What Verses?

[Didacus]

I have a few quick questions for those amongst you who are familiar with islam and the koran.

 

Is the koran the most authorative writting in islam?

 

I've heard from several sources that the koran contains a verse which is a disclaimer of sorts, saying the later verses, if they contradict earlier verses, supercede the earlier versus - is this correct?

 

 

Assuming the above 2 questions are replied to as 'yes', then; applying the principals above, what are the 2 most authorative verses in the koran speaking of jews, christians and infidels?  (what do they say?  any translation?)

[Didacus]

Here is one of the verses interpreted by an authorative personality of islam:

 

Muslim scholar Ibn Khaldun (1332-1406), also puts to rest the notion that jihad is defensive warfare:

 

 

 In the Muslim community, the holy war [jihad] is a religious duty, because of the universalism of the Muslim mission and the obligation to convert everybody to Islam either by persuasion or by force ... The other religious groups did not have a universal mission, and the holy war was not a religious duty for them, save only for purposes of defense ... They are merely required to establish their religion among their own people. That is why the Israelites after Moses and Joshua remained unconcerned with royal authority [e.g., a caliphate]. Their only concern was to establish their religion [not spread it to the nations] … But Islam is under obligation to gain power over other nations.[10]

 

[Spem in alium]

In regards to your first question: yes, the Quran is the most authoritative text in Islam because it is considered Allah's direct revelation. The recorded sayings and deeds of the Prophet Muhammad (called hadith, I believe) are also significant. Both the Quran and hadith are used to interpret and guide law and teachings. 

However, I'm not sure about specific verses. My understanding of the Quran is limited, and I'm sure there's someone here who could provide information.

[Didacus]

Searching the internet, I find that the most common authorative verses in the koran are chapter 9, and many explain it in different ways such as;

 

 

AS YOU probably know, some verses of the Quran have been abrogated. The abrogation principle basically says that when something from a later chapter (known as a sura) conflicts with something from an earlier chapter, the later one is the better one.

Have you ever wondered which is the last chapter? And what does it say? Since abrogation uses chronological order, the last chapter would probably not contain any abrogated verses (unless an earlier verse within the last chapter conflicted with a later one in the same chapter). Otherwise, if the chapter contained any information about non-Muslims, it would be the "last word" on the subject.

 

 

The site goes on to say the penultimate book in the koran is chapter 9, the final book not saying all that much at all about anything.

 

The content of chapter 9 is translated as meaning (although obviously this is a rough translation):

 

 

9:5 Slay the idolaters wherever you find them.

9:6 Those who submit and convert to Islam will be treated well. (Those who don't submit will be killed. See previous verse.)

9:7-9 Don't make treaties with non-Muslims. They are all evildoers and should not be trusted.

9:11 Treat converts to Islam well, but kill those who refuse to convert (see 9:5).

9:12-14 Fight the disbelievers! Allah is on your side; he will give you victory.

9:23 Don't make friends with your disbelieving family members. Those who do so are wrong-doers.

9:29 Fight against Christians and Jews "until they pay the tribute readily, being brought low."

9:33 The "Religion of Truth" (Islam) must prevail, by force if necessary, over all other religions.

9:41 Fight for Allah with your wealth and whatever weapons are available to you.

9:42 Those who refuse to fight for Allah (claiming they are unable) are liars who have destroyed their souls.

9:73 Fight the disbelievers and hypocrites. Be harsh with them. They are all going to hell anyway.

9:81-83 Those who refuse to give their wealth and lives to Allah will face the fire of hell.

9:85 Those who refuse to fight for Allah will be treated (along with their children) as unbelievers.

9:111 Believers must fight for Allah. They must kill and be killed. Allah will reward them for it.

9:123 Fight disbelievers who are near you, and let them see the harshness in you.

 

 

So my questions to those who believe islam is a religion of peace - is the 9th chapter the most authorative in the koran?  Is the principal of aborgation in the koran valid?  If so how do you explain the versus above?

 

 

For the record - I agree that there are millions upon millionsof peaceful and good people who follow islam.  I believe they are genuine in their respective intent to be benevolent towards everyone and do not aim my questions at the people who follow islam.  I aim my questions at the content (precisely speaking, the most authorative content) of islam - which is the koran (to my undertanding - correct me if I am wrong).  And within the koran, the 9th chapter being the most authorative in respect to jews, christiansand non-believers (again, please correct me if I am wrong).

 

source:

http://www.citizenwarrior.com/2010/09/qurans-last-word-on-non-muslims.html

[Era Might]

Why are you asking this on a Catholic phorum. I doubt many people here have read the Koran, and anyway, aren't Muslim. Seems like something you should ask on a Muslim forum.

[Selah]

Yeah. Wouldn't be better to ask a Muslim?

 

I'm sure you all find it irritating when someone goes to a Protestant and asks about Catholicism.

[Didacus]

Last time I tried approaching muslim forums I was outright banned for asking the question and no one wanted to reply.

Do you have a muslim site that would 'enlighten' me?

 

Another facet is that christians often take islam on face value and simply say islam is a religion of peace only as to not offend.  I would like to know if those around this site convinced that islam is a religion of peace actually asked themselves (genuinely, and honestly) the questions I am asking.

 

On yet another point, I think it is not redundant or irrelevant at all that I ask the question on this site - why wouldn't I ask those I know and trust rather than asking strangers?

[Didacus]

Yeah. Wouldn't be better to ask a Muslim?

 

I'm sure you all find it irritating when someone goes to a Protestant and asks about Catholicism.

 

Point taken, but see my post above.

 

Have any of you asked yourselves these questions before?  What replies have you found?  Or what do you believe?

[Selah]

Last time I tried approaching muslim forums I was outright banned for asking the question and no one wanted to reply.

Do you have a muslim site that would 'enlighten' me?

 

Another facet is that christians often take islam on face value and simply say islam is a religion of peace only as to not offend.  I would like to know if those around this site convinced that islam is a religion of peace actually asked themselves (genuinely, and honestly) the questions I am asking.

 

On yet another point, I think it is not redundant or irrelevant at all that I ask the question on this site - why wouldn't I ask those I know and trust rather than asking strangers?

 

...maybe try Maniac Muslim?

[Era Might]

Last time I tried approaching muslim forums I was outright banned for asking the question and no one wanted to reply.

Do you have a muslim site that would 'enlighten' me?

 

Another facet is that christians often take islam on face value and simply say islam is a religion of peace only as to not offend.  I would like to know if those around this site convinced that islam is a religion of peace actually asked themselves (genuinely, and honestly) the questions I am asking.

 

On yet another point, I think it is not redundant or irrelevant at all that I ask the question on this site - why wouldn't I ask those I know and trust rather than asking strangers?

 

Conquest was part of the ancient world and the sociology of religion. Islam was aggressive about spreading itself, but so was Christianity (and so were civilizations before them). Christian kingdoms could often not even live in peace with one another, let alone with Islam.

[Didacus]

Conquest was part of the ancient world and the sociology of religion. Islam was aggressive about spreading itself, but so was Christianity (and so were civilizations before them). Christian kingdoms could often not even live in peace with one another, let alone with Islam.

 

Christianity spread peacefully for its first 300-400 years did it not?

Nothing violent is authorative in christianity (no law in christianity says to subdue any infidels and kill them if they do not pay tribute).  Nothing in christianity dictates that it needs to be spread by the sword.

 

In short, although christianity does have violent episodes, there are no violent dictates or laws within it, and trcaing back to its authorative source (Jesus), there is nothing in his commands that are violent.  The total opposite seems to be present in islam (including their authorative example which supercedes the example of Jesus in every way - Muhammed).

[Didacus]

...maybe try Maniac Muslim?

 

Not sure if you're serious or joking there.

 

I for one am making an honest enquiry; if you can't or won't help me, I would respectfully ask that you please not litter the thread.

[Era Might]

Christianity spread peacefully for its first 300-400 years did it not?

Nothing violent is authorative in christianity (no law in christianity says to subdue any infidels and kill them if they do not pay tribute).  Nothing in christianity dictates that it needs to be spread by the sword.

 

In short, although christianity does have violent episodes, there are no violent dictates or laws within it, and trcaing back to its authorative source (Jesus), there is nothing in his commands that are violent.  The total opposite seems to be present in islam (including their authorative example which supercedes the example of Jesus in every way - Muhammed).

 

Jesus did not concern himself at all with earthly matters. But Christianity did, and unless you think Christianity can exist apart from civilization, then there are political implications. Christianity inherited the Roman empire, which had inherited the Greek empire, which had conquered the Persian empire. The early church had no political power, but it was not revolutionary either. As Jesus said, render unto Caesar what is Caesar's, and unto God what is God's. The early Christians maintained themselves by worrying about their faith, and leaving the worldly matters to Caesar. Once the church succeeded the Roman empire, it translated its spiritual universalism to the empire.

 

Jesus claimed to be God, whose kingdom was not of this world. Muhammad merely claimed to be a prophet, and did claim a kingdom in this world (not uncommon in the ancient world). They were two different religious figures.

[Didacus]

My point precisely EraMight - Christianity in its foundations is peaceful, while islam is not.

 

Jesus had plenty of opportunity, if He wanted, to establish a kingdom on earth, and could have commanded his disciples to maintain it.  But the fact is HE DIDN'T, while Mohammed DID.

 

 

One religion spread peacefully on its peaceful foundations in the its first centuries, the other was founded and spread by war in its eawrly years and this fact is recorded by their own scholars.

[Era Might]

My point precisely EraMight - Christianity in its foundations is peaceful, while islam is not.

 

Jesus had plenty of opportunity, if He wanted, to establish a kingdom on earth, and could have commanded his disciples to maintain it.  But the fact is HE DIDN'T, while Mohammed DID.

 

 

One religion spread peacefully on its peaceful foundations in the its first centuries, the other was founded and spread by war in its eawrly years and this fact is recorded by their own scholars.

 

I'm not sure what that means, "Christianity in its foundations is peaceful." What foundations? The foundations of Christianity are 2,000 years of civilization. There are religions that strive to be non-worldly religions (e.g., in Buddhism). Christianity was not one of them. It accepted the claims and demands of civilization.

 

If you are arguing that Christ is greater than Muhammad, well, that goes without saying. One is God, the other is not. But if you are arguing that conquest is uniquely Muslim, it is not. If Christianity existed as Christ did, then it would accept Muslim conquest, just as Christ did not resist his own death.

Edited September 17, 2013 by Era Might