Aren't they cute!

[dmens]

Originally posted by: dna
Sweet harmony...

Indeed. sharia dictates that non-muslims who try to convert muslims must be killed as well. That charge has been used very often in history as an easy justification for mass murder.

 

[kylebisme]

Originally posted by: dmens
I disagree. According to the koran, the penalty for apostasy is death...

Were do you think it says that?

 

[dmens]

Originally posted by: TheSnowman
Were do you think it says that?

In the Koran, the statement is interpreted. From an essay by Robert Spencer:

IV. 89: ?They would have you disbelieve as they themselves have disbelieved, so that you may be all like alike. Do not befriend them until they have fled their homes for the cause of God. If they desert you seize them and put them to death wherever you find them. Look for neither friends nor helpers among them?? Baydawi (died c. 1315-16), in his celebrated commentary on the Koran, interprets this passage to mean: ?Whosoever turns back from his belief ( irtada ), openly or secretly, take him and kill him wheresoever ye find him, like any other infidel. Separate yourself from him altogether. Do not accept intercession in his regard?.

In the hadiths, the death penalty for apostates is very clear and widely accepted, from medieval to modern times. That is undeniable.

Also, the penalty for non-muslims preaching to muslims is outlined specifically in the koran itself:

2:217: "to prevent access to Allah, to deny Him, to prevent access to the Sacred Mosque, to expel its members, and polytheism are worse than slaughter."

 

[kylebisme]

The "translation" being quoted there isn't accepted by Muslims. Here are some widely accepted translations of that chapter with translations of the verse in question quoted below:

YUSUFALI: They but wish that ye should reject Faith, as they do, and thus be on the same footing (as they): But take not friends from their ranks until they flee in the way of Allah (From what is forbidden). But if they turn renegades, seize them and slay them wherever ye find them; and (in any case) take no friends or helpers from their ranks;-
PICKTHAL: They long that ye should disbelieve even as they disbelieve, that ye may be upon a level (with them). So choose not friends from them till they forsake their homes in the way of Allah; if they turn back (to enmity) then take them and kill them wherever ye find them, and choose no friend nor helper from among them,
SHAKIR: They desire that you should disbelieve as they have disbelieved, so that you might be (all) alike; therefore take not from among them friends until they fly (their homes) in Allah's way; but if they turn back, then seize them and kill them wherever you find them, and take not from among them a friend or a helper.

That isn't describing apostasy, it is describing how to deal with someone who pretends to be a defector of one's enemies but is latter working for those enemies as a 'triple agent' in the midst of a war; no different then how we handle such situations in the West.

As for the other verse mentioned you can find accepted translations here:

YUSUFALI: They ask thee concerning fighting in the Prohibited Month. Say: "Fighting therein is a grave (offence); but graver is it in the sight of Allah to prevent access to the path of Allah, to deny Him, to prevent access to the Sacred Mosque, and drive out its members." Tumult and oppression are worse than slaughter. Nor will they cease fighting you until they turn you back from your faith if they can. And if any of you Turn back from their faith and die in unbelief, their works will bear no fruit in this life and in the Hereafter; they will be companions of the Fire and will abide therein.
PICKTHAL: They question thee (O Muhammad) with regard to warfare in the sacred month. Say: Warfare therein is a great (transgression), but to turn (men) from the way of Allah, and to disbelieve in Him and in the Inviolable Place of Worship, and to expel His people thence, is a greater with Allah; for persecution is worse than killing. And they will not cease from fighting against you till they have made you renegades from your religion, if they can. And whoso becometh a renegade and dieth in his disbelief: such are they whose works have fallen both in the world and the Hereafter. Such are rightful owners of the Fire: they will abide therein.
SHAKIR: They ask you concerning the sacred month about fighting in it. Say: Fighting in it is a grave matter, and hindering (men) from Allah's way and denying Him, and (hindering men from) the Sacred Mosque and turning its people out of it, are still graver with Allah, and persecution is graver than slaughter; and they will not cease fighting with you until they turn you back from your religion, if they can; and whoever of you turns back from his religion, then he dies while an unbeliever-- these it is whose works shall go for nothing in this world and the hereafter, and they are the inmates of the fire; therein they shall abide.

That doesn't condemn non-Muslims who simply preach their faith to Muslims, but rather stresses the importance of resisting those who would forcibly deny people the right to practice Islam. Free exercise of religion being another ideal we share in the West.

 

[highwire]

The gist of the OP's post is an anti-Arab "ain't it awful" topic. Actually all middle-eastern derived religions have had that characteristic to kill "the others", the non-believers. If you are in need of some background, read the book of Ester to see ME problem solving in action. Its been going on a long time. Even Christianity used that technique to conquer Europe. Charlemagne annihilated a whole tribe, the Saxons, because they were not very keen to convert. A process called germanization morphed it into the less barbaric institution of today.
BTW, there used to be an exception in the middle-east, one Arab country that was secular. The Mullahs and Rabis hated it. Saddam's Iraq.

 

[dmens]

Originally posted by: TheSnowman
The "translation" being quoted there isn't accepted by Muslims. Here are some widely accepted translations of that chapter with translations of the verse in question quoted below:

As for the other verse mentioned you can find accepted translations here:

That doesn't condemn non-Muslims who simply preach their faith to Muslims, but rather stresses the importance of resisting those who would forcibly deny people the right to practice Islam. Free exercise of religion being another ideal we share in the West.

I already said the first verse is interpreted. Even if it is not accepted by some muslims, the hadiths are clear. In this case, there are more than enough muslims who do translate that verse as I quoted to make the death penalty a common occurence for apostates.

Your interpreation of the second verse is laughable. Freedom of religion in muslim countries doesn't exist since other religions are always totally subjugated under islamic domination. Allowing someone to practice religion does not mean freedom of religion. Your selective reading of the verse ignores the obvious statement. Again, the hadiths are quite clear on the issue as well.

 

[JulesMaximus]

Speaking as someone who has, from time to time, wished death upon certain "Christians" I've met I don't really see this as anything more than a publicity stunt.

I suppose they don't have any cases of homosexuality, homelessness or AIDS in the middle east? Well, maybe that's like the Nazi's saying they don't have any Jews in their organization.

 

[kylebisme]

Originally posted by: dmens
I already said the first verse is interpreted. Even if it is not accepted by some muslims, the hadiths are clear. In this case, there are more than enough muslims who do translate that verse as I quoted to make the death penalty a common occurence for apostates.

Again, the Dawood 'translation' you provided quotes from is not accepted by Mulsims, there is no "some" about it.

Originally posted by: dmens
Your interpreation of the second verse is laughable. Freedom of religion in muslim countries doesn't exist since other religions are always totally subjugated under islamic domination. Allowing someone to practice religion does not mean freedom of religion. Your selective reading of the verse ignores the obvious statement. Again, the hadiths are quite clear on the issue as well.

The verse doesn't apply to Muslim countries, it applies the beginnings of Islam where Muslims were the ones facing domination by those who wanted to strip them off their faith. And I was not suggesting that the verse supports freedom of religion in general, but rather simply the rights of Mulsims to defend their right to practice Islam.

Regardless, you still provided nothing "According to the koran, the penalty for apostasy is death..." claim, and your site unaccepted translations, secondary sources, and trail off into other arguments makes it fairly clear that you have no basis for that claim.

 

[dmens]

Originally posted by: TheSnowman
Again, the Dawood 'translation' you provided quotes from is not accepted by Mulsims, there is no "some" about it.

The verse doesn't apply to Muslim countries, it applies the beginnings of Islam where Muslims were the ones facing domination by those who wanted to strip them off their faith. And I was not suggesting that the verse supports freedom of religion in general, but rather simply the rights of Mulsims to defend their right to practice Islam.

Regardless, you still provided nothing "According to the koran, the penalty for apostasy is death..." claim, and your site unaccepted translations, secondary sources, and trail off into other arguments makes it fairly clear that you have no basis for that claim.

Dawood was criticized for inaccuracies in his publication, but that criticism is not universal at all. I don't care of muslims don't accept it. When their wretched text is revealed for what it is, it is not surprising for many muslims to react as such.

Your reading of the second erse is based on a very brief contemporary analysis. There's no chronological setting for that text. Subsequent intepretations are quite clear.

You're right in one thing, the koran is very vague on the issue on punishement on apostates, it never directly states any punishment. However, many intepretations make that conclusion, and the hadiths agree. I'll conded the point regarding literal, explicit statements in the koran itself. But every other muslim tradition is very clear. The consequence in the real world makes the first point almost completely irrelevant.

 

[EagleKeeper]

When the translations are vague, people can then use which ever interpretation that see fit or make up their own to back up their faith or justifiy their actions.


Because, as we have seen, even the Muslim religious scholars differ in interpretations of the Koran; the radicals can claim one thing; those that sympathize with radicals can say another, but understand the radical justifications.

 

[kylebisme]

Dawood wasn't a religious scholar, he wasn't even Muslim.

 

[1prophet]

The only way minority and majority religions can coexist together in peace is through the separation of religion from the state.

 

[dmens]

Originally posted by: TheSnowman
Dawood wasn't a religious scholar, he wasn't even Muslim.

So? The fact he isn't muslim is likely to reduce bias in a translation, since muslims consider the koran to be god's word and treat it as such.

 

[yllus]

Originally posted by: dmens

Originally posted by: TheSnowman
Were do you think it says that?

In the Koran, the statement is interpreted. From an essay by Robert Spencer:

IV. 89: ?They would have you disbelieve as they themselves have disbelieved, so that you may be all like alike. Do not befriend them until they have fled their homes for the cause of God. If they desert you seize them and put them to death wherever you find them. Look for neither friends nor helpers among them?? Baydawi (died c. 1315-16), in his celebrated commentary on the Koran, interprets this passage to mean: ?Whosoever turns back from his belief ( irtada ), openly or secretly, take him and kill him wheresoever ye find him, like any other infidel. Separate yourself from him altogether. Do not accept intercession in his regard?.

In the hadiths, the death penalty for apostates is very clear and widely accepted, from medieval to modern times. That is undeniable.

Also, the penalty for non-muslims preaching to muslims is outlined specifically in the koran itself:

2:217: "to prevent access to Allah, to deny Him, to prevent access to the Sacred Mosque, to expel its members, and polytheism are worse than slaughter."

That is "interpreted" horribly and is completely intellectually dishonest.

That entire passage is a historical retelling of a battle to return to the city of Medina, from which the Muslims where banished. Upon winning the battle to return, the Muslims are then instructed to live in peace amongst the nonbelievers, but if they break the peace treaty, then to attack without mercy.

Hadiths are not canon, and should be looked upon as such.

I'm all for addressing the issues of extremist Islam, but in an honest manner. This isn't.

 

[dmens]

Originally posted by: yllus
I'm all for addressing the issues of extremist Islam, but in an honest manner. This isn't.

An honest analysis of extremist islam would include supposedly radical commentaries, such as Baydawi, and how such commentary could be accepted by so many.

 

[kylebisme]

Originally posted by: dmens
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: TheSnowman
Dawood wasn't a religious scholar, he wasn't even Muslim.</end quote></div>

So?

Common Courtesy's comment gave me the impression that he belived Dawood was a Muslim religious scholar, which is far from the truth.

Originally posted by: dmensThe fact he isn't muslim is likely to reduce bias in a translation, since muslims consider the koran to be god's word and treat it as such.

Sure, and someone who doesn't belive in Democracy would be the perfect candidate for an unbiased translation of our Constitution. :roll:

Originally posted by: dmens
An honest analysis of extremist islam would include supposedly radical commentaries, such as Baydawi, and how such commentary could be accepted by so many.

Many who? From what I've seen Baidawi's commentaries generally aren't considered particularly scholarly by modern Muslims, but rather far more often they are sited by people who are biggoted against Islam.

 

[dmens]

Originally posted by: TheSnowman
Sure, and someone who doesn't belive in Democracy would be the perfect candidate for an unbiased translation of our Constitution.

Perhaps, but sympathetic translations from devout muslims would be quite biased as well. Then there's plenty of verses that are so barbaric, no amount of twisting will make it sound humane.

Many who? From what I've seen Baidawi's commentaries generally aren't considered particularly scholarly by modern Muslims, but rather far more often they are sited by people who are biggoted against Islam.

Exposing the radical side of islam is not bigotry, it's a service to humanity. There's plenty of "modern muslims" who follow the violent interpretations, as indicated by current events. Even if what you say is true (linking Baydawi to so-called bigots does not count as proof), it is obvious there are still plenty of believers in these "non-scholarly" writings.

 

[kylebisme]

Originally posted by: dmens
Exposing the radical side of islam is not bigotry...

Making unfounded claims like "According to the koran, the penalty for apostasy is death..." and " there's plenty of verses that are so barbaric, no amount of twisting will make it sound humane" most certianly is.

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
properly run government.

WTF is that? I've never seen one of those.

 

[dmens]

Originally posted by: TheSnowman
Making unfounded claims like "According to the koran, the penalty for apostasy is death..." and " there's plenty of verses that are so barbaric, no amount of twisting will make it sound humane" most certianly is.

I already acknowledged the first point, the corrected statement is "according to islamic tradition, the penalty for apostasy is death". Doesn't sound much better, does it?

The second point, you ought to look at mohammed ordering the murder of his uncle, his obscene "divine justification" for his affair with Mary the Copt, the wholesale slaighter of jewish tribes, among many other things. I'd like your explanation on how those aren't barbaric.

 

[kylebisme]

Verse?

 

[dmens]

Qur'an 111:1-5: "Perish the two hands of Abu Lahab (the Prophet's uncle), and perish he... He will be burnt in a Fire of blazing flames... And his wife, too, who carries wood (thorns which she put in the Prophet's way... In her neck is a twisted rope of Masad (palm fiber)."

Look, he ordered his aunt killed too. What a douchebag.

Qur'an 33:50 "O Prophet! We have made lawful to you all the wives to whom you have paid dowers; and those whom your hands possess out of the prisoners of war spoils whom Allah has assigned to you; and daughters of your paternal uncles and aunts, and daughters of your uncles and aunts, who migrated with you; and any believing woman if the Prophet wishes her; this is a privilege for you only, and not for the rest of the Believers; We know what We have appointed for them as to their wives and the captives whom they possess; in order that there should be no difficulty for you and that you should be free from blame."

According to Mohammed, he has divine approval to marry as many women as he wants. How convenient! His followers only get four.

Qur'an 33:26 "Allah made the Jews leave their homes by terrorizing them so that you killed some and made many captive. And He made you inherit their lands, their homes, and their wealth. He gave you a country you had not traversed before."

Allah sez: "kill the jew and take their stuff". Apparently, that still applies today. Note the virulent hatred against the jews in the koran because the jews opposed him early on, mohammed is a spiteful bastard.

 

[kylebisme]

Damn, not only are you still quoted from a discredited 'translation', but you're now even ellipsing over context while making your argument. It's seems rather obvious that you have no intention in conducting a rational conversation here, so I won't even bother trying.

 

[yllus]

If I get really bored at home tonight, I'll provide context and explain each of the verses you've quoted there, dmens. I know off the bat that the first one is wholly and completely out of context, the second sounds like it's neither Muhammed or God talking at all (unless he's started using the 'royal we'), and the third is possibly the most ridiculous "translation" I've ever seen on these forums.

Look, you've obviously got an axe to grind against the religion. I assure you I'm far more jaded with the religion than you are, but I don't feel the need to flat out misrepresent the facts as you're doing. There's plenty to criticize without intellectual dishonesty, so do us a favour and stick to those things instead of insulting our intelligence by pretending you're accurately representing how anyone would view those verses.

 

[dmens]

You have yet provide a single source that proves the inaccuracy of those translations, you simply dismiss them off-hand. You're the irrational one.

Also, I'd like to see your context on the third verse. When is massacre of the jewish tribes OK? I'd love to see the tribal islamic double standards in action.