Islam/Muslim Discussion Thread

[Conscentia]

Islam, as an ideology, is based upon a lot of very questionable and frankly anachronistic tenets. Fortunately we can see that the majority of Muslims themselves do not practice the call to arms against kafirs, but unfortunately, a great many do support the death of apostates, and yet more the subjugation of women, modern practice of Sharia law etc. Wherever Islam is allowed to rule as law, as is seen in the Middle East, a great many liberal rights are subsumed under the strength of an authoritarian, absolute belief system.

How people can say an absolute, unquestionable belief can be reconciled with our liberal, Western ideals I am not sure. It is purely on the basis of Muslims ignoring the less tenable teachings that they can assimilate. They are more reasoned and calm than their teachings openly ask them to be. I will not cower from attacking the backward and narrow minded beliefs in the Quran and Hadiths, to give but two large examples. And likewise, I will not allow talk of the good verses found within those texts, to cloud our discussion of the stronger, more barbaric also within.

To use metaphor, a drink equal parts orange juice and acid, will naturally and logically be spat out for its corrosive nature - even if it carries with it some flavour. Calls to holy war, a complete set of unalterable laws, and oppression, are not cancelled out by contradictory calls for peace.

Christianity had the same practices.

[Seljuq Kyiv]

Islam, as an ideology, is based upon a lot of very questionable and frankly anachronistic tenets. Fortunately we can see that the majority of Muslims themselves do not practice the (1) call to arms against kafirs, but unfortunately, a great many do support the (2) death of apostates, and yet more the (3) subjugation of women, (4) modern practice of Sharia law etc. Wherever Islam is allowed to rule as law, as is seen in the (5) Middle East, a great many liberal rights are subsumed under the strength of an (6) authoritarian, absolute belief system.

How people can say an absolute, unquestionable belief can be reconciled with our (7) liberal, Western ideals I am not sure. It is purely on the basis of Muslims ignoring the (8) less tenable teachings that they can (9) assimilate. They are more reasoned and calm than their (10) teachings openly ask them to be. (11) I will not cower from attacking the backward and narrow minded beliefs in the Quran and Hadiths, to give but two large examples. (12) And likewise, I will not allow talk of the good verses found within those texts, to cloud our discussion of the stronger, more barbaric also within.

To use metaphor, (13) a drink equal parts orange juice and acid, will naturally and logically be spat out for its corrosive nature - even if it carries with it some flavour. (14) Calls to holy war, (15) a complete set of unalterable laws, and (16) oppression, are not cancelled out by contradictory calls for peace.

1. No basis in Islam.
2. Continuously argued; consensus agrees that murder is forbidden, and threatening peace and safety of the state is bad, however.
3. No basis in Islam.
4. Yes, we would very much like to practice law law, if it is no trouble at all. This law law only applies to those who adhere to our beliefs, so dhimmi folks are cool.
5. Taking the eternal rebel provinces that have only gotten out of centuries-long mismanagement, exploitation and colonisation under foreign rule within the last century by being divided by arbitrary lines disregarding existing ethnic populations as an example? I think you would find that these subsumed liberties are being curbed by cultural, rather than religious, implements.
6. Gadflies ain't got nuthin' on the Supreme Being. Having a comprehensive set of beliefs is also good.
7. Liberal, as in economic liberalism? Why do they have to bend knee to the West? Why are they compelled to ape the West? Is the West inherently better?
8. Islam is meant to be a universal religion that could be adopted wherever you live, wherever you're from. What are these less tenable practices they ignore?
9. Why must they assimilate? Why can't they keep their own cultural and religious values?
10. And how do their teachings openly ask them to be?
11. Then don't.
12. Then don't.
13. Probably a broken analogy; is this acid one that can burn your lungs and kill you or something? What is the point of flavour if you will have no tongue to taste it with?
14. No basis in Islam.
15. Don't see why that's bad.
16. No basis in Islam.

[Tulija]

Islam, as an ideology, is based upon a lot of very questionable and frankly anachronistic tenets. Fortunately we can see that the majority of Muslims themselves do not practice the call to arms against kafirs, but unfortunately, a great many do support the death of apostates, and yet more the subjugation of women, modern practice of Sharia law etc. Wherever Islam is allowed to rule as law, as is seen in the Middle East, a great many liberal rights are subsumed under the strength of an authoritarian, absolute belief system.

How people can say an absolute, unquestionable belief can be reconciled with our liberal, Western ideals I am not sure. It is purely on the basis of Muslims ignoring the less tenable teachings that they can assimilate. They are more reasoned and calm than their teachings openly ask them to be. I will not cower from attacking the backward and narrow minded beliefs in the Quran and Hadiths, to give but two large examples. And likewise, I will not allow talk of the good verses found within those texts, to cloud our discussion of the stronger, more barbaric also within.

To use metaphor, a drink equal parts orange juice and acid, will naturally and logically be spat out for its corrosive nature - even if it carries with it some flavour. Calls to holy war, a complete set of unalterable laws, and oppression, are not cancelled out by contradictory calls for peace.

Christianity had the same practices.

Had, no longer has. This is the point - to state tu quoque that other beliefs or systems had the same problems a thousand years ago does nothing to absolve the current problems. And besides, Christianity justly comes under a lot of criticism for its backward and contradictory tenets. It has atrophied in modern society - it does not carry the weight that Islam does in their daily lives, in many countries today. Why is it then, that Islam has special exemption from the critiques we direct at Christianity?

Seljuq Kyiv -
http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Top_10_Contro ... the_Qur'an

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/quran ... olence.htm

Some potent examples of several of your "no basis in Islam" tenets above, but there are yet more too. Several of the things you claim to have no basis in Islam certainly do have a source. The consensus on apostasy is not as forward thinking as you hold - countries governed theocratically show these Islamic principles in action. And another point is the history of Islam; the immediate conquest of vast swaths of the Middle East and North Africa after Mohammed's death did not occur by chance or political manipulation. They were directly inspired by his campaigns of conquest. It is irrefutable.

As for having a set of beliefs being good - each to their own, but I'd say it is always negative to have an unquestionable, absolute set of laws. By their nature they cannot be changed, brought up to date, or appealed against. How can you sing such draconian praises?

My note on liberalism makes no mention of economics, and yet you point that out first, which I find an interesting misrepresentation. I speak, clearly, of civil liberties. And I would say the rights of freedom of speech, conscience, equality for men and women, etc. are good things. Why, the freedom of speech allows you to criticise all those freedoms if you so wish - but their value is inherent nonetheless.

And the analogy is far from broken - the tenets that call for violence are the acid, and the ones that call for peace the juice. A call for violence is understandably stronger than one for vague niceties, a point you seem to have missed despite its stark blatancy.

[Conscentia]

Had, no longer has. This is the point - to state tu quoque that other beliefs or systems had the same problems a thousand years ago does nothing to absolve the current problems. And besides, Christianity justly comes under a lot of criticism for its backward and contradictory tenets. It has atrophied in modern society - it does not carry the weight that Islam does in their daily lives, in many countries today. Why is it then, that Islam has special exemption from the critiques we direct at Christianity?

It doesn't have special exemption. My point was that these criticisms aren't unique to Islam, and that Islam could adapt like Christianity.

[Tulija]

Had, no longer has. This is the point - to state tu quoque that other beliefs or systems had the same problems a thousand years ago does nothing to absolve the current problems. And besides, Christianity justly comes under a lot of criticism for its backward and contradictory tenets. It has atrophied in modern society - it does not carry the weight that Islam does in their daily lives, in many countries today. Why is it then, that Islam has special exemption from the critiques we direct at Christianity?

It doesn't have special exemption. My point was that these criticisms aren't unique to Islam, and that Islam could adapt like Christianity.

I didn't say they were unique, only that they occur with a far greater prevalence and frequency under Islam than under other belief systems. Furthermore, fundamental teachings of Islam underpin several of the examples I gave. My final point would be in a discussion of the relative merits / demerits of Islam, why is there always the need to raise other religions? It is a distraction from the discussion at hand and so largely irrelevant.

I know it doesn't have special exemption, I used that phrase to describe how its defenders often appear to act as if it should, by using all manner of logically inconsistent arguments - "but someone else also did that" or "you're Islamohpobic"

On its adaptation - I would love to see it adapt, I have never said otherwise. In fact, I said it's practitioners already have to an extent; unfortunately, its core texts can't just be interpreted away. And that complicates the necessary adaptation, when its core texts call for such anachronistic things.

[Dusat]

It's rather a case of calling gold argentum. Allah (THE God) implies oneness, and is not compatible with the Christian Trinity. If there is THE God the Father and THE God the Son, which is THE God?

There are tons of other words they can use, like Tuhan, Rabb, Ilah, Tanri, etc.

Yeah, right. I don't believe Malaysian government bans the usage of word 'Allah' because they're concerned about the Christian teachings of God, if that's what you implied. It appears because they're under delusion that Allah should be used exclusively by Muslims, and Christians using His name is a kind of blasphemy or staining the purity or whatever. Which is a silly reasoning.

And I don't understand why Muslims are soo obsessed with concept of unity.

I usally just use Tuhan or 'oh buckets' when needed.

More like unity and subservience to the Islam that Arabs follow. Unity is obsessed and stressed in Islam as a result of nostalgia it appears.

Don't take my words on this seriously, though. Mere assumptions.

[Seljuq Kyiv]

Christianity had the same practices.

Had, no longer has. This is the point - to state tu quoque that other beliefs or systems had the same problems a thousand years ago does nothing to absolve the current problems. And besides, Christianity justly comes under a lot of criticism for its backward and contradictory tenets. It has atrophied in modern society - it does not carry the weight that Islam does in their daily lives, in many countries today. Why is it then, that Islam has special exemption from the critiques we direct at Christianity?

Seljuq Kyiv -
(1) http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Top_10_Contro ... the_Qur'an

(2) http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/quran ... olence.htm

Some potent examples of several of your "no basis in Islam" tenets above, but there are yet more too. Several of the things you claim to have no basis in Islam certainly do have a source. (3) The consensus on apostasy is not as forward thinking as you hold - countries governed theocratically show these Islamic principles in action. And another point is the (4) history of Islam; the immediate conquest of vast swaths of the Middle East and North Africa after Mohammed's death did not occur by chance or political manipulation. They were directly inspired by his campaigns of conquest. It is irrefutable.

As for having a set of beliefs being good - each to their own, but I'd say it is always negative to have an unquestionable, absolute set of laws. By their nature they cannot be changed, brought up to date, or appealed against. (5) How can you sing such draconian praises?

My note on (6) liberalism makes no mention of economics, and yet you point that out first, which I find an interesting misrepresentation. I speak, clearly, of civil liberties. And I would say the (7) rights of freedom of speech, (8) conscience, (9) equality for men and women, etc. are good things. Why, the freedom of speech allows you to criticise all those freedoms if you so wish - but their value is inherent nonetheless.

(10) And the analogy is far from broken - the tenets that call for violence are the acid, and the ones that call for peace the juice. A call for violence is understandably stronger than one for vague niceties, a point you seem to have missed despite its stark blatancy.

1 and 2 are biased sources, though they present several popular arguments. These I will address tomorrow morning.

3. Murder is forbidden in Islam. Prophet Muhammad did nothing to apostates as long as they did not threaten the safety of the state. Abu Bakar waged war against the apostates that rebelled against the state and refused to pay their zakat (which should go to the poor; they are thereby depriving the needy of their rightful property). Apostates were forgiven once they laid down arms and/or paid.

4. Conquering your neighbours and beyond for no apparent reason other than to spread religion by the sword has no basis in Islam.

5. Why is it so bad that it can't change?

6. That was the first thing that popped into my mind, please forgive me.

7. Allowed in Islam.

8. Allowed in Islam.

9. Equal rights and treatment? Islamic command.

10. For a second, I thought you were referring to alcohol. This 'acid' will be addressed, or perhaps I already have repeatedly in this thread, but I will get a post up hopefully tomorrow morning.

[Tulija]

Seljuq Kyiv - (1) and (2) one of them is a biased page indeed, but taken with direct quotes from the Quran. How is it that the quotes themselves, with numbering so that they can be referenced, biased? Those quotes can be found from any Quran - they so happen to be compiled on pages that seek to deride the religion, but those were the first I could find and so were utilised for convenience.

(4) Conquering your neighbours and beyond is precisely what happened, and to say the Muslim armies of the 7th Century were motivated for entirely secular reasons, rather than inflamed with the passion of revelation, would be a fiction. There were secular reasons of security and defence that would have spurred initial expansion, but this was only a partial cause, but beyond that initial stage it is incredibly hard to argue that it wasn't the sword that spread Islam into the wider reaches. The Sassanid's destruction, and Byzantine loss of huge areas are testament to that, as were Islam's incursions into Central Asia and Spain.

(8) Equality of women is not allowed in Islam. How can it be, when their inheritance is half, testimony worth less, they can be beaten justly?

I await how you will refute the quotes listed, when they are so unambiguously found within the pages of the Quran, and maintained today (apostasy, lower status of women, Sharia punishments of an archaic manner - beheading, mutilation, jihad, etc.). I also like to reiterate this is an intellectual attack on the writings, and not an indictment of most people's individual interpretations. This distinction is all too often lost, and contributes to bigot's arguments by blurring the lines of legitimate debate and hated fuelled dislike for ethnicities.

[Ostroeuropa]

What do the muslims here think of this, by the way: (Edited and cleaned up version of my marijuana+muslims argument.)

There are security reasons for the legalization of marijuana.

One of the major reasons muslims feel disconnected from society and many are insular, as well as not integrating as much as we'd like, is that they don't drink.
The major cultural and socialization hubs of many countries are the bars and pubs.
Legalization of cannabis cafe's would provide a venue where muslims and non-muslims can socialize together, and an avenue by which muslims can be integrated into the community at large, thus reducing friction.

It's incredibly difficult for many muslims at the moment to socialize with non muslims, as much of that socialization occurs in bars and clubs. You'll notice how many of the major terrorists over the last decade have been young persons, people we'd typically expect to be in bars.
A major reason, in my view, for their disconnect and for societies view of them as "foreign" is that they simply don't interact in pubs and bars with society at large.

It becomes very simple to view people who you never really interact with as a monster. This goes both ways. The tradition of breaking bread to encourage solidarity is there for a reason, and currently, our major cultural breaking of bread is our watering holes, the bars.
We could straight up demand that muslims start drinking, but this is just stupid and insensitive. It makes far more sense to legalize cannabis cafe's and provide a place for muslims and non muslims to socially interact and break bread together.

[Seljuq Kyiv]

What do the muslims here think of this, by the way: (Edited and cleaned up version of my marijuana+muslims argument.)

There are security reasons for the legalization of marijuana.

One of the major reasons muslims feel disconnected from society and many are insular, as well as not integrating as much as we'd like, is that they don't drink.
The major cultural and socialization hubs of many countries are the bars and pubs.
Legalization of cannabis cafe's would provide a venue where muslims and non-muslims can socialize together, and an avenue by which muslims can be integrated into the community at large, thus reducing friction.

It's incredibly difficult for many muslims at the moment to socialize with non muslims, as much of that socialization occurs in bars and clubs. You'll notice how many of the major terrorists over the last decade have been young persons, people we'd typically expect to be in bars.
A major reason, in my view, for their disconnect and for societies view of them as "foreign" is that they simply don't interact in pubs and bars with society at large.

It becomes very simple to view people who you never really interact with as a monster. This goes both ways. The tradition of breaking bread to encourage solidarity is there for a reason, and currently, our major cultural breaking of bread is our watering holes, the bars.
We could straight up demand that muslims start drinking, but this is just stupid and insensitive. It makes far more sense to legalize cannabis cafe's and provide a place for muslims and non muslims to socially interact and break bread together.

Muslims kinda found an alternative hundreds of years ago in the coffeehouse. Intoxication is also a strict no no.

[Ostroeuropa]

What do the muslims here think of this, by the way: (Edited and cleaned up version of my marijuana+muslims argument.)

There are security reasons for the legalization of marijuana.

One of the major reasons muslims feel disconnected from society and many are insular, as well as not integrating as much as we'd like, is that they don't drink.
The major cultural and socialization hubs of many countries are the bars and pubs.
Legalization of cannabis cafe's would provide a venue where muslims and non-muslims can socialize together, and an avenue by which muslims can be integrated into the community at large, thus reducing friction.

It's incredibly difficult for many muslims at the moment to socialize with non muslims, as much of that socialization occurs in bars and clubs. You'll notice how many of the major terrorists over the last decade have been young persons, people we'd typically expect to be in bars.
A major reason, in my view, for their disconnect and for societies view of them as "foreign" is that they simply don't interact in pubs and bars with society at large.

It becomes very simple to view people who you never really interact with as a monster. This goes both ways. The tradition of breaking bread to encourage solidarity is there for a reason, and currently, our major cultural breaking of bread is our watering holes, the bars.
We could straight up demand that muslims start drinking, but this is just stupid and insensitive. It makes far more sense to legalize cannabis cafe's and provide a place for muslims and non muslims to socially interact and break bread together.

Muslims kinda found an alternative hundreds of years ago in the coffeehouse. Intoxication is also a strict no no.

Intoxication with alcohol is the no-no. Many muslim societies use marijuana and hashish.
That's kind of the point of the coffeehouse you realize. It's a cannabis cafe. Like the Dutch coffee houses.

[Seljuq Kyiv]

Muslims kinda found an alternative hundreds of years ago in the coffeehouse. Intoxication is also a strict no no.

Intoxication with alcohol is the no-no. Many muslim societies use marijuana and hashish.
That's kind of the point of the coffeehouse you realize. It's a cannabis cafe. Like the Dutch coffee houses.

O You who believe! Intoxicants and gambling, (dedication of) stones and (divination by) arrows are an abomination of Satan’s handiwork. Avoid (such abominations) that you may prosper. (5:90)

Satan’s plan is to sow hatred and enmity amongst you with intoxicants and gambling, and to hamper you from the remembrance of Allah and from prayer. Will you not give up? (5:91)

Many Muslim societies consumed alcohol, smoked opium, and committed adultery regardless. But it's still a strict no no.

In most European countries, such as Austria, Denmark, Germany, Norway, Sweden, Portugal, and others, the term café means a restaurant primarily serving coffee as well as pastries such as cakes, tarts, pies, Danish pastries, or bun. Many cafés also serve light meals such as sandwiches. European cafés often have tables on the pavement (sidewalk) as well as indoors.

Something modeled after this would be swell. Just no intoxicants.

[Islamic Commune]

(4) Conquering your neighbours and beyond is precisely what happened, and to say the Muslim armies of the 7th Century were motivated for entirely secular reasons, rather than inflamed with the passion of revelation, would be a fiction. There were secular reasons of security and defence that would have spurred initial expansion, but this was only a partial cause, but beyond that initial stage it is incredibly hard to argue that it wasn't the sword that spread Islam into the wider reaches. The Sassanid's destruction, and Byzantine loss of huge areas are testament to that, as were Islam's incursions into Central Asia and Spain.

I would like you to explain what a secular reason would be, please.

If you are implying that the people of those areas were either forced to convert or die, then by all means that is false. Especially if we're talking about the initial conquest phase, no one was ever forced to convert to Islam. Other religious buildings were protected, and religious freedoms were upheld. If you study the demographic history of those areas, they did not start to become majority Muslim until at least 500 years after the founding of Islam.

When Umar Abd-al-Aziz sent a letter to Imam Hasan al-Basri complaining about the Zoroastrian practices of marrying their sisters and mothers, Hasan replied with, "This is permitted by their faith. Don't try to change this. Even if they marry their mothers, their religion allows this." So not only was Islam not being forced, but their religious practices were also being upheld. In contrast, the Western world would never allow this degree of religious tolerance.

If you have not known, the people of those areas actually allowed and helped the Muslims with their conquests. The Jews aided the Muslims in taking Jerusalem and the Jews were allowed to live there and have their own laws, and the Coptic Egyptians helped the Muslims draw the Byzantines out of their lands. Did the message of Islam create a momentum that lead to these conquests? Absolutely. Were they done to force Islam by the sword? That cannot be.

(8) Equality of women is not allowed in Islam. How can it be, when their inheritance is half, testimony worth less, they can be beaten justly?

You are right, and the word equality is not the best word to use in this situation. Citizens in the Western world are not equal, that would directly imply a communist society, which is not what the West has. However, citizens in the Western World do have equal opportunity, as do women and men in an Islamic society.

Besides, inheritance laws are not so just in the West. There are no Inheritance laws regarding where a person must give their wealth to after death. If a person wanted, they could give all their money to just one person to inherit, or even burn it after their death. At the very least, Inheritance Laws in Islam forces you to split your money between every family member upon your death, so that each family member benefits in a way.

The reason for men inheriting more money than women? Because under Islamic law, men have the obligation to ensure that the women in their society have all their basic needs met, and perhaps more. Men do inherit more money, but are obligated to spend most of it on their family and women under their protection. Women on the other hand, are not obligated to do the same thing with their wealth. Even if inheritance laws are unequal, women in a real Islamic society still have an equal opportunity to earn and spend money as much as they please.

I await how you will refute the quotes listed, when they are so unambiguously found within the pages of the Quran, and maintained today (apostasy, lower status of women, Sharia punishments of an archaic manner - beheading, mutilation, jihad, etc.). I also like to reiterate this is an intellectual attack on the writings, and not an indictment of most people's individual interpretations. This distinction is all too often lost, and contributes to bigot's arguments by blurring the lines of legitimate debate and hated fuelled dislike for ethnicities.

"And kill them wherever you find them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out. And Al-Fitnah [disbelief] is worse than killing...
but if they desist, then lo! Allah is forgiving and merciful. And fight them until there is no more Fitnah disbelief and worshipping of others along with Allah] and worship is for Allah alone. But if they cease, let there be no transgression except against Az-Zalimun (the polytheists, and wrong-doers, etc.)"

Conveniently, the person who quoted this left out the verse before which states:

"Fight in the way of Allah those who fight you [b]but do not transgress. Indeed. Allah does not like transgressors."[/b] Qur'an 2:190.

The word al-Fitnah does not mean disbelief. The closest meaning in English is trial or discord. So here, the Qur'an says that those who create civil disunity are worse than those who fight them. And the Qur'an even says that when those who create trials stop, then we must do the same, and we cannot transgress the limits except towards Az-Zalimun, which means the Oppressors, not polytheists. The Arabic word for Polytheist is Mushrikuun

Again, I could go through all of these quotes and analyze them, but why should I go through the trouble of finding every single mistranslation of words and placing each of those verses into context?

I've skimmed over most of these quotes, and they do the same things as this first one did: Quote out of context, and misinterpret words.

[Tulija]

@ Islamic Commune - I was saying that initially, outward expansion could be tenuously justified for secular reasons, e.g. survival and autonomy of the nascent religion. Beyond that, once the Arabian Muslims left the penninsula and proceeded to conquer Sassanid Persia, Byzantine near east and North Africa, as well as part of Europe - that was driven by religious conquest. They did indeed uphold degrees of religious freedom over those they conquered, but the imposition of taxation on them for being dhimmi's shows that there was second class status.

Equal opportunity in the Muslim world would also be a false claim, I'm afraid. Look at Saudi Arabia, or Iran, where women's rights are curtailed to the highest degree - in Saudi, they may not drive, travel unaccompanied, with heads bare, and so. Further passages I disclosed cite examples that normalise this treatment in the Quran, for example, polygamy and marriage of Aisha at a very young age. The lack of worth to a woman's testimony, I see, you leave out in justifying. Perhaps because it is patently unjustifiable today?

Are you seriously telling me the multitudinous quotes sourced from the Quran on holy war are all misrepresented? Would we hold the outrageous quotes in the New and Old testaments to the exacting standard - that they are all misquoted and mistranslated? Such a claim is absurd. There are yet more and more verses, which you choose to discount, but I can assure you leave little room for mistranslation.

Quran (8:12) - "I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them"

Quran (3:56) - "As to those who reject faith, I will punish them with terrible agony in this world and in the Hereafter, nor will they have anyone to help."

Quran (3:151) - "Soon shall We cast terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers, for that they joined companions with Allah, for which He had sent no authority".

Quran (4:89) - "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; and (in any case) take no friends or helpers from their ranks."

Quran (8:59-60) - "And let not those who disbelieve suppose that they can outstrip (Allah's Purpose). Lo! they cannot escape. Make ready for them all thou canst of (armed) force and of horses tethered, that thereby ye may dismay the enemy of Allah and your enemy."

Mistranslated? Hmm.

[Prospect Landings]

Muslims kinda found an alternative hundreds of years ago in the coffeehouse. Intoxication is also a strict no no.

Intoxication with alcohol is the no-no. Many muslim societies use marijuana and hashish.
That's kind of the point of the coffeehouse you realize. It's a cannabis cafe. Like the Dutch coffee houses.

Marijuana is forbidden in Islam, all five schools of Fiqh are in complete agreement on this point.

[Islamic Commune]

Ah, fine, I will look at all of them for you, Tulija.

First Verse:

"Sura 8:12

[Remember] when your Lord inspired to the angels, "I am with you, so strengthen those who have believed. I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieved, so strike [them] upon the necks and strike from them every fingertip."
8:13:
"That is because they opposed Allah and His Messenger. And whoever opposes Allah and His Messenger - indeed, Allah is severe in penalty."
8:14:
"That [is yours], so taste it." And indeed for the disbelievers is the punishment of the Fire."
8:15:
"O you who have believed, when you meet those who disbelieve advancing [for battle], do not turn to them your backs [in flight]."

The verses were revealed before and shortly after the Battle of Badr, a battle that began because the Messenger promised to return the properties of those who left from Mecca, who were not allowed to take anything with them. This is one of these verses which is applied to those who disbelieved who also oppressed the Muslims. Yes, it does incite war towards those who disbelieved and strove against the Muslims.

Second verse:

3:52:
"But when Jesus felt [persistence in] disbelief from them, he said, "Who are my supporters for [the cause of] Allah ?" The disciples said," We are supporters for Allah . We have believed in Allah and testify that we are Muslims [submitting to Him]."
3:53:
"Our Lord, we have believed in what You revealed and have followed the messenger Jesus, so register us among the witnesses [to truth]."
3:54:
"And the disbelievers planned, but Allah planned. And Allah is the best of planners."
3:55:
[Mention] "when Allah said, "O Jesus, indeed I will take you and raise you to Myself and purify you from those who disbelieve and make those who follow you [in submission to Allah alone] superior to those who disbelieve until the Day of Resurrection. Then to Me is your return, and I will judge between you concerning that in which you used to differ."
3:56:
"And as for those who disbelieved, I will punish them with a severe punishment in this world and the Hereafter, and they will have no helpers."
3:57:
"But as for those who believed and did righteous deeds, He will give them in full their rewards, and Allah does not like the wrongdoers."

These set of verses are specifically about Jesus and his story. There were those who believed in him and those who not only disbelieved in him, but did all that they could to wipe him and his followers out. The term for this is Kafir, which is not only disbelief, but fighting against those who believe. The word for just a disbeliever is "Mukadhib".

Obviously, 3:54 talks about those who conspired to kill Jesus and persecute those who were with him, and how their plans to exterminate the religion of God are meaningless. 3:55 mentions how the death of Jesus is not the end of the religion, and 3:56 is pointed to all those who not only disbelieve, but fight the believers by way of aggressive attack, not defensive.

Third Verse:

3:151:
"We will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve for what they have associated with Allah of which He had not sent down [any] authority. And their refuge will be the Fire, and wretched is the residence of the wrongdoers."

In here, the word disbelieve is not that word but the word "kafir", which means those who not only disbelieve, but fight against the believers. So God will cast terror into the hearts of those who not only declare divinity to things other than God, but fight against you. But looking closely, there is no direct command here to attack the "Kafir", only that God will make it difficult for them to complete their task, and that their efforts are meaningless in the end.

Fourth verse:

4:88:
"What is [the matter] with you [that you are] two groups concerning the hypocrites, while Allah has made them fall back [into error and disbelief] for what they earned. Do you wish to guide those whom Allah has sent astray? And he whom Allah sends astray - never will you find for him a way [of guidance]."

4:89:
"They wish you would disbelieve as they disbelieved so you would be alike. So do not take from among them allies until they emigrate for the cause of Allah . But if they turn away, then seize them and kill them wherever you find them and take not from among them any ally or helper."

4:90:
"Except for those who take refuge with a people between yourselves and whom is a treaty or those who come to you, their hearts strained at [the prospect of] fighting you or fighting their own people. And if Allah had willed, He could have given them power over you, and they would have fought you. So if they remove themselves from you and do not fight you and offer you peace, then Allah has not made for you a cause [for fighting] against them."

Another example of taking a verse entirely out of context.

The verse before mentions the Hypocrites; those who pledge allegiance to the Messenger with the intention of ruining the Muslim community from the inside. Those who do that are committing treason and must be eliminated. Likewise in almost every other nation-state, those who are involved in civil disobedience and treason will be hunted down.

And what is said in the verse directly after? To not fight those who do not express aggression towards you. To not fight those who you have a treaty with. To stop fighting those who offer peace with you. Again, very intermediate verses regarding warfare.

Fifth verse:

8:59:
"And let not those who disbelieve think they will escape. Indeed, they will not cause failure [to Allah ]."

8:60:
"And prepare against them whatever you are able of power and of steeds of war by which you may terrify the enemy of Allah and your enemy and others besides them whom you do not know [but] whom Allah knows. And whatever you spend in the cause of Allah will be fully repaid to you, and you will not be wronged."

8:61:
"And if they incline to peace, then incline to it [also] and rely upon Allah . Indeed, it is He who is the Hearing, the Knowing."

Once again, removing the following verse for convenience. So to those who disbelieve and fight against you, war against them and exert great effort towards their failure, but if they ask for peace, accept it. I don't see any outrageousness in this.

If you believe I have misinterpreted any of these wrong, please point me out. I am not the most knowledgeable of people concerning the Islamic faith.

[Tulija]

Islamic Commune - the fighting mentioned here would soon enough evolve into fighting the non-believers who defended themselves in Perisa, the Levant, Egypt, Northern Africa and Spain. The commandment to kill the non-believer cannot be so easily magicked away as you have done - we are still dealing with a passage that tells them to kill non-believers in general, regardless of it's context before Badr. There are yet more examples I will bring forth, but atm I'm on my phone and so can't.

By your own admittance, one of the passages did call for attack on non-believers. That, is enough to declare such messages anachronistic. Furthermore, I don't think you can strongly argue Sharia law is a system of governance you would want to submit to; it's merits lie only in it's presumed origin from an infallible being. I cite these examples so as to show Islam, in its written form (not that practised by it's adherents, as I said who are far more reasonable) is corrosive.

[Islamic Commune]

As I have said before, the early conquests of the Levant, Egypt, Northern Africa and Spain were not done exclusively by the Muslims. The Muslims received much aid from the Jewish and Christian populations there whom the Byzantine empire were oppressing. In Spain, the story goes along the lines of a noble requesting the support of the Muslims to dethrone King Roderick, which admittedly was used to take control of the country. However, by the time of the conquest of Spain, the Muslims already switched from what would be almost a republic and descended into hereditary rule (Ummayad Caliphate). The Muslims actually did little fighting in North Africa; they accepted Muslim rule without any form of violence.

The Persians began their war with the Muslims when they have killed and returned the heads of the Muslim messengers that were sent to the Persian King to invite him into the domain of Islam. Their fanaticism made them refuse offering peace to the Muslims, which the Muslims would have accepted as that is according to Islamic law. Whether it was with the Byzantine or Persian empire, they struck first, not the Muslims, unless I am wrong and you can prove me otherwise.

I have not magicked away any verse, I merely interpreted it according to my knowledge of the Arabic language and my knowledge of the early Islamic history. And yes, I am admitting that the Qur'an does command Muslims to fight the disbelievers who fight them. By all means, that is an obligation in the Qur'an, to defend yourself against those who would seek to destroy you. In the context of the verses, violence was never propagated unless there was a definite cause against people who openly make themselves enemies of the Muslim community. At the same time, I cannot deny the Qur'an when it tells me not to transgress in violence, not to break peace treaties and to accept peace from those who offer it. If you want to know exactly how to avoid violence from Muslims, look at this verse in the Qur'an:
60:8:
"Allah does not forbid you from those who do not fight you because of religion and do not expel you from your homes - from being righteous toward them and acting justly toward them. Indeed, Allah loves those who act justly."

60:9:
"Allah only forbids you from those who fight you because of religion and expel you from your homes and aid in your expulsion - [forbids] that you make allies of them. And whoever makes allies of them, then it is those who are the wrongdoers."

You can present more verses if you like, as I respect your exploration of Islam. Please do not assume that I am against you. As you said, we are just having an intellectual discussion and examining the Qur'an from various angles. Your points of view are accepted by me and I will not insult you for any opinion you may have on Islam.

Islamic law is unique in that it only applies to Muslims. Non-Muslims are not judged according to Islamic law unless they request it or they commit an action against another Muslim. You may not want to be judged according to Islamic law and that's totally fine. However, I am one of those willing to live under Islamic law. Some of the laws made by Saudi Arabia and Iran have no basis in Islam. For example, banning women from driving cars. As far as I know, no woman was prohibited to ride horses or whatnot, so where does this law come from? Anyway, this brings me to my next point.

You say that it is Islam that is corrosive and not the practitioners, but I concur. I say like many other ideologies, Islam is great on paper, but is easy to corrupt by individuals.

Despite popular assumptions, Islamic law is beneficial in many things. It is a rule of law; No one regardless of their position is exempt from the law, and that idea has not been prevalent in the West until the Magna Carta, which coincidentally was formed after English contact with Islamic civilization. Islamic law also encourages a welfare state that helps the poor, the needy and the orphan, regardless of their religious beliefs. The Rashidun Caliphate was arguably the first welfare state.

Islamic law also grants freedom of religion and protection of religious property to non-Muslims, provided they pay a tax, which is supposed to be levied only on men who are capable of paying it. There are Muslims who have taxed non-Muslims heavily, but it is not in the spirit of the Islamic religion, since the Qur'an says in 60:5:
"Our Lord, make us not [objects of] torment for the disbelievers and forgive us, our Lord. Indeed, it is You who is the Exalted in Might, the Wise."

For paying this tax, not only were non-Muslim guaranteed religious freedoms, but also the freedom to make and utilize their own courts of law, have all the property and individual rights as any Muslims, and is exempt from Military service. In comparison, Muslims do pay tax as well as non-Muslims, and are sworn as a community to protect the non-Muslims under their protection with their lives and their property. If the Muslims fail to do so, they are obligated to give back the tax money they have collected to the people which they collected it from.

There is nothing in the Qur'an preventing non-Muslims from participating in government, and I believe that non-Muslims in an Islamic society should be able to elect their own leaders to represent them and their problems, and that Muslims should address the problems of non-Muslims under their protection.

[Totally Not Leningrad Union]

Why are Muslim majority countries so untrue to Islamic ideals and values?

[Czechanada]

As I have said before, the early conquests of the Levant, Egypt, Northern Africa and Spain were not done exclusively by the Muslims. The Muslims received much aid from the Jewish and Christian populations there whom the Byzantine empire were oppressing. In Spain, the story goes along the lines of a noble requesting the support of the Muslims to dethrone King Roderick, which admittedly was used to take control of the country. However, by the time of the conquest of Spain, the Muslims already switched from what would be almost a republic and descended into hereditary rule (Ummayad Caliphate). The Muslims actually did little fighting in North Africa; they accepted Muslim rule without any form of violence.

The Persians began their war with the Muslims when they have killed and returned the heads of the Muslim messengers that were sent to the Persian King to invite him into the domain of Islam. Their fanaticism made them refuse offering peace to the Muslims, which the Muslims would have accepted as that is according to Islamic law. Whether it was with the Byzantine or Persian empire, they struck first, not the Muslims, unless I am wrong and you can prove me otherwise.

I have not magicked away any verse, I merely interpreted it according to my knowledge of the Arabic language and my knowledge of the early Islamic history. And yes, I am admitting that the Qur'an does command Muslims to fight the disbelievers who fight them. By all means, that is an obligation in the Qur'an, to defend yourself against those who would seek to destroy you. In the context of the verses, violence was never propagated unless there was a definite cause against people who openly make themselves enemies of the Muslim community. At the same time, I cannot deny the Qur'an when it tells me not to transgress in violence, not to break peace treaties and to accept peace from those who offer it. If you want to know exactly how to avoid violence from Muslims, look at this verse in the Qur'an:
60:8:
"Allah does not forbid you from those who do not fight you because of religion and do not expel you from your homes - from being righteous toward them and acting justly toward them. Indeed, Allah loves those who act justly."

60:9:
"Allah only forbids you from those who fight you because of religion and expel you from your homes and aid in your expulsion - [forbids] that you make allies of them. And whoever makes allies of them, then it is those who are the wrongdoers."

You can present more verses if you like, as I respect your exploration of Islam. Please do not assume that I am against you. As you said, we are just having an intellectual discussion and examining the Qur'an from various angles. Your points of view are accepted by me and I will not insult you for any opinion you may have on Islam.

Islamic law is unique in that it only applies to Muslims. Non-Muslims are not judged according to Islamic law unless they request it or they commit an action against another Muslim. You may not want to be judged according to Islamic law and that's totally fine. However, I am one of those willing to live under Islamic law. Some of the laws made by Saudi Arabia and Iran have no basis in Islam. For example, banning women from driving cars. As far as I know, no woman was prohibited to ride horses or whatnot, so where does this law come from? Anyway, this brings me to my next point.

You say that it is Islam that is corrosive and not the practitioners, but I concur. I say like many other ideologies, Islam is great on paper, but is easy to corrupt by individuals.

Despite popular assumptions, Islamic law is beneficial in many things. It is a rule of law; No one regardless of their position is exempt from the law, and that idea has not been prevalent in the West until the Magna Carta, which coincidentally was formed after English contact with Islamic civilization. Islamic law also encourages a welfare state that helps the poor, the needy and the orphan, regardless of their religious beliefs. The Rashidun Caliphate was arguably the first welfare state.

Islamic law also grants freedom of religion and protection of religious property to non-Muslims, provided they pay a tax, which is supposed to be levied only on men who are capable of paying it. There are Muslims who have taxed non-Muslims heavily, but it is not in the spirit of the Islamic religion, since the Qur'an says in 60:5:
"Our Lord, make us not [objects of] torment for the disbelievers and forgive us, our Lord. Indeed, it is You who is the Exalted in Might, the Wise."

For paying this tax, not only were non-Muslim guaranteed religious freedoms, but also the freedom to make and utilize their own courts of law, have all the property and individual rights as any Muslims, and is exempt from Military service. In comparison, Muslims do pay tax as well as non-Muslims, and are sworn as a community to protect the non-Muslims under their protection with their lives and their property. If the Muslims fail to do so, they are obligated to give back the tax money they have collected to the people which they collected it from.

There is nothing in the Qur'an preventing non-Muslims from participating in government, and I believe that non-Muslims in an Islamic society should be able to elect their own leaders to represent them and their problems, and that Muslims should address the problems of non-Muslims under their protection.

So why did the Rashidun Caliphate occupy the territories of the Levant and Mesopotamia then?

[Conscentia]

Why are Muslim majority countries so untrue to Islamic ideals and values?

Poor social & political conditions invariably lead to corruption regardless of a society's religion.

[Geilinor]

The verse before mentions the Hypocrites; those who pledge allegiance to the Messenger with the intention of ruining the Muslim community from the inside. Those who do that are committing treason and must be eliminated.

So if a Muslim questions any of their religion's tenets, they should be killed (eliminated)? It's also impossible to commit treason against a religion.

[Czechanada]

So after an unpleasant encounter with the rules on interfaith marriages, Islam has left me a rather bad taste in my mouth.

[Seljuq Kyiv]

The verse before mentions the Hypocrites; those who pledge allegiance to the Messenger with the intention of ruining the Muslim community from the inside. Those who do that are committing treason and must be eliminated.

So if a Muslim questions any of their religion's tenets, they should be killed (eliminated)? It's also impossible to commit treason against a religion.

No. They are permitted, nay, obliged, to voice out their opinions and engage in lively discourse with an expert of the subject, even if only for the pursuit of knowledge.

The community and the state, it means.

Why are Muslim majority countries so untrue to Islamic ideals and values?

Poor social & political conditions invariably lead to corruption regardless of a society's religion.

Same thing happens to communism. To the masses Stalin just becomes the yardstick.

So why did the Rashidun Caliphate occupy the territories of the Levant and Mesopotamia then?

As I remember it, the Byzantines threatened war in Syria, and the state was forced to strike while it still gave them a chance of survival.

I don't remember why Mesopotamia was occupied, however. It might have been to establish a buffer with Persia.

[Lunatic Goofballs]

So after an unpleasant encounter with the rules on interfaith marriages, Islam has left me a rather bad taste in my mouth.

I had a similar experience when I got married. She's a third generation police officer and I'm a professional troublemaker. Her family took quite some time to warm up to me.