Muslim Groups Cheer Aquittal of Cheerleader of Islamic Terrorism

I don't know enough about CAIR to comment on what they've done or not done.

The real "push" should have come from the US leaders of Islam, IMO. Sorry to say I can't even tell you if they're called Ayatollah here, but those men acknowledged to be the leaders. Those are the men the average US citizen would listen to.

I know Islam doesn't have a "pope," but maybe they should consider the office. It certainly would help clear a lot of foggy, smelly air if they had one "true" spokesman. Again, IMO.

[ACPlayer]

Unfortunately, Islam was set up as a personal religion without a formal structure (like the Pope). This has led to many interpretations including some extremist interpretations. A religion should really be personal rather than come with a political structure. Unfortunately, for Islam, this has created a PR problem in modern society as there is no single voice. The Mullah with the biggest loudspeaker is picked up by some to be the true voice of Islam and the silence on the part of the many is considered to be acceptance of the terrorist activities.

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
Unfortunately, Islam was set up as a personal religion without a formal structure (like the Pope). This has led to many interpretations including some extremist interpretations. A religion should really be personal rather than come with a political structure. Unfortunately, for Islam, this has created a PR problem in modern society as there is no single voice. The Mullah with the biggest loudspeaker is picked up by some to be the true voice of Islam and the silence on the part of the many is considered to be acceptance of the terrorist activities.

[/ QUOTE ]

So, ACPlayer, then why not look to what the Prophet Mohammed himself did, how he followed the Koran, how he interpreted it. Look to the words of Mohammed (Peace be upon Him) in the hadiths, look at his many military campaigns of conquest, look at his slaughter of 600 surrendered Jews at Medina.

Do you want to know how to interpret a Koranic passage?

"Sura 8:67 It is not for any Prophet to have captives until he has made great slaughter in the land"

Well, Mohammed, Allah's Messenger (Peace be upon Him!), knew exactly how to interpret it: he made slaughter before taking captive slaves from amongst the women and children of the conquered.

If you are unsure what is meant by the Koran, O ACPlayer, and are confused by opinions of any mullahs or imams, there is no need for such confusion on your part: just look to the blessed example of Mohammed!

Sura 9:73 "O Prophet! Make war on the unbelievers and the hypocrites. Be harsh with them. Their ultimate abode is hell, a hapless journey's end."

Following this command of Allah, Mohammed the Last Prophet (Peace be upon Him!) waged many great battles upon the infidels, leading over 20 such military campaigns himself!

So you see, ACPlayer, there is no need at all for your confusion. The blessed example of Mohammed the Last Prophet (Peace be upon Him!) makes all things clear. As Sura 2:193 says, "Fight against them until idolatry is no more and Allah's religion reigns supreme", and as Sura 9:5 says "When the sacred months are over, slay the idolaters wherever you find them. Arrest them, besiege them, and lie in ambush everywhere for them.".

But have no fear, O ACPlayer! For surely, as Sura 47:5 says, "Those who are slain in the way of Allah - he will never let their deeds be lost. Soon will he guide them and improve their condition, and admit them to the Garden, which he has announced for them"

and as Sura 44:51-57 says, "Lo! Those who kept their duty will be in a place secure, amid gardens and water-springs, attired in silk and silk embroidery, facing one another.... And we shall wed them unto fair ones with wide, lovely eyes. They call therein for every fruit in safety. They taste not death therein, save the first death. And He hath saved them from the doom of hell, a bounty from thy Lord. That is the supreme triumph. "

[New001]

Please don't forget that Muslims aren't the only religious group to commit atrocities in the name of their religion in the past or in the present.

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
Please don't forget that Muslims aren't the only religious group to commit atrocities in the name of their religion in the past or in the present.

[/ QUOTE ]


Of course, but the point is that the FOUNDER of the religion committed great slaughter in the name of the religion, and on multiple occasions.

[nicky g]

I said I would respond to some of BluffThis's Quranic quotations a few weeks back but never got round to it, so I'll do it in response to this post, as you quote similar/some of the same passages. Both of you quote verses out of context, which often skews their meaning, and sometimes translations that seem designed to bring out the most belligerent possible meanings (in that there are other translations that give rise to less agressive, and often openly anti-agressive, meanings).

For example, you quote:
""Sura 8:67 It is not for any Prophet to have captives until he has made great slaughter in the land" ".

I’m not sure where you got this as I can’t find any online transcript that has exactly the same wording, but never mind, there are very similar ones out there. First of all there’s the issue of the translation: my translation of the Quran, the recent Abd al Haleem translation (which I strongly recommend; published by OUP), has this verse reading: “It is not right for a prophet to take captives before he has conquered the battlefield”, which is markedly less aggressive – no inducement to “slaughter” first, take prisoners later. This version has “It is not fitting for an apostle that he should have prisoners of war until he hath thoroughly subdued the land.”
Meanwhile this version has “It does not behove a prophet that [he] should have captives until he engages in regular fighting”, and comments : “This verse lays down the general rule that captives should not be taken unless there is regular fighting and the enemy is completely overpowered. It cuts at the root of slavery. Only those who take part in war to destroy Islam and are defeated can be made prisoner. .
Thus while your interpretation of the verse is “Prophets must kill people before they can take prisoners”, these Pakistani Muslims’ interpretation, based on a different translation, is “Prisoners can only be taken [by Prophets] in regular battle” ie don’t resort to kidnapping or slavery. Neither of us have the knowledge of the text or classical Arabic to settle which interpretation is right, but clearly you should be wary of making generalisations about the entire religion based on out of context excerpts of contentious verses that are open top various translations and interpretations.

“Sura 9:73 "O Prophet! Make war on the unbelievers and the hypocrites. Be harsh with them. Their ultimate abode is hell, a hapless journey's end."”

First of all, this says “O Prophet”. It doesn’t enjoin anyone else to do this (note also that the previously discussed verse also refers to "Prophets", not people in general). One of your criticisms of the Quran has been that it makes general timeless commands to all Muslims, while you claim for example that the excesses of the Old Testament are only one-off messages to historical characters that don’t necessarily apply in general. Well note here that clearly isn’t the case (and often isn’t; many verses are addressed to the Prophet or refer to specific occasions). Also note that my translation says “strive against” rather than “make war”, which given the Arabic is jahada is certainly a plausible translation given that jahada (from which jihad comes) means to struggle or strive. The Hell reference is hardly much different from what most religions claim. So while you would presumably argue that this is an injunction for Muslims to make war on unbelievers, it is more plausibly a call specifically to the Prophet to strive against them in an undefined manner.

Note also that this verse is from Sura 9, as are the next two you quote, and as were most of BluffThis’s quotes if I recall correctly. The context here is absolutely key. You both quote the verses as if they were general, timeless commands to fight against/subdue/dhimmify all infidels or what have you. In fact, it refers to a specific historical context. The Haleem version presents it as referring to an occasion where God allowed the Muslims to break their pledges, although giving them four months notice first, to some non-believers because those non-believers had broken a treaty with the Muslims (by supporting others against them) and continued to fight against them. He uses some Arabic grammar to show that the reference to idolaters in 9:5, which you quote, refers specifically to those who broke the treaty. Neither of us have the knowledge of Arabic to know whether he’s right or wrong but given that he is a professor of classical Arabic, I think we’d have a hard time finding a reputable refutation of his point.

Now you can say that the Quran is timeless for Muslims and always valid. True, but what’s the lesson from this verse? You would presumably argue that it's “Always fight the unbelievers until they submit” as was permitted in this context. I think a more tenable one is “It’s legitimate to fight people who break treaties or fight you; but always be ready to be merciful (mentioned in the next verses).” Indeed much of the sura consists of specific condemnations of people who break their word rather than "unbelievers".

The point of all this is not that the translations and interpretations that I use are definitely right and your are wrong, although I do think the total lack of context perverts the meanings of your quotes. The real point is that the meaning, even the correct translation, of these verses are highly contested and depend on correct interpretation of an ancient language as well as a detailed knowledge ot textual and historical context - and even then how these should be applied to other contexts and situations is not going to be solved in a manner that would convince all people.

As the Quran says: “Some of its [ie scripture] verses are definite in meaning – these are the cornerstone of the Scripture – and others are ambigious. The perverse at heart eagerly pursue the ambiguities in their attempt to make trouble and pin down a specific meaning of their own: only God knows the true meaning.” (Haleem, 3:7).

[MMMMMM]

Nicky, I don't have the three-fold translations handy (although I did post a link and examples in another thread perhaps a couple weeks ago or so; those are translations by three Islamic scholars who are also Muslims; I'd recommend that for comparative purposes. And the verse I posted above was from another source; I wish I'd had the three-fold translations available instead when I posted).

What do you think about the general point, though, Nicky: that the warlike verses in the Koran are likely best taken literally as per the example of Mohammed himself? Jihad and fighting the unbelievers for him was a very active thing and he made much war on the unbelievers; led a great many military campaigns against them. Who should know what the Koran means better than Mohammed himself? Should not his example count a great deal?

[nicky g]

But part of the point is that those verses don't make much sense outside of their context. Also that the translators are Muslim does not mean we have to accept their translations; different Muslims make different translations. The Saudis supported the propogation of new translations that took deliberately aggressive and arguably distortive lines for example; I don;t know if the ones you refer to are amongst them. It is ironically notable that extremist Muslims often use the same arguments, translations and interpretations as extremist anti-Muslims. So I don't accept the premise of your question that they are necessarily warlike; at least not ion an expansionist sense. Also there is an argument to be made that it is good that the Quran establishes rules of war, in that it forbids excesses that might otherwise occur.

I think it is a bit much to cite Quranic verses demonstrating the irredeemable belligerency of Islam, and then when I go to a lot of effort to show how those verses do not necessarily demonstrate the agrression they appear to out of context in specific translations, turn around and say "well look at Mohammed's life instead." Can we have one argument at a time? Let's say I think your characterisation of him as something worse than a war-crazed pirate is a little exaggerated. And if we re going to simply use him as an "example", what of the examples of the warrior kings and prophets of the Old Testament? If you take its word, they got up to a lot worse than Muhammed ever did.

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
I think it is a bit much to cite Quranic verses demonstrating the irredeemable belligerency of Islam, and then when I go to a lot of effort to show how those verses do not necessarily demonstrate the agrression they appear to out of context in specific translations, turn around and say "well look at Mohammed's life instead."

[/ QUOTE ]

Nicky, I'm sorry, but I didn't have time to address at length any of the specific points you raised. Also, I think I raised the example of Mohammed's actions in this thread before your response.

[ QUOTE ]
Can we have one argument at a time? Let's say I think your characterisation of him as something worse than a war-crazed pirate is a little exaggerated. And if we re going to simply use him as an "example", what of the examples of the warrior kings and prophets of the Old Testament? If you take its word, they got up to a lot worse than Muhammed ever did.


[/ QUOTE ]

Mohammed led over 20 military campaigns and participated in over 60. He promised and allowed his warriors spoils from the conquests.

Also, Mophammed is just not "another king" or "another example." He is the founder of the religion. Now, if Jesus himself had gone on war-party raids and led military campaigns against unbelievers, I'd say you would have a legitimate parallel example.

The point I was trying to make (to ACPlayer) is that Mohammed might be considered the ultimate authority on Islam, seeing as he was the founder of the entire religion and is considered the Final Prophet. Mohammed's real-life example is that of making many wars against unbelievers. This at least should make one think it more likely than not that the belligerent interpretations of the Koranic passages dealing with fighting infidels, are also most likely the correct interpretations.

I'll return to your post and try to address some of the specific points you raised at a later time (when I have the time and energy to do some web-searching for multiple comparative translations--I've found such things to be time-consuming in the past, and I'm afraid I don't save links for this stuff).

[BluffTHIS!]

nicky, the point was already made to you by both MMMMMM and myself in that other thread, that it is not important how you wish to interpret the Quran in the most favorable light to avoid the plain meaning of its words, but how Moslems interpret and act on it. You seem to intentionally be refusing to make this distinction.