Pat gets mad

[fr0d0]

it is quite rare thing to see a Muslim woman covering her entire face these days (especially in many western countries).

In my home town of Leicester it's a very common sight to see women fully covered; and men in full robes with head cap - and this is just shopping in town. It didn't used to be so until they hit a level of population. Leicester has areas of the city demarked with Muslim symbols (Ironwork arches at the ends of roads) and Mosques are allowed to broadcast the calls to prayer publically.

You've said the above before Rayaan, but failed to respond to the point that although Muslims can interpret the Quran as you do there is also no valid objection to them interpreting it to mean kill everyone that doesn't agree. whereas other religions flatly state that to be abhorent... it's a perfectly justifiable intepretation of Islam, practiced by many correct Muslims. As a westerner you are influenced by secular westernism, which colours your interpretation to allow you to justify Islam.

Fact is Muslims did slaughter the pagans on Allah's instruction for not converting to Islam.

In the UK we have Sharia Law courts: restricted at the moment by UK law and restricted by the requirement of consent by the accused. Trouble with that is Islamic women are put under immense pressure to submit to these courts. They really don't have a choice. What we currently regard as freedoms are severely restricted under Islamic law. Islam legislates against immoral behaviour, effectively removing choice. Steal and you get your hands cut off. Etc..

an Islamic state is not allowed to fight non-Muslims who are not hostile to Islam, who do not oppress Muslims, or try to convert Muslims by force from their religion, or expel them from their lands, or wage war against them, or prepare for attacks against them. If any of these offenses occurs, however, Muslims are permitted to defend themselves and protect their religion in whichever way they think is the method to end the conflict and bitterness. These are the circumstances in which 'fighting' is a permissible thing.

You can be an atheist but you better not let anyone know or killing you is permissable - is what that means. (same as any non Islamic stand point). Freedom of speech is outlawed <--- this is not civilized in my opinion.

[Rayaan]

In my home town of Leicester it's a very common sight to see women fully covered; and men in full robes with head cap - and this is just shopping in town. It didn't used to be so until they hit a level of population. Leicester has areas of the city demarked with Muslim symbols (Ironwork arches at the ends of roads) and Mosques are allowed to broadcast the calls to prayer publically.

I believe you, but I'm not too well-informed about Muslims in Leicester to comment on this. However, I think it's okay to wear them if they are not harming anyone and if such a thing is legally allowed by the country.

You've said the above before Rayaan, but failed to respond to the point that although Muslims can interpret the Quran as you do there is also no valid objection to them interpreting it to mean kill everyone that doesn't agree. whereas other religions flatly state that to be abhorent... it's a perfectly justifiable intepretation of Islam, practiced by many correct Muslims.

In the words that I highlighted above, essentially, what you're saying is that the Muslims who think that the Quran tells them to kill everyone who doesn't agree with them are the "correct" Muslims and that their interpretations "valid" and "perfectly justifiable" in Islam. However, you didn't really prove to me how they are correct. You're only saying that they are correct. I already supported my opinions on why their interpretations are not justified in a thorough and comprehensive manner (in my previous reply). If you disagree with me, however, then I'd like you to post your reasons on why you think that I'm wrong or why you think that I'm not a correct Muslim.

Do you think that the Christians who interpret the creation story in the Bible literally are correct? No, because you already said that you don't agree with their literal interpretation in a different thread recently. So, in the same way that believe that their interpretations are not correct or justified, I too, believe that there are certain interpretations of Muslims which are not justified according to the Quran.

As a westerner you are influenced by secular westernism, which colours your interpretation to allow you to justify Islam.

That's a non-sequitur because the fact that I'm a westerner doesn't mean that my interpretations are influenced by western secularism as opposed to being influenced by own careful study of the Quran. There are millions of Muslims in non-western countries who share similar views on Islam as I do, after learning about the religion, which further weakens your argument that being a westerner is what influenced me to make such justifications for Islam. I could be in their place and still have pretty much the same opinions of Islam that I have right now.

Fact is Muslims did slaughter the pagans on Allah's instruction for not converting to Islam.

I already talked about that interpretation and why it not correct in my previous reply. See # 4.

Again, the reason why Muslims killed the pagans is not because they didn't convert to Islam, but rather, it's because the pagans (who were a group of people amongst the Quraysh) waged a war against Muhammad and his followers and thus broke the peace treaty as mentioned in verse 9:01 in the Quran. After that, Allah gave the Muslims permission to fight and kill the pagans who started a war against them so that they are able to defend themselves and to defend their freedom of religion.

In the same chapter, concerning the pagans, the Quran says, "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" (9:06). This means that if any of the pagans asked for an asylum, then accordingly, the Muslims had to take them to a safe place and even protect them (hence the words "grant it to him") even if they do not convert to Islam. And if they did convert to Islam, then again, we cannot harm them either.

You can read more commentaries on these verses in the following two articles: (1) http://islamtomorrow.com/kill.asp (2) http://islamic-replies.ucoz.com/9_5.html

In the UK we have Sharia Law courts: restricted at the moment by UK law and restricted by the requirement of consent by the accused. Trouble with that is Islamic women are put under immense pressure to submit to these courts. They really don't have a choice. What we currently regard as freedoms are severely restricted under Islamic law. Islam legislates against immoral behaviour, effectively removing choice. Steal and you get your hands cut off. Etc..

I don't really care how many Shariah courts there. I don't even think it is something important in the UK because Muslims can still fulfill the fundamentals of Islam with or without the Shariah.

However, know that non-Muslims would not be expected to live according to the demands of the Shariah. It would only apply to Muslims who have willfully pledged and vowed to live according to the Islamic teachings. Also, the existence of Shariah is ultimately in the hands of non-Muslims because it is under the overall jurisdictional power of the UK laws to make a decision. So, if there were ever to be shariah courts, it would only be to the extent of their own regulations and allowing shariah courts to exist is their own prerogative, not Islam's. As for putting women under "immense pressure," as you said, the Shariah shouldn't do that and Muslim women should have the choice to wear whatever they want without any penalties. I've only known the Taliban to force a dress code on women, and even ban them from working, but I never heard the Shariah doing this in any country.

You can be an atheist but you better not let anyone know or killing you is permissable - is what that means. (same as any non Islamic stand point). Freedom of speech is outlawed <--- this is not civilized in my opinion.

It is not permissible to kill me if I become an atheist. According to my knowledge, the death penalty was imposed in Muhammad's time only when apostasy was combined with hostility and treason, meaning that an apostate would betray or violently rebel against a Muslim state (after leaving Islam) and thus endangering the safety of the Muslim citizens. In other words, the rulings on apostasy were similar to those for treasonous acts in legal systems worldwide and do not apply to an individual's choice of religion.

See the links below if you want to know more on this topic.

100+ Notable Islamic Voices on Apostasy; Preserving the Freedom for Faith; Affirmation of Freedom of Expression and Belief in the Quran.

[fr0d0]

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

you didn't really prove to me how they are correct.

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.

Do you think that the Christians who interpret the creation story in the Bible literally are correct?

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.

So, in the same way that believe that their interpretations are not correct or justified, I too, believe that there are certain interpretations of Muslims which are not justified according to the Quran.

But you do not accept them as siblings in Allah?

That's a non-sequitur because the fact that I'm a westerner doesn't mean that my interpretations are influenced by western secularism as opposed to being influenced by own careful study of the Quran.

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. 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, the reason why Muslims killed the pagans is not because they didn't convert to Islam, but rather, it's because the pagans (who were a group of people amongst the Quraysh) waged a war against Muhammad and his followers and thus broke the peace treaty as mentioned in verse 9:01 in the Quran. After that, Allah gave the Muslims permission to fight and kill the pagans who started a war against them so that they are able to defend themselves and to defend their freedom of religion.

In the same chapter, concerning the pagans, the Quran says, "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" (9:06). This means that if any of the pagans asked for an asylum, then accordingly, the Muslims had to take them to a safe place and even protect them (hence the words "grant it to him") even if they do not convert to Islam. And if they did convert to Islam, then again, we cannot harm them either.

---

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

I don't really care how many Shariah courts there. I don't even think it is something important in the UK because Muslims can still fulfill the fundamentals of Islam with or without the Shariah.

However, know that non-Muslims would not be expected to live according to the demands of the Shariah.

Wrong.

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've only known the Taliban to force a dress code on women, and even ban them from working, but I never heard the Shariah doing this in any country.

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

It is not permissible to kill me if I become an atheist. According to my knowledge, the death penalty was imposed in Muhammad's time only when apostasy was combined with hostility and treason, meaning that an apostate would betray or violently rebel against a Muslim state (after leaving Islam) and thus endangering the safety of the Muslim citizens. In other words, the rulings on apostasy were similar to those for treasonous acts in legal systems worldwide and do not apply to an individual's choice of religion.

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

[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.

[fr0d0]

I find your back peddling to be insincere and baseless in essence Rayaan.

You've mentioned the backup texts to the sword text many times now. YES WE KNOW you're citing mitigating circumstances for killing people, but killing people it still remains. You fail to see how this is uncivilized, and in alignment with OT Judaism, you're condoning killing as just. There's no getting away from that. You don't seem to be getting that point.

By 'siblings in Christ' I mean to say accepted variations in interpretation. The example you gave doesn't separate Christian and non Christian (as viewd by the mainstream Christian Church). There are many accepted denominations, and those considered outside the mainstream and therefore not Christian. My question to you then, was: do you regard those who interpret Islam as forceful, intolerant, strict as still Muslim or not?

I said: 'siblings in Christ' and not 'siblings of Christ'. That is totally nonsensical.

It remains a fact that Muslims push for Shariah law etc as a minority. Muslims in London have designated roads as under shariah law. Large UK cities are set to become Muslim majority very soon. The majority has the right to vote in the legal system of their choice. Currently Arabic is required on public signs, and preference is given in jobs to those fluent in it.



"The demand for the abolition of sharia courts in Britain, as elsewhere, is not an attack on people's right to religion; it is a defence of human rights, especially since the imposition of sharia courts is a demand of Islamism to restrict citizens' rights."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/2010/jul/0...ous-courts

[The Grand Nudger]

Meh, this would all be more compelling if you weren't both praying to the same mythical cosmic fascist.

---

Frodo, whatever criticism you may have of islam applies equally to your own flock.

Rayaan, honestly, points for defending the indefensible. The points are of course forfeit for being a theist.

[fr0d0]

How little you understand Rhythm.

[The Grand Nudger]

If only you could explain..lol.

[fr0d0]

If you could only stop pretending not to understand