed out at as a result of the conflict. This is similar to the role played by the Middle East during the conflicts within Christianity.

[Onus]

38. The Crusades - Just like the "72 virgins"

The myth that the crusades were a product of Christian aggression are as vapid as the myth that the Koran promises 72 virgins to suicide bombers. It just isn't so.

"In 1009 the Fatimid caliph al-Hakim bi-Amr Allah had sacked the pilgrimage hospice in Jerusalem and destroyed the Church of the Holy Sepulchre. It was later rebuilt by the Byzantine emperor, but this event may have been remembered in Europe and may have helped spark the crusade. In 1063, Pope Alexander II had given papal blessing to Iberian Christians in their wars against the Muslims, granting both a papal standard (the vexillum sancti Petri) and an indulgence to those who were killed in battle. Pleas from the Byzantine Emperors, now threatened under by the Seljuks, first in 1074 from Emperor Michael VII to Pope Gregory VII and in 1095 from Emperor Alexius I Comnenus to Pope Urban II, thus fell on ready ears."

The first crusade was launched in 1095 by Pope Urban II. In other words, Christians turned the other cheek for nearly 100 years before mounting a dedicated response to Muslim aggression.

[catbert836]

40. You can't be serious.

Claims that the Crusades were a defensive conflict against Islamic aggresion only have a place in Right-Wing revisionism.

from Wikipedia (I know, give me time for a better source)

The Crusades were in part an outlet for an intense religious piety which rose up in the late 11th century among the lay public. This was due in part to the Investiture Controversy, which had started around 1075 and was still on-going during the First Crusade. Christendom had been greatly affected by the Investiture Controversy; as both sides tried to marshal public opinion in their favor, people became personally engaged in a dramatic religious controversy. The result was an awakening of intense Christian piety and public interest in religious affairs. This was further strengthened by religious propaganda, advocating Just War in order to retake the Holy Land, which included Jerusalem (where the death, resurrection and ascension into heaven of Jesus took place) and Antioch (the first Christian city), from the Muslims. All of this eventually manifested in the overwhelming popular support for the First Crusade, and the religious vitality of the 12th century.

The immediate cause of the First Crusade was Alexius I's appeal to Pope Urban II for mercenaries to help him resist Muslim advances into territory of the Byzantine Empire. In 1071, at the Battle of Manzikert, the Byzantine Empire had been defeated, and this defeat led to the loss of all but the coastlands of Asia Minor (modern Turkey). Although the East-West Schism was brewing between the Catholic Western church and the Greek Orthodox Eastern church, Alexius I expected some help from a fellow Christian. However, the response was much larger, and less helpful, than Alexius I desired, as the Pope called for a large invasion force to not merely defend the Byzantine Empire but also retake Jerusalem.

As for the destruction of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, al-Hakim was isolated in his views. His succesor allowed the Church to be rebuilt and for pilgrims to return.

In any case, Alexius I only appealed for help with defeating the Seljuks, who had recently conquered Asia Minor. The Seljuks were Turks, who, although they shared the Islamic religion, were not under the command of the Caliphate. Conquering Jerusalem in response to the Turkish threat was as much mistaken as attacking Iraq for September 11.

[Zhade]

61. He was a freeper. Now dead.

Good job, though!

[blitzen]

43. the Crusades, especially the early ones, were a "jobs"

program for unemployed and impoverished European knights. In the 11th cent. the Church had managed fairly successfully to impose a relative peace ("The Peace of God") in Europe. Knights, whose job was to plunder, were running out of targets at home. In other words, The Church and European rulers (who had an interest in peace at home) managed to "externalize" the violence on which the aristocratic economy was based. That is, it was a kind of colonialist enterprise (literally, since these knights set up little kingdoms in the holy land).

[Onus]

39. Comparison

The reformation of Christianity was brought about by fundamentalists. In Islam the fundamentalists are the problem.

[catbert836]

41. On the contrary

The Reformation was indeed brought about by fundamentalists, but their efforts had the effect of liberalizing Christian thought through the Enlightenment. I would argue that the same process is going on right now within Islam.

[NMMNG]

59. Fundamentalists are the problem in Christianity also

That is why gay rights, womens' rights, freedom of religion, democracy in America, the Middle East and so much more are in grave danger.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

55. Yes, he makes very good points in his book

To find out more about the struggle within the Muslim world, check out

http://www.muslimwakeup.com

[TallahasseeGrannie]

36. I don't think the religion is any more

violent than any other religion, but the adherents tend to be a bit crankier at the moment..reminiscent of Christians in the middle ages.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

46. You may think you only looked at moderate/progressive sources

but unless you read the Qur'an in Arabic, you looked at a translation. There are different translations of the Qur'an, and no, they don't translate the same passages the same way. For example, your 72 virgins remark-I've read commentary by imams (Qur'anic scholars) who say that "virgins" better translates to "raisins". If you would kindly cite the sura and verse your comments are based upon, I'd like to do some checking in my translation. Thank you.

[Igel]

57. It's a fool's errand to compare the two religions, for there

aren't two. There are many.

UBL has a form of Islam accepted by, it would seem, millions of people that call themselves Muslim. On the other hand, there are Sufis to which UBL's theology is anathema. A Muslim in Iraq could say that the family of the girl that was raped and killed couldn't be Shi'ites, since they were "good monotheists."

Muslim rulers could be tolerant even while local imams whipped up crowds to kill 10s of thousands of Christians for having too much power in a Muslim city. Maimonides could be welcomed in an Islamic state, and write in Arabic, while being forbidden to use Arabic script because as a non-Muslim, it was simply forbidden.

Some hold that the Qur'an cannot be read as such; it's ordered at odds with the chronology of revelation, and the later verses supercede the earlier ones. Others argue that only the love- and peace-filled verses are truly applicable, whereas many Muslim organizations liberally use ellipses when it suits their purposes. Some want to include context, not only verbal, but also historical, so that the intent of verses that might cause trouble are so bound by context that they have little or no application today. Others argue that each verse must, in preaching if not in intellectual justification, be taken as free-standing.

To avoiding offending the "there is only one Islam" crowd prevalent in many places, we use the term "Islamism". But Islamists would argue that their interpretation is founded in the Qur'an and the reliable Ahadith, and the others are simply apostate, or at best weak in the faith.

Christianity runs from Russian Orthodox to American Episcopalianism to Nigerian Catholicism to the Church of God, 7th Day, and 7th Day Adventists. Some are pacifist; some are not. Some welcome gays, some do not. Some are literal minded in Bible interpretation, some insist on disregarding passages in the Bible that they don't want to believe, or argue that they're so context-bound as to be intended only for situations that can no longer exist.

Which Islam were you comparing to which Christianity?

Your question needs to be defined more clearly.

But speaking in general, IMHO, the traditional principles of Qur'anic interpretation and Islamic jurisprudence have produced the same symptoms repeatedly. The documents lend themselves easily to such an interpretation, with the same supremacist application occurring centuries apart in different parts of the Muslim world; arguing for "the one true interpretation" is a religious statement of faith, and has no validity outside of sect-internal polemic. Similarly, there have been some common trends in Bible interpretation: among Jews, there have been Messianic and revivalist movements, some lending themselves to a desire to reclaim the "holy land". Among Christians, those departing from Catholic tradition and relying strictly on the original texts supposedly underpinning their faith lapse most frequently into Judaizing or retreat from forceful participation in society, and these are usually pacifist or engage in 'good works'; most American fundamentalists are 95% Catholic. Since Christianity is more hierarchical, such heresies are usually rooted out quickly, and it in discussions of heresies that you find Judaizers; Judaism has been a weak, minority faith so that its Messianic movements have withered and been fairly discrete; Islam has no hierarchy, and populism, put bluntly, sells.

However, it can be said that Christianity in its first 3 centuries or so was mostly underground, and did not seek power--furthermore, it was riven by numerous heresies and fractions, and while it spread, mostly in the cities, the impetus for centralization was a response to heresies; Islam, in its first 3 centuries or so spread from Arabia to Persia in the East and Spain the West, and sought supremacy. The victors' view is that they were greeted with roses and shouts of jubilation; the view from the side is that it was a bloody or highly discriminatory affair.

[Evoman]

62. I think its as whacky as everything else.

None of this religions stuff makes sense to me. I mean, I understand the writing, and I understand the stories...I just don't understand why anybody would believe it enough to base their world view on it.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

64. I think it's the most unpleasant of the major world religions.

I don't think it's inherently violent - the fraction of Muslims who resort to violence to spread their religion is quite small - but I do think it's inherently repressive, to a significantly greater degree than any of Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, Judaism or Sikhism (I don't know enough about Shinto to contrast it reliably, although I don't believe it to be particularly objectionable).

If you simply compare "The Quran" to "The Bible" or "The Torah" then there is less difference, although even there I think it's clear than the Quran is the most illiberal (to forestall an objection that always gets raised when I mention this: the New Testament of the Bible contains explicit dispensations from most of the madder instructions in the OT), but the question asked about contrasting religions, not holy books, so what needs to be looked at is "what Muslims believe and do" vs "what followers of religion X believe and do", and the positions of most Muslims on women's rights, gay rights, religious freedom, freedom of speech, crime and punishment etc are ones I disagree with more strongly than those averaged over the followers of any other religion.

One can argue "they're all misinterpreting their religion, actually it doesn't say that", but I think this is silly - there is no such thing as a platonic form of a religion beyond what it's followers believe.

There is a great deal of silly right-wing anti-muslim propaganda. There are, however, also a great many valid reasons why a liberal should dislike Islam, and dislike it more than any other widespread religion.

[Zhade]

66. Same as I think of all religions, Christianity included: not very highly.

The individual believers can be pretty cool, though, despite their (IMHO, which I'm entitled to) pointless religion.

Sorry, just how I feel. I'd never think less of a believer for being a believer, though.

[PsychoDad]

67. About those "virgins"...

The word "Hoor" is sometimes translated as maiden or virgin, but is this a correct translation?
Just what are the "Hoors" ?

The word hoor occurs in the Quran in four different places, as translated into english:

(1) In Sura Dukhan:

"Moreover, We shall join them to companions With beautiful, big and lustrous eyes."

(2) In Surah Al-Tur

"...And We shall join them to companions, with beautiful, big and lustrous eyes."

(3) In Surah Rahman

"Companions restrained (as to their glances), in goodly pavilions."

(4) In Surah Al-Waqiah

"And (there will be) companions with beautiful, big and lustrous eyes."

Many translators of the Quran have translated the word "hoor" as ‘beautiful maidens’ especially in Urdu translations, but The word hoor is actually the plural of ahwar (male) and of haura (female), thus the word is sexualy neutral and signifies a person having eyes characterized by "hauar" a special quality bestowed upon a good soul and it denotes the intense whiteness of the white part of the spiritual eye.

The Qur’an describes in several other verses that in paradise you will have "azwaj" which can mean a spouse or companion.

"But give glad tidings to those who believe and work righteousness, that their portion is gardens, beneath which rivers flow. Every time they are fed with fruits therefrom, they say: "Why, this is what we were fed with before", for they are given things in similitude; and they have therein companions pure (and holy); and they abide therein (forever)".

"But those who believe and do deeds of righteousness, We shall soon admit to Gardens, with rivers flowing beneath – their eternal home; therein shall they have companions pure and holy: we shall admit them to shades, cool and ever deepening".

As I understand it, the Quran is simply telling us that we, male or female, will not be alone in the hereafter. We will have those we love here and in the hereafter around us and with us in the next life. It may also be telling us that many of our companions and neighbors who we become close to in Paradise will not be human, but perhaps Jinn and perhaps even species from other worlds. (I for one do not think we are "alone", and I believe that in paradise we will be able to study and enjoy the whole of Allah's creation.)

And yes, it is these references, and weak hadeeth, (unfounded supposed sayings of the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh)) that has helped to create the 72 virgins myth.

Peace.