What Verses?

[Didacus]

What makes the koran even worse than simply taking, for instance, the bible litteraly is the content of the koran.

 

To many islamic folloers, catholics are pagans because they believe in the Trinity.  But don't be alarmed, if I am not mistaken, the trinity according to the koran is god the father, god the son and god Mary mother of god. 

 

According to the islamic tradition, catholics changed their position on the Trinity based on trying to deceive others, and we never believed in God the Father, God the Son and the Holy Spirit.

[Apteka]

Thanks for the post Sophia, very instructive.

 

For better or worse however, islam holds the koran as authorative - the christian equivalent to 'Sola Scriptura'.

That position is admitedly dangerous and false according to catholics, and I believe this view is equally true in holding the koran as indisputable and beyond criticism.

 

Muslims are generally divided into Sunni and Shia. The former constitute some 80% of Muslims and they would not be described as sola scriptura because they also follow the Hadith, i.e. the sayings of Muhammad. Traditional Sunnis are followers of Mahthabs, or schools of thought where most of the doctrine and practice are already spelled out. There are jurists who hold jurisdiction over legal matters, and scholars who address new theological questions, so although Islam may lack a central religious authority like the Pope, there is still authority. I think Muslims can be likened more to the Orthodox who historically relied on the Emperor for unity, for Muslims it would be the Khalif.

[AugustineA]

I have read the Quran, although technically it was not the Quran, as the true Quran is maintained strictly in Arabic. I have also done a minor association in Islamic studies during my undergrad.

 

Yes, the Quran is the ultimate authority within Islam. Yes, interpretation of the Quran is based on temporal abrogation. Yes, Muhammad's last command concerning Christians and Jews was to slay them.

 

However, you'll find that Islam is very divided in how they interpret this. There are five large schools of thought in Islam. The more liberal interpretation is that the world is divided into a house of peace and a house of war. As there is currently no universal caliphate, the command to slay and deceive Christians and Jews is not mandatory.

 

Some alternative groups, such as Sufis and Ismailis take a more symbolic and esoteric interpretation of the Quran and have no interest in war per se.

 

edit: I forgot to note that there are also a large number of muslims who believe the command stands. They may harbour contempt against Jews and Christians, while others may act on it. I have found Muslims to be much more accepting of Christians, who they refer to as people of the book. Jews don't have it so easy. Although in Iran (shia), the Jewish population enjoys seats in their legislature by mandate. They seem to be more antagonism to zionism.

Edited September 19, 2013 by AugustineA

[Apteka]

However, you'll find that Islam is very divided in how they interpret this. There are five large schools of thought in Islam. The more liberal interpretation is that the world is divided into a house of peace and a house of war. As there is currently no universal caliphate, the command to slay and deceive Christians and Jews is not mandatory.

 

There are always divisions, I think what needs to be pointed out is that there is a lot of overlap, meaning despite they're being Sunnis with four schools of thought and the Shia, they agree on most things. And secondly, the Media generally tries to cast doubt on the consensus Muslims have. You know, the "radical" vs "moderate" Islam nonsense. Or making it seem like Islam is this nebulous religion where because of their being no Pope Muslims can believe what they want about Islam. Sorry, it's not true! And you mention Sufis, I actually practiced with some Nakisbendi Sufis, and the first thing the Shaykh said was that "Sufism" is an American term. In Islam there is only tariqat, and I can assure you, these souls may twirl like dervishes but they'd readily pick up a sword to fight!

[Didacus]

In Canada, we have found many converts to islam who consider the final command towards jews and Christians to be self-standing and still apply.  Actualy some of these converted Canadians even went to Iraq to fight against the US (one in particular last I heard was still held Guantanamo!). 

 

A network of terrorists just north of Toronto was dismantled - the sermons preached was used as evidence against them, and contained amongst many other things death to jews and Christians.

 

In fact, in Northern Ontario a middle aged man and his wife moved to Kapuskasing (town of about 12000) and lived there for two years, ran the town's strip club (it was actually just across from the pulp where I worked at the time - but no worries, I never went).  After he beat his wife one evening his wife told on him and they seized explosives and a small arsenal of weapons he was hiding beneath the basement of his strip club (which shut down and never re-opened).

 

 

The point being, To say that the interpretation is open is indeed correct, but I am convinced it would be a mistake to assume that the interpretation of the muslim duty to jihad is uncommon - it is being taught and propagated on our own soils.  It is very straight forward and easy to defend the duty to jihad and slaying infidels.

 

And by the way; many muslims believe any Christian who believes in the trinity are pagan - and thus are discounted from being considered a 'people of the book'.

[Didacus]

Regardless of what was written afterwards, the Koran remains the main reference for muslims, and their main example is Mohammed - you know that guy who once moved to Medina (because, apparently being unfairly treated by the meccans) started robbing caravans passing near by?  That the equivalent of robbing trains in the far West with cowboys and Indians.  If it was ok for Mohammed, I guess it should have been ok for cowboys too?  Oh wait, you have to be muslim for this lawlessness to apply apparently - those whom I've read speak of Mohammed robbing caravans as though it is a natural and expected thing.

Mohammed was an ancient times Al Capone as far as I am concerned.

[AugustineA]

There are always divisions, I think what needs to be pointed out is that there is a lot of overlap, meaning despite they're being Sunnis with four schools of thought and the Shia, they agree on most things. And secondly, the Media generally tries to cast doubt on the consensus Muslims have. You know, the "radical" vs "moderate" Islam nonsense. Or making it seem like Islam is this nebulous religion where because of their being no Pope Muslims can believe what they want about Islam. Sorry, it's not true! And you mention Sufis, I actually practiced with some Nakisbendi Sufis, and the first thing the Shaykh said was that "Sufism" is an American term. In Islam there is only tariqat, and I can assure you, these souls may twirl like dervishes but they'd readily pick up a sword to fight!

 

 

In Canada, we have found many converts to islam who consider the final command towards jews and Christians to be self-standing and still apply.  Actualy some of these converted Canadians even went to Iraq to fight against the US (one in particular last I heard was still held Guantanamo!). 

 

A network of terrorists just north of Toronto was dismantled - the sermons preached was used as evidence against them, and contained amongst many other things death to jews and Christians.

 

In fact, in Northern Ontario a middle aged man and his wife moved to Kapuskasing (town of about 12000) and lived there for two years, ran the town's strip club (it was actually just across from the pulp where I worked at the time - but no worries, I never went).  After he beat his wife one evening his wife told on him and they seized explosives and a small arsenal of weapons he was hiding beneath the basement of his strip club (which shut down and never re-opened).

 

 

The point being, To say that the interpretation is open is indeed correct, but I am convinced it would be a mistake to assume that the interpretation of the muslim duty to jihad is uncommon - it is being taught and propagated on our own soils.  It is very straight forward and easy to defend the duty to jihad and slaying infidels.

 

And by the way; many muslims believe any Christian who believes in the trinity are pagan - and thus are discounted from being considered a 'people of the book'.

 

I have to push back on what I think are a few misconceptions. We all have different learning experiences with Islam. I understand. The term people of the book is in the Quran. That is how the Quran labels Christians and Jews. Even if they consider us pagans, we're still called people of the book. Ultimately, it doesn't change their behaviour towards us, so it's not worth much more than pointing it out. 

 

Concerning Sufis. It's interesting that you studied with some Sufis. Many Sufis may be willing to declare Jihad on the "West", but it is not that simple. Sufi groups are often attacked by the majority muslim population, such as in Pakistan. There is a difference between Sufis and the normative muslim population. My professor also agrees with this, and he has lived in 14 muslim countries, and established islamic studies at two universities. I am not discounting your experience. The relationship with sufis and the normative population differs all over the world. 

 

edit: I'm not trying to say, oh hey my professor knows more than you! Just, he is a credible source to add to this convo.  :bible:  Also, just because Sufis in the East may differ from the majority muslim population, I'm sure many would be willing to "attack" the West. And I'm sure there are many shades of grey, people incorporating Sufi practices into more normative practice.

Edited September 21, 2013 by AugustineA

[Apteka]

Concerning Sufis. It's interesting that you studied with some Sufis. Many Sufis may be willing to declare Jihad on the "West", but it is not that simple. Sufi groups are often attacked by the majority muslim population, such as in Pakistan. There is a difference between Sufis and the normative muslim population. My professor also agrees with this, and he has lived in 14 muslim countries, and established islamic studies at two universities. I am not discounting your experience. The relationship with sufis and the normative population differs all over the world. 

 

I'm going to use the term "Sufi" for the sake of discussion, even though I don't feel it's a proper noun. Anyway, I'm fully aware Sufis are often rejected, and often for legitimate reasons. Some sufi groups have strayed far from Islam and adopted many innovations (some go so far as to say they are sufi but not Muslim!) Genuine Sufism, or tariqat, is intrinsically connected to Islam.

 

Genuine "Sufism": http://www.naksibendi.org/

[Guest]

I dont get why people stick up for islam and the koran....Ya there are nice muslims....Doesn't change the fact islam is an evil violent false religion....It is what it is.....I pray for the day it doesn't exist....May God bring that day as fast as possible....

[Didacus]

I agree that there are peace loving muslims - millions upon millions of them.  My comments are not aimed at those who follow islam, but the religion itself.

I agree deliveryboy.

 

If the koran is so full of love towards others, then why did Russia just ban it?

Seems like they have legitimate reasons too:

 

 

“…statements in which a person or group of persons (in particular, non-Muslims ) is portrayed negatively on grounds related to a particular religion; …. statements which address talking about the advantages of a single person or group of persons to other people on the grounds of religion (particularly the Muslims over non-Muslims ); … statements containing the positive assessment of hostile action of one group of people against another group of people on the basis of religion, specifically, Muslims towards non-Muslims; …statements of an inciting character, which can be understood as calling for hostile and violent actions by one group of people against another group of people on the basis of religion, in particular the Muslims towards non-Muslims .”

http://standforpeace.org.uk/exclusive-russian-court-bans-quran/

 

[Apotheoun]

Christianity is not a "religion of a book"; instead, it is the religion of the living and Incarnate Word of God. 

[Didacus]

Christianity is not a "religion of a book"; instead, it is the religion of the living and Incarnate Word of God. 

 

Well said!

 

That is one of the reasons Jesus came to the earth to show us how much he loves us, rather than just dictate it to a prophet.  Christianity is the only religion that shows such a level of love from any god, let alone the One True God.