Pat gets mad

[Rayaan]

Hey Rayaan. I'm simply pointing out that full dress is common in some places, and where numbers provide safety net.

No problem ... and it's a common thing in some places indeed.

I'm not saying that their interpretation is right and yours wrong. I just see zero information to conclude this. As far as authorities on the subject will state (according to TV documentaries), both POV are valid. Please provide evidence that this is otherwise, as currently you've merely asserted it without evidence.

Two contradicting interpretations cannot both be correct at the same time. Only one of them can be a correct/valid interpretation.

I have already shown evidence, or at least attempted to show, on why their interpretation is not correct by explaining two verses from the Quran which many people interpret to mean that the verses are telling us to "kill" non-believers and "force" them to convert to Islam. I explained them in the last two posts and I'll do it here once again. So, I'm concluding that my interpretation is correct with a fair amount of information. This is not zero information.

I don't think that they are correct but then it matters not to their salvation/ membership of the group. I still consider them to be siblings in Christ.

As I expected, you don't agree with their interpretation which is what I was saying earlier to make the point that, just like the veiws of certain Christians are not representative of Christianity, that is the same thing for Islam. There are differences of opinion between Muslims just like there are difference of opinion between Christians but not all opinions are necessarily correct. Your last sentence, however, that you consider all Christians to be "siblings in Christ," is not relevant to this discussion because we were specifically talking about textual interpretations and the question of siblings in Christ seems to be a diversion from the topic.

But you do not accept them as siblings in Allah?

No, I consider them as creations of Allah and not siblings of Allah, but again, this is not addressing my previous comments on interpretation as I mentioned above.

You can't help but be influenced. Your personal journey is in conflict with that society, and you must reconcile your beliefs against it. If you deny the influence, you're belief means little. Your position on morality is shaped by your surroundings.

Yes, I can surely be influenced by the society and people around me. I'm not denying that. What I don't agree with, however, is when you implied that my justifications for Islam are necessarily caused by me living in the West because you don't have any data or sources to support that argument. Afterall, a believer can still get a correct understanding of his religion and be honest to himself - through his own effort and analysis - even though his surroundings played a role in re-inforcing his beliefs to a certain extent. This brings me to the next point below:

Non-westerners have a completely different perspective. Islam operating in a violent and oppressive Islamic regime is nothing like Islam operating in a civilized society.

Again, this is unfounded and a generalization. For example, my grandparents and relatives in Bangladesh have the same perception of Islam as I do. They are non-westerners indeed but they don't have a different perspective from me as your statement implied. Some of them read Quran almost every day and they, too, agree that it does not encourage the killing of infidels nor force people to convert to Islam. Every one of them that I talked to have the same perception of Islam just like me and even the majority of more than 1.4 billion Muslims in the world. They are peaceful and civilized Muslims living in a non-western country and I'm sure that they do not want to hurt anyone for not believing in Islam.

The text PRECISELY STATES that Muslims should kill the pagans if they didn't convert to Islam.

Just because you're saying that in capital letters doesn't meant that it is true, fr0d0. You have to be able to prove your arguments by pointing out the verse or verses which support them and explain to me why that is the correct viewpoint in addition to refuting what I said about those verses earlier in this thread (in post #s 70 and 72) the way that I've been doing so. I'll explain my own interpretation once again:

In light of the context of the verse (9:05), if you read the previous and next verses, it becomes clear that they were not killed just because of rejecting Islam. The surah itself was revealed after a number of treaties over a period of years between the Quraysh and the Muslims which had been broken by the pagans of the Quraysh. In it, the Muslims are commanded to hold to their side of the treaty with those pagans who have not betrayed them for the duration of the treaty. There is then to be a grace period of 4 months (in the months of Dhul-Qa'dah, Dhul-Hijjah, Muharram and Rajab which are the sanctified months in the Islamic calendar), and only then, if there is still no sign of them stopping their treachery and persecution of Muslims, then war is declared after the grace period is over. The reason for this was to defend their religion.

Again, the pagans were to be forgiven if they repent. Furthermore, if during the war a Muslim was approached by a pagan asking for asylum, he was ordered to grant it to him, and to give him the opportunity to hear the word of Allah. Even if the pagan hears the word and does not accept it, he was still obliged to be protected, as stated in the next verse, "If any amongst the Pagans ask you for asylum, grant it to him, so that he may hear the word of God, and then escort him to a place of safety. That is because they are a people who do not know" (9:06).

Sure, Mohammed took a peaceful course of action in his last offensive, where his sheer numbers meant that opposition was futile, and he understood from preceeding examples that peaceful take over was politically the strongest course of action. Of course you only refer to that last action. That's not what happenned earlier on though: There is a time and place for killing the opposition for not converting to Islam.

Okay, so now I won't refer to his last actions only. I'll start from the beginning. Then you can tell me if I said anything wrong.

In the earliest stage of Islam, Muhammad began peacefully calling the people of Mecca to accept Islam. He did this for about 10 years without fighting or killing anyone. At a certain time, however, because of their belief, Muhammad and his followers were strongly opposed. Several Meccan chiefs and leaders formed an alliance a plot an attack against the Muslims. Then, the situation started to become worse until the Muslims were forced to migrate. Muhammad and his followers fled from Mecca to Medina and they were pursued closely by the assassins for days. They were severely tortured, expelled, had their property seized, and even killed to make them give up their religion. Despite all this, Muslims still did not waver from the Islamic principles of peace, non-violence, and passive resistance. In Medina, the Islamic community was established and Muhammad continued his peaceful mission of calling people to Islam.

However, the Meccan alliance was persistent on extinguishing Islam. Several major military campaigns were waged to attack Medina in order to annihilate the Muslims. When the well-equipped armies of aggressors were forming on the horizon, far outnumbering the Muslims, Allah gave Muslims the permission for the first time to defend their life and faith by taking arms. The pagan armies of Mecca were then defeated by Muslims who were inferior in numbers and less equipped, according to what I learned, although blessed with a greater faith. So, it was only after the Meccan alliance violated the treaty, that the Quranic verse ordering Muslims to Jihad against this tyranny was revealed.

That's how it applies now. UK Muslims are pressing for Islamic courts and accept what you're suggesting as the best that can be achieved as a minority. When Islam becomes a majority Shariah law courts will have the power to force people to subit to that law, just as now happens in Islamic countries, and as now effectively applies to Muslims that have to live as part of the Muslim community.

I think that it is very unlikely that Britain will be governed by the Shariah as it happens in Islamic countries.

This actually sounds more like a publicity stunt because, ultimately, no religious group has a legal right to impose its own laws on citizens of the UK who are not willing to assent to them. If I'm wrong, then I'd like to see a link or articles which prove that the Shariah is going to be implemented upon non-Muslim citizens. Otherwise, I don't think that this is ever going to happen especially for the fact that the Muslims are a minority and that Britain is namely a "Christian state" with a secular government. Plus, the atheist population is also very high and it's growing.

Well you are again misinformed. It's happenning in the UK now.

I do know that there many Shariah courts in the UK and that Muslims are pressing for it. But, as I said earlier, what I disagree with is the idea that the Shariah will have more significance than the UK laws and that even non-Muslims in the country will have to submit to it. This might be some kind of a propaganda just to stir up more of the Islamophobia which already exists in the country.

But that's precisely what that text allows for, which is my point. Pagans are 'hostile' towards Islam if they talk about their beliefs. 'Treason' is saying anything anti Islam.

Again, I have already explained why that is not what the text precisely allows for. Prove me wrong if you want to. Secondly, talking about one's beliefs or saying something anti-Islamic is not considered to be treason nor hostile. It is not even punishable in Islam. People can say whatever they want about Islam. Unfortunately, yes, there are some leaders who will make up silly fatwas just to get revenge on those who said something bad about Islam, but such a ruling is almost entirely a personal issue and not something approved by the Quran and the Sunnah. Even in Muhammad's time, there were many who mocked the religion and the Prophet but he forgave them.

Look at the aggressive protests for these crimes where Islam is in the minority in Europe.

See my comments above. Also, it depends on what these "crimes" are and in what way the Muslims protest against them. Simply protesting because someone drew a cartoon of Muhammad is actually stupid, IMO. I don't know, but maybe a lot of these aggressive protests in the UK are mostly an indication of racial identity and discriminatory issues within the communities and thus their actions are not necessarily representative of Islam itself nor the majority of Muslims living there.

Are you saying that this is incorrect and an Islamic state would let this happen WITHOUT opposition? I find it incredible that you would conclude that if you do.

Obviously, yes, there is going to be opposition from the Islamic state. But whether or not the opposition is 'correct' mainly depends on how it is done and for what reasons.

Like I said before, Islam allows us to defend ourselves against aggressors. No Muslim should take action by hurting someone unless he has the intention of defending himself in a battlefield or anywhere else for that matter. We can retaliate against a specific person who has harmed us within the boundaries set out in Islam and cannot harm the innocent or defenseless. In another cases, when the aggressors approach the Muslims and they pray and ask for forgiveness (for their wrong actions), then they should be let go. So, it is in these circumstances in which opposition is justified and we have to leave the door open for showing mercy at the same time.