Originally posted by HalitoseThis thread, which shows many of claims made in the prior thread are completely wrong or dubious at best is a bit better. http://www.timeforchess.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=32073&page=1
Dang. All the way on page 15:
http://www.redhotpawn.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=30853
1 edit
Originally posted by HalitoseShamefully selective readings, Halitose. Allow me to provide unedited versions of some of what you posted (from the translation of Abdullah Yusuf Ali):
surely these are not for self-defence:
Do not befriend [hypocrites] until they have fled their homes in the cause of God. Seize them and put them to death wherever you find them (4:89).
Believers, make war on the infidels who dwell around you (9:123).
The verse -- "There shall be no compulsion in religion..." (2:257) is contrad ...[text shortened]... (9:5).[/i]
Is this not a blatant command by Muhammed for the forced conversion of idolaters?[/b]
They but wish that ye should reject Faith, as they do, and thus be on the same footing (as they): but take not friends from their ranks until they flee in the way of Allah (from what is forbidden). But if they turn renegades, seize them and slay them wherever ye find them [4:89]
O ye who believe! Fight the Unbelievers who gird you about, and let them find firmness in you: and know that Allah is with those who fear him [9:123] (Though this is a case of you using a relatively poor translation rather than selectively editing)
As for the verse:
When the sacred months are over slay the idolaters wherever you find them. Arrest them; besiege them; and lie in ambush everywhere for them. If they repent and take to prayer...allow them to go their way (9:5).
The preceding verse, had you cared to include/read it, makes clear that this is to be applied only to those Unbelievers who have actually wronged the Believers; those who have not are exempted, and those who have may still repent.
You'll need to try harder than that.
1 edit
Originally posted by Halitose[/i]Come on, Hal! You are one of the most fair-minded people on here. You want me (or anyone else) to spend the time to research every passage you can take out of context (granted that, again, Qur’anic context is difficult), reading the commentaries, etc. etc., in order to offer lengthy explanations? Or search the Hadith to determine whether that one is above reproach (my understanding is that, important as the Hadith are for a majority of Muslims, their inclusion in the collections was based on the inability of the collectors—such as Bukhari—to prove that they were not authentic)? It was that kind of thing (not done by you) that prompted me originally to quote the whole Surah 190-195 section that I posted above.
There are several verses in the Qu'ran to justify war/violence for self-defence (I used N.J. Dawood's English translation):
Believers! Retaliation is decreed for you in bloodshed (2:178).
[i]Fight for the sake of God those who fight against you, but do not attack them first...slay them wherever you find them. Drive them out if the places from ...[text shortened]... lam.
In Bukhari book 8, volume 84, number 64, rewards are promised to any who slay apostates.
Suppose I turned the tables, and just started listing quotes like the following—
Psalm 21:10 You will destroy their offspring from the earth, and their children from among humankind.
Psalm 137:9 Happy shall they be who take your little ones and dash them against the rock!
Matthew 10: 34 "Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth; I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. 35 For I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; 36 and one's foes will be members of one's own household.”
Now, I have no doubt that you would be able to provide reasonable exegesis for them, including all the context I left out. But then I could simply expand the list, and keep you busy. But I don’t play that game.
This is also not my strongest area of knowledge, and I don’t have all the same trustworthy tools that I do for Biblical exegesis—in the end, all I can really do is search for Muslim commentaries and report them. But, I’ll tell you what—because I am curious too—if that is the definitive list of Qur’anic verses on the subject, I’ll go to work. It will take me some time just to do a cursory job of it. If that is not the definitive list, I’ll wait. In the meantime, maybe Tetsujin or Peachy will weigh in, and we can both learn from them.
As far as Hadith goes, I have even fewer resources. For a critical investigation of Hadith—totally with regard to another issue—I’d suggest Fatima Mernissi’s The Veil and the Male Elite. Can you give me a reference for the Bukhari quotes?
If I am reading you falsely here, I sincerely apologize.
EDIT: Okay, I see Villager beat me to the punch. 🙂
Originally posted by no1marauderTHANK YOU!!!! Why does everyone only consider the worst part of the Inquisition when it is brought up? You know that the entire period the Spanish Inquisition comprises only about 10% of the total timeframe and only about 12% of the total locales that were affected by the Inquisition as a whole?
If you believe the RCC AND limit the time period and geography of the Inquistion, yes. Note Knightwulfe said "the Inquistion" and not the "Spanish Inquistion".
Now, take your numbers and factor that.
1 edit
Originally posted by Halitose[/i]Okay, you “hooked” me, and I have no willpower—
There are several verses in the Qu'ran to justify war/violence for self-defence (I used N.J. Dawood's English translation):
Believers! Retaliation is decreed for you in bloodshed (2:178).
[i]Fight for the sake of God those who fight against you, but do not attack them first...slay them wherever you find them. Drive them out if the places from ...[text shortened]... lam.
In Bukhari book 8, volume 84, number 64, rewards are promised to any who slay apostates.
I am going to take these out of order. Again, I can do little more than provide commentaries by Muslim sources, mainly the translators. Either their testimony is acceptable, in terms of being at least prominent viewpoints within Islam, or not.
Surah 9: 5
First, this footnote comment by Muhammad Asad on verse 5—
“As I have pointed out on more than one occasion, every verse of the Qur'an must be read and interpreted against the background of the Qur'an as a whole. The above verse, which speaks of a possible conversion to Islam on the part of "those who ascribe divinity to aught beside God" with whom the believers are at war, must, therefore, be considered in conjunction with several fundamental Qur'anic ordinances. One of them, "There shall be no coercion in matters of faith" (2 : 256), lays down categorically that any attempt at a forcible conversion of unbelievers is prohibited - which precludes the possibility of the Muslims' demanding or expecting that a defeated enemy should embrace Islam as the price of immunity. Secondly, the Qur'an ordains, "Fight in God's cause against those who wage war against you; but do not commit aggression, for, verily, God does not love aggressors" (2: 190); and, "if they do not let you be, and do not offer you peace, and do not stay their hands, seize them and slay them whenever you come upon them: and it is against these that We have clearly empowered you [to make war]" (4: 91). Thus, war is permissible only in self-defence (see surah 2, notes 167 and 168), with the further proviso that "if they desist - behold, God is much-forgiving, a dispenser of grace" (2 : 192), and "if they desist, then all hostility shall cease" (2: 193). Now the enemy's conversion to Islam - expressed in the words, "if they repent, and take to prayer [lit., "establish prayer"] and render the purifying dues (zakah)" - is no more than one, and by no means the only, way of their "desisting from hostility"; and the reference to it in verses 5and 11 of this surah certainly does not imply an alternative of "conversion or death", as some unfriendly critics of Islam choose to assume. Verses 4 and 6 give a further elucidation of the attitude which the believers are enjoined to adopt towards such of the unbelievers as are not hostile to them. (In this connection, see also 60 : 8-9).”
As for the rest, verses 1 through 16 of this Surah have to do with specific groups of idolaters with whom the Muslims have made treaties—those who have kept the treaties, and those who have broken them. They may fight against those who have broken the treaties (“Will you not fight a people who broke their oaths and aimed at the expulsion of the Messenger, and they attacked you first?” v. 13) but not during the months in which fighting is prohibited (apparently a pre-Islamic tradition that is reaffirmed in the Qur’an; this mention implies that these verses refer to a particular historical circumstance).
Here is Maulana Ali’s translation of the whole (sans all the historical footnotes):
1 A declaration of immunity from Allah and His Messenger to those of the idolaters with whom you made an agreement.
2 So go about in the land for four months and know that you cannot escape Allah and that Allah will disgrace the disbelievers.
3 And an announcement from Allah and His Messenger to the people on the day of the greater pilgrimage, that Allah is free from liability to the idolaters, and so is His Messenger. So if you repent, it will be better for you; and if you turn away, then know that you will not escape Allah. And announce painful chastisement to those who disbelieve—
4 Except those of the idolaters with whom you made an agreement, then they have not failed you in anything and have not backed up anyone against you; so fulfill their agreement to the end of their term. Surely Allah loves those who keep their duty.
5 So when the sacred months have passed, slay the idolaters, wherever you find them, and take them captive and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush. But if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, leave their way free. Surely Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.
6 And if anyone of the idolaters seek thy protection, protect him till he hears the word of Allah, then convey him to his place of safety. This is because they are a people who know not.
7 How can there be an agreement for the idolaters with Allah and with his Messenger, except those with whom you made an agreement at the Sacred Mosque? So as long as they are true to you, be true to them. Surely Allah loves those who keep their duty.
8 How (can it be)? And if they prevail against you, they respect neither ties of relationship nor covenant in your case. They would please you with their mouths while their hearts refuse; and most of them are transgressors.
9 They have taken a small price for the messages of Allah, so they hinder (men) from His way. Surely evil is that which they do.
10 They respect neither ties of relationship nor covenant, in the case of a believer. And these are they who go beyond the limits.
11 But if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, they are your brethren in faith. And We make the messages clear for a people who know.
12 And if they break their oaths after their agreement and revile your religion, then fight the leaders of disbelief - surely their oaths are nothing - so that they may desist.
13 Will you not fight a people who broke their oaths and aimed at the expulsion of the Messenger, and they attacked you first? Do you fear them? But Allah has more right that you should fear Him, if you are believers.
14 Fight them; Allah will chastise them at your hands and bring them to disgrace, and assist you against them and relieve the hearts of a believing people,
15 And remove the rage of their hearts. And Allah turns (mercifully) to whom He pleases. And Allah is Knowing, Wise.
16 Do you think that you would be left alone while Allah has not yet known those of you who struggle hard and take not anyone as an intimate friend besides Allah and His Messenger and the believers? And Allah is Aware of what you do.
It seems clear that this is not about forced conversions—except under an interpretation that wants it to be about that.
Surah 8:12-13
This seems to be referring to an injunction given either to the angels or to the Muslim soldiers at the battle of Badr between the Muslims who had settled at Medina and the Quraysh who came from Mecca.
Ahmed Ali’s translation reads thus:
12. And the Lord said to the angels: “I am with you; go and strengthen the faithful. I shall fill the hearts of the infidels with terror. So smite them on their necks and every joint (and incapacitate them).”
13. For they opposed God and His Apostle; but whosoever opposes God and His Apostle (should know) that God is severe in retribution.
Abdullah Yusuf Ali also has those words directed to the angels; Asad does not; Maulana Ali leaves it open. The main point is that this is in reference to a pitched battle, not an open-ended injunction.
Surah 4:47
Verses 44-46 indicate that this is addressed to some Jews who are accused of having distorted the meaning of Jewish scriptures. Asad translates verse 47 thus:
“O you who have been granted revelation [aforetime]! Believe in what We have [now] bestowed from on high in confirmation of whatever [of the truth] you already possess, lest We efface your hopes and bring them to an end—just as We rejected those people who broke the Sabbath: for God’s will is always done.” (my italics)
In a footnote, he comments on the italicized phrase: Lit., “lest We obliterate the faces”—i.e., that towards which one turns, or that which one faces, with expectation…—“and bring them back to their ends.” It is to be noted that the term dubur (of which adbar is the plural) does not always signify the “back” of a thing—as most translators assume—but often stands for its “last part” or “end.”
Surah 9:29
There seems to be some disagreement among the translators as to whether this verse refers back to “idolaters” in verse 28, or ahead to Jews and Christians in verse 30. Abdullah Yusuf Ali’s translation:
“Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, from among the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission and feel themselves subdued.”
(The Jizyah is a tax levied on non-Muslims in Muslim societies for protection and other services, since non-Muslims were not required to serve in the military nor pay the zakah.)
Muhammad Asad, in a footnote on this verse, refers to the arguments in the commentary at the top of this post—i.e., that here again, fighting is only allowed under the strictures mentioned in that commentary. The question here is similar to any scriptural exegesis: which verses must be qualified by which other verses in order to make sense.
Villager responded to 4:89 and 9:123, and I won’t expand on those.
______________________________
Can I say that these translations/interpretations are the (only) authentic ones? No, of course not. Yusuf Ali is perhaps the most recognized translator of the Qur’an into English. Maulana Ali is a member of the Ahmadiyyah “sect,” and his commentaries may sometimes be colored by that, but I think his translation is well-regarded. Muhammad Asad’s translation is more “modern,” as is Ahmed Ali’s—but I believe they are both well-regarded (especially Asad). In any event, they are the translations I have to work with. Dawood’s may be fine too, I don’t know.
I am not familiar enough with Hadith to do any work there.
Originally posted by HalitoseJust wondering--have you got a Koran in front of you or did you pull these quotes from a web-site? The selection suggests you have been influenced in a certain direction--unless you have been studying the Koran assiduously and making your own selection, in which case--Villager's comments still apply.
There are several verses in the Qu'ran to justify war/violence for self-defence (I used N.J. Dawood's English translation):
Originally posted by no1marauderActually, it only shows that some of the claims (regarding judicial procedure) are wrong (that too, partially). It does not challenge any of the facts regarding scale and scope of the Inquisition.
This thread, which shows many of claims made in the prior thread are completely wrong or dubious at best is a bit better. http://www.timeforchess.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=32073&page=1
1 edit
Originally posted by VillagerEfficiency in butchering has been a defining characteristic of civilisation since ancient Egypt and China, not to mention those merry genocidal Romans.
It's just a coincidence that the "civilised" world does most of the killing, eh?
Might I add that casting the Other in a barbaric light the better to drum up support for invading Them is a venerable practice too.
Originally posted by StarrmanActually, the first surgical instruments were invented in ancient Rome, even to the extent of doing cataract surgery with tiny scalpels. Europe was actually recovering pretty well till around the year 1000 when the little ice age happened that pretty much destroyed agriculture which lead directly to the plague and all the deaths that followed. The so-called dark ages were not THAT dark, in the year 1000 there were large dams built with water powered engines of over 1000 horsepower sent with belts to factories, very advanced stuff for that time, but the little ice age killed all of that and about half the population died within the next 300 years. It wasn't till the 1500's that the climate recovered to its former self and farming became productive again and therefore civilization recovered.
The cultural centre of Europe during the 8th-12th centurary could have been considered to be Andalucia in the South of Spain. Here Muslim, Jew and Christian society lived in harmony for a great deal of time and to many people's advantages. Jewish scholars and poets, Muslim medicine (interestingly enough the first surgical tools were developed in Cordoba) ...[text shortened]... in was near enough extinguished and consequently Islam retreated to Africa and the Middle East.