Mohammed - Prophet of Peace

[Cheezy the Wiz]

The problem is the peaceful stuff mostly comes early in the Koran and the older and more powerful he gets the more militant and fanatical Mohammed got. According to Muslim teachings when the Koran contradicts itself, as it does all the time, then the later parts supersede the earlier parts.

We talked about this earlier. The Quran is not organized chrologically, it is organized by the length of the suras. So yes, chronologically later parts may contradict and override chronologically earlier parts, but suras with smaller page numbers on them are not necessarily (and very often the opposite is true) the earlier ones, nor are larger page numbers the newer ones.

And we also have to ask ourselves: if the older parts are overridden, then why were they included in the Quran, why are they studied, and why do they continue to be included in Qurans, if they are meaningless?

 

[kochman]

Ah Cheezy...
Have you studied it? Have you read it?
Do you know the order?
I will embark on some edumacation on the topic.

Not really. As I said in my post, Albaqara and Al Imran, where I took the "peaceful" Kuran are chronologically among the latest Surates, ie sent to Mohammad in Medina, when he become strong

OK... You're absolutely wrong. I will prove it.

It doesn't matter if these nice words from Albaqara (87th of 114) and Al Imran (89th of 114) are ALMOST the last word on the subject, because they aren't the last word, which is what matters according to Muhammed.
Almost the end doesn't matter.

Let's look at the Koran for the truth, shall we?
Let's prove the point.
Note, the numbers refer to the normal order as seen in the Koran.

The final verses of the Koran... From the LAST chronological chapter... An-Nasr

When the victory of Allah has come and the conquest,
110:2
And you see the people entering into the religion of Allah in multitudes,
110:3
Then exalt [Him] with praise of your Lord and ask forgiveness of Him. Indeed, He is ever Accepting of repentance.

So, no matter what else is stated, the final step is everyone is a Muslim... which isn't too bad of a goal (if the way of getting there wasn't violence).

Second to last chronological chapter... At-Taubah

The Jews say, "Ezra is the son of Allah "; and the Christians say, "The Messiah is the son of Allah ." That is their statement from their mouths; they imitate the saying of those who disbelieved [before them]. May Allah destroy them; how are they deluded?
9:30

I guess we know how they really feel about "People of the Book"...

O Prophet, fight against the disbelievers and the hypocrites and be harsh upon them. And their refuge is Hell, and wretched is the destination.
9:73

Commands Mohammed to attack. Not defend, as he later points out here...

If Allah should return you to a faction of them [after the expedition] and then they ask your permission to go out [to battle], say, "You will not go out with me, ever, and you will never fight with me an enemy.

Key word, expedition.

No wonder the religious then went on hundreds of years of non-stop conquest... it was commanded.

It is true that you can take other meanings, which explains why all Muslims aren't violent. But, you can see where some would get the message that they need to be on jihads.

That's with about 5 minutes of research.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

And we also have to ask ourselves: if the older parts are overridden, then why were they included in the Quran, why are they studied, and why do they continue to be included in Qurans, if they are meaningless?

Shoddy version control. I'm dealing with it as we speak, I don't know who coded this $@#*& before me, but there should be a special verse in the Koran reserved for people like that.

 

[HannibalBarka]

Ah Cheezy...
Have you studied it? Have you read it?
Do you know the order?
I will embark on some edumacation on the topic.
OK... You're absolutely wrong. I will prove it.
It doesn't matter if these nice words from Albaqara (87th of 114) and Al Imran (89th of 114) are ALMOST the last word on the subject, because they aren't the last word, which is what matters according to Muhammed.
Almost the end doesn't matter.
Let's look at the Koran for the truth, shall we?
Let's prove the point.
Note, the numbers refer to the normal order as seen in the Koran.
The final verses of the Koran... From the LAST chronological chapter... An-Nasr
So, no matter what else is stated, the final step is everyone is a Muslim... which isn't too bad of a goal (if the way of getting there wasn't violence).

Second to last chronological chapter... At-Taubah

I guess we know how they really feel about "People of the Book"...


Commands Mohammed to attack. Not defend, as he later points out here...

Key word, expedition.

No wonder the religious then went on hundreds of years of non-stop conquest... it was commanded.

It is true that you can take other meanings, which explains why all Muslims aren't violent. But, you can see where some would get the message that they need to be on jihads.

That's with about 5 minutes of research.

OK, since you think you are "able" to understand to Koran just by googling it. The last Chapter of At tawba says :

But if they turn away, [O Muhammad], say, "Sufficient for me is Allah ; there is no deity except Him. On Him I have relied, and He is the Lord of the Great Throne."

So if I follow you very bright way of interpreting the Kuran, allah is telling his prophet not to fight those who do not folllow him, but just to say "Sufficient for me is Allah" OK? isn't that verse revoking all the previous ones?

Abrogation in the Koran, as I said many time, is a very complex one. Muslim scholar don't even agree on the chronoligical order of the Koran, Chapters of the Koran did not even come in a full order. Mohummed received some verses of a given Chapter, than some from another Chapter, and than he received completion of the first one, etc. Many Chapters have been partially received in Mecca and in Medina, i.e. years later. Really the only clear abrogation that all scholar agree on is the one concerning alcohol. All others are a subject of huge, some time bloody, disputes between muslim scholars.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Ah Cheezy...
Have you studied it? Have you read it?
Do you know the order?
I will embark on some edumacation on the topic.

First, trying to use one of my statements as a comeback in the same thread and on the same topic that I used it against you is simply bad form. Especially considering that you did not "edumacate" me on anything.

Since I said nothing incorrect in my post, I'm not sure what you're on about, even more so considering that none of your post addresses anything in mine.

OK... You're absolutely wrong. I will prove it.

It doesn't matter if these nice words from Albaqara (87th of 114) and Al Imran (89th of 114) are ALMOST the last word on the subject, because they aren't the last word, which is what matters according to Muhammed.
Almost the end doesn't matter.

Let's look at the Koran for the truth, shall we?
Let's prove the point.
Note, the numbers refer to the normal order as seen in the Koran.

The final verses of the Koran... From the LAST chronological chapter... An-Nasr

So, no matter what else is stated, the final step is everyone is a Muslim... which isn't too bad of a goal (if the way of getting there wasn't violence).

This should not surprise you, since nasr means "victory" in Arabic. Besides, Christianity says similar things, about all realizing The Truth on the day of judgment, and being given the opportunity to accept or reject it when faced with the Truth.

Second to last chronological chapter... At-Taubah

I guess we know how they really feel about "People of the Book"...

My translation says "Allah ruin them." Kinds of sounds like "don't let them succeed, I hope their efforts are confounded." After all, if God was going to destroy them, he'd bloody well do it.

Commands Mohammed to attack. Not defend, as he later points out here...

Key word, expedition.

No wonder the religious then went on hundreds of years of non-stop conquest... it was commanded.

You're getting caught up in a translation error. Mine says:

"Those who continued to be left behind rejoiced at their remaining at home, contrary to the directions of the Messenger of Allah. They were averse to striving in the cause of Allah with their belongings and their persons, and they said, one to another: Go not forth in such heat. Remind them: the fire of Hell is fiercer far in the heat; did they but understand. So let them rejoice less at the supposed success of their stratagem and weep more at the contemplation of punishment for their duplicity awaiting them. Should Allah take thee back to a party of them and should they ask you to leave and go forth with thee, tell them: You shall never go forth with me and shall never fight an enemy with me. You chose to remain at home the first time, so now continue with those who remain behind. Pray not for any of them who dies, nor stand by his grave asking forgiveness for him; they disbelieved in Allah and His Messenger and died while they were disobedient. Let not their possessions or their children cause thee to wonder. Allah only intends to chastise them therewith in the present life and that their souls may depart while they are disbelievers."

The bolded part being what you were supposedly referencing. Notice that there is not even a hint of an "expedition" in this translation. Earlier, in a part I did not quote, it does call upon The Prophet to "press hard" on the disbelievers and hypocrites (referring to people that I qualify below), but then says that it's God's duty to punish them for their spiritual faults, and that Mohammed merely punishes them for their earthly ones.

In fact, on the page before this he qualifies that it is not Christians, Jews, or any other specific religion because of their religion, but rather apostates, and very specifically, Arab allies who betrayed Mohammed and went back to their pagan ways.

So this passage doesn't talk about punishing the infidel wherever he lay, urging the Muslim to go forth on glorious military expeditions in the name of God, it commands Mohammed to punish those who betrayed his strust, and advises him not to trust them in the future.

It is true that you can take other meanings, which explains why all Muslims aren't violent. But, you can see where some would get the message that they need to be on jihads.

That's with about 5 minutes of research.

The inner workings of the largest religion in the world is worth more than five minutes of scant ideology-driven internet research. You went looking for violent passages that backed your twisted view of Islam, and "found" them without bothering to see if that's what they actually meant.

 

[Traitorfish]

The problem is the peaceful stuff mostly comes early in the Koran and the older and more powerful he gets the more militant and fanatical Mohammed got. According to Muslim teachings when the Koran contradicts itself, as it does all the time, then the later parts supersede the earlier parts.

This seems to be a recurring point, so I feel the need to ask: what contradictions are we actually talking about? Because it seems to me that Muhammad starting off with "don't kill people" and later revising it "you can kill this guy in these circumstances, if you have to" isn't quite the same as him simply saying "y'know what, just go ahead and kill everyone", as seems to be the widespread assumption here.

 

[kochman]

OK, since you think you are "able" to understand to Koran just by googling it.

I've read it previously, when I was deployed in the Middle East, as I felt it was important to understanding the culture within which I was living.

The last Chapter of At tawba says :
But if they turn away, [O Muhammad], say, "Sufficient for me is Allah ; there is no deity except Him. On Him I have relied, and He is the Lord of the Great Throne."

At the point he is talking about the Muslims who do not go to war on his behalf... not Christians and Jews that they are attacking.

Abrogation in the Koran, as I said many time, is a very complex one. Muslim scholar don't even agree on the chronoligical order of the Koran, Chapters of the Koran did not even come in a full order.

That's kind of my point... it can be interpreted, literally, to be quite violent and commanding. Moreso than any other faith...
Hence, the massive amount of violence committed in the name of Allah.

Really the only clear abrogation that all scholar agree on is the one concerning alcohol.

Source? Nevermind, irrelevant...
Doesn't take away the ambiguity that the situation allows for... even if true.
I'd say, Mohammed's warlike final days provide a pretty good indication of what he really believed at the time.

First, trying to use one of my statements as a comeback in the same thread and on the same topic that I used it against you is simply bad form. Especially considering that you did not "edumacate" me on anything.

Believe me, I didn't remember your words and plot to use them against you... it just happened.

Since I said nothing incorrect in my post, I'm not sure what you're on about, even more so considering that none of your post addresses anything in mine.

You said some stuff about the order again, but didn't acknowledge, still, because I couldn't edumacate you, that the more warlike verses were found prevailing in the final chapters (chronologically speaking).

This should not surprise you, since nasr means "victory" in Arabic. Besides, Christianity says similar things, about all realizing The Truth on the day of judgment, and being given the opportunity to accept or reject it when faced with the Truth.

I made allowance for that...
I criticized the means of getting to the ending though...

My translation says "Allah ruin them." Kinds of sounds like "don't let them succeed, I hope their efforts are confounded." After all, if God was going to destroy them, he'd bloody well do it.

Yeah, he probably just meant bankrupt them, good call.
He often says things like cut off their heads... but yes, some people even soften that translation down... wonder why?

You're getting caught up in a translation error.

Oh, your version MUST be right, and mine flawed... interesting.

The inner workings of the largest religion in the world is worth more than five minutes of scant ideology-driven internet research. You went looking for violent passages that backed your twisted view of Islam, and "found" them without bothering to see if that's what they actually meant.

Christianity is the largest religion buddy.

I've read the book before, I don't have a photographic memory, so to refresh I used the internet. It's a pretty common practice for those who don't have a photographic memory, in fact.

Regardless, I pointed out the facts... abrogation tells us that these violent things were revealed according to plan, in the time they were, because they were "better". End of story. They are the last word.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

You said some stuff about the order again, but didn't acknowledge, still, because I couldn't edumacate you, that the more warlike verses were found prevailing in the final chapters (chronologically speaking).

I never said that wasn't true, did I? I said that yours, and later Oerdin's, assumption and treatment of the Quran as being chronological was incorrect, and that your arrival at the "true meaning" of the Quran was based on this incorrect understanding of how abrogation in the book actually works.

I made allowance for that...
I criticized the means of getting to the ending though...

You mean the return of Christ?

Yeah, he probably just meant bankrupt them, good call.
He often says things like cut off their heads... but yes, some people even soften that translation down... wonder why?

It's obviously part of our muslim apologist communist anti-Western conspiracy.

Why don't you show me some of these "cut off their heads" quotes? Oh and by the way, it's helpful to look at multiple translations when reading a book written in another language that you don't read.

Oh, your version MUST be right, and mine flawed... interesting.

That's your rebuttal? Really? Not even the slightest consideration for the argument, just a nonchalant dismissal because you already know what is right.

Talk about a waste of my time. Medicine for the dead I suppose. Lesson learned.

I've read the book before, I don't have a photographic memory, so to refresh I used the internet. It's a pretty common practice for those who don't have a photographic memory, in fact.

Regardless, I pointed out the facts... abrogation tells us that these violent things were revealed according to plan, in the time they were, because they were "better". End of story. They are the last word.

As I proved, the violent verses you presented do not mean what you said they do. So I'm happy to let them have the last word. It still means you are wrong.

 

[kochman]

I said that yours, and later Oerdin's, assumption and treatment of the Quran as being chronological was incorrect

It's hard to believe you still think that I didn't know the books were not in chrono order in the Koran today... I'm done with that... take it or leave it.

You mean the return of Christ?

No, I mean about humans going to war until the whole world accepts Islam. Not the Lord being almighty and doing what He can do as God.

Why don't you show me some of these "cut off their heads" quotes?

Still apparently don't believe they exist?
I thought when they were televising it, and reading directly from the Koran, you would know... Ok, I will look it up for you.
God revealed His will to the angels, saying: "I shall be with you. Give courage to the believers. I shall cast terror into the hearts of the infidels. Strike off their heads, strike off the very tips of their fingers." (Sura 8, Verse 12... chronological chapter 88)
Perhaps it was a translation error, maybe he meant something like, "wipe their brow"? It's hot in the middle east and all.

Here's some that don't directly tell us to chop off heads, but seem pretty clear...
"Slay them wherever you find them...Idolatry is worse than carnage...Fight against them until idolatry is no more and God's religion reigns supreme." (Surah 2:190- some say 2:91...)
"Seek out your enemies relentlessly." Surah 4:103... (by the way, this is book 92 of 114, pretty late in the game, chapter called "Women", but it refers to infidels, not women)

Oh and by the way, it's helpful to look at multiple translations when reading a book written in another language that you don't read.

More snide remarks. I'm sure we can live without those.

That's your rebuttal?

You said my version is wrong, and posted yours... what's to say?

As I proved, the violent verses you presented do not mean what you said they do. So I'm happy to let them have the last word. It still means you are wrong.

Sorry, where did you prove anything?

 

[HannibalBarka]

I've read it previously, when I was deployed in the Middle East, as I felt it was important to understanding the culture within which I was living.

Good than. I truly congratulate you. I however recommend you read the Koran with explanation. It is already very hard to understand fro arabic speaking people like me.

At the point he is talking about the Muslims who do not go to war on his behalf... not Christians and Jews that they are attacking.

Nope, sorry, I get back to the whole chapter, read it in Arabic and the last verse is about the unbeliever who mock muslim for every new verse received from Mohummed.

http://quran.com/9

That's kind of my point... it can be interpreted, literally, to be quite violent and commanding. Moreso than any other faith...
Hence, the massive amount of violence committed in the name of Allah.

Oh sure, as it can be interpreted, literally, to be quite peaceful, LIKE any other faith. Look I am reading the "The Crusades Through Arab Eyes" by Amin Maalouf, a Chritian Lebanese-french writer. The amount of violence committed in the name of Jesus-Christ is really no less terrible. It's just a matter of what is the interpretation that is more fashionable at a time, and that is linked to politic and social conditions. Did you ever wonder why for centuries, the Muslim Orient has huge Chritians and Jewish communities?

Source? Nevermind, irrelevant...
Doesn't take away the ambiguity that the situation allows for... even if true.
I'd say, Mohammed's warlike final days provide a pretty good indication of what he really believed at the time.

Here is a source, but it in french. And how is that irrelevent? If you bring a whole theory about the Koran abrogation system, you just can't consider "irrelevant" discussion about it?!

http://www.sami-aldeeb.com/files/article/211/Arabic-Coran-preface-et-introduction.pdf

And again, I do not deny the ambiguity of the Koran. But that is common to all holy book. If the Bible was not ambigus, no "Church blessed" crimes would have been possible. And being a warrior is inteself not a bad thing, I am not going to teach that to a soldier . Muhammad was definetly not a hippi

 

[kochman]

Thank you for a courteous response!
I appreciate it.

Good than. I truly congratulate you. I however recommend you read the Koran with explanation. It is already very hard to understand fro arabic speaking people like me.

True.

Nope, sorry, I get back to the whole chapter, read it in Arabic and the last verse is about the unbeliever who mock muslim for every new verse received from Mohummed.

http://quran.com/9

I stand corrected... but it is basically still about the people who didn't believe the warlike verses...

Oh sure, as it can be interpreted, literally, to be quite peaceful, LIKE any other faith. Look I am reading the "The Crusades Through Arab Eyes" by Amin Maalouf, a Chritian Lebanese-french writer. The amount of violence committed in the name of Jesus-Christ is really no less terrible. It's just a matter of what is the interpretation that is more fashionable at a time, and that is linked to politic and social conditions. Did you ever wonder why for centuries, the Muslim Orient has huge Chritians and Jewish communities?

It was bad that the Crusaders killed in the name of Christ, as Christ specifically forbad such actions, without any abrogation to confuse the issue. He was very clear.
I agree that socio-political conditions contribute...
However, there are Muslims all over the world are lashing out in religiously inspired violence... from all sorts of socio-political conditions. Remember the underwear bomber? Wasn't he from some well to do family in England or something?
I contend that this is due to the Koran directing violence.

Here is a source, but it in french. And how is that irrelevent? If you bring a whole theory about the Koran abrogation system, you just can't consider "irrelevant" discussion about it?!
http://www.sami-aldeeb.com/files/article/211/Arabic-Coran-preface-et-introduction.pdf
Unfortunately, I don't read French anywhere near well enough to look at this source seriously. Imagine a monkey reading it... that's me.

And again, I do not deny the ambiguity of the Koran. But that is common to all holy book. If the Bible was not ambigus, no "Church blessed" crimes would have been possible. And being a warrior is inteself not a bad thing, I am not going to teach that to a soldier . Muhammad was definetly not a hippi

Christ was clear... non-violence, love your enemy.
This brings me back to the Crusades.
Anyhow, back in the day when the laymen couldn't read the Bible, Christianity was doing all sorts of violence. The people couldn't read, and were being manipulated into things.

This happens many times in Islam today, clerics, right or wrong in context of the Koran, telling people to do things. It is sad.


EDIT: Interestingly though, most muslim terrorists, from what I have read, are literate and of middle class backgrounds.

 

[Ajidica]

This brings me back to the Crusades.
Anyhow, back in the day when the laymen couldn't read the Bible, Christianity was doing all sorts of violence. The people couldn't read, and were being manipulated into things.

Are you trying to tell me Urban II couldn't read when one of his Biblical justifications for the crusade (and papal temporal authority) was the passage in the Garden of Gethsemane when Jesus told Peter (or was it Paul?) to sheath his sword. Urban II said that Jesus told Peter to sheath his sword because he intended him to use it later.
This wasn't a case of some nutty village cleric saying some crazy stuff, this was the self-appointed leader of Christendom and Heir to St. Peter deliberately misinterpreting what should be an obvious element of Christian doctrine to advance a political point.

This happens many times in Islam today, clerics, right or wrong in context of the Koran, telling people to do things. It is sad.

And this doesn't happen in Christianity? Your priest doesn't tell you to do things?

I agree that the primary problem with Islam, the prominance and influence of fundamentalism is a due in large part to militant clerics misinterprating the Quran. That is a far better, and more accurate argument than "Islam is inherently violent" which betrays a deep misunderstanding of both sociology and Islam itself.

 

[kochman]

Are you trying to tell me Urban II couldn't read when one of his Biblical justifications for the crusade (and papal temporal authority) was the passage in the Garden of Gethsemane when Jesus told Peter (or was it Paul?) to sheath his sword.

NO... I was clearly alluding to how individuals, especially powerful individuals, manipulate others...

the self-appointed leader of Christendom and Heir to St. Peter deliberately misinterpreting

I know, that's my point.

And this doesn't happen in Christianity? Your priest doesn't tell you to do things?

He does, and I can read about it if I need to.

I agree that the primary problem with Islam, the prominance and influence of fundamentalism is a due in large part to militant clerics misinterprating the Quran. That is a far better, and more accurate argument than "Islam is inherently violent" which betrays a deep misunderstanding of both sociology and Islam itself.

I contend that there are so many militant clerics precisely because of the Koran's teachings. That's why the violence and militarism is all over the place, not just in certain conditions.

 

[Ajidica]

I contend that there are so many militant clerics precisely because of the Koran's teachings. That's why the violence and militarism is all over the place, not just in certain conditions.

If we look at explicitly religiously inspired violence (so we take out nationalist movements that latch onto religion*), where is it located? For Islam, it is located primarily in poor areas that are essentialy medieval in their social development.
If we look at Europe when it had about the same level of social development we saw just about the exact same thing, religion being twisted-intentionaly or unintentionaly- by the local religious authorities.

*If you want to include nationalist movements that have latched onto religion for justification, I could have quite a bit of fun with Christianity inciting violence. Best for all parties to control for this variable. Plus, we are after all looking at religion and not nationalist movements.

 

[kochman]

If we look at explicitly religiously inspired violence (so we take out nationalist movements that latch onto religion*)

I don't think that is fair... because the two are so entwined because the teachings of the Koran are as such, and ought to be considered together as such.

where is it located? For Islam, it is located primarily in poor areas that are essentialy medieval in their social development.

NYC repeatedly? Detroit? Madrid? London? Etc, etc...

*If you want to include nationalist movements that have latched onto religion for justification, I could have quite a bit of fun with Christianity inciting violence. Best for all parties to control for this variable. Plus, we are after all looking at religion and not nationalist movements.

Ah, but you could never do it accurately, because the teachings of Christ are specifically non-violent.

 

[Ajidica]

I don't think that is fair... because the two are so entwined because the teachings of the Koran are as such, and ought to be considered together as such.

Why should Christian nationalist movements who latch onto religion to justify their actions (like the IRA (note: I'm leaving out the pseudo-facists in Spain as they weren't fighting in a nationalist movement)) receive a "Get out of jail free" card, but the same does not hold true for Islam? Does the Jewish Sten and Irdun Gangs get a "get out of jail free" card despite their decades long terrorist campaign against the British? It isn't like we lack violent passages from the Old Testament where even genocide is justified.

NYC repeatedly? Detroit? Madrid? London? Etc, etc...

For the record, I am not very well read up on the European terrorist attacks, but it is my understanding that despite the terrorist attacks generaly taking place in Europe, the people conducting them are overwhelmingly from the areas that would fall under the description of 'essentialy medieval' with a few outliers.

Ah, but you could never do it accurately, because the teachings of Christ are specifically non-violent.

That is the general point I going at. Religion becomes violent when it is spun that way by religious leaders who either want it spun that way or don't know any better.

 

[kochman]

Why should Christian nationalist movements who latch onto religion to justify their actions (like the IRA (note: I'm leaving out the pseudo-facists in Spain as they weren't fighting in a nationalist movement)) receive a "Get out of jail free" card, but the same does not hold true for Islam? Does the Jewish Sten and Irdun Gangs get a "get out of jail free" card despite their decades long terrorist campaign against the British? It isn't like we lack violent passages from the Old Testament where even genocide is justified.

Because the OT doesn't tell Christians what to do, that's why.

For the record, I am not very well read up on the European terrorist attacks, but it is my understanding that despite the terrorist attacks generaly taking place in Europe, the people conducting them are overwhelmingly from the areas that would fall under the description of 'essentialy medieval' with a few outliers.

Most of the major terrorist attacks have been committed by people who were hardly "medieval", literate, middle class, etc... much like OBL was (except he was quite rich).

That is the general point I going at. Religion becomes violent when it is spun that way by religious leaders who either want it spun that way or don't know any better.

Some are spun that way... some are that way...

 

[HannibalBarka]

Thank you for a courteous response!
I appreciate it.

You're very welcome ;-)
I appreciate the fact that you are "open" to discussion

I stand corrected... but it is basically still about the people who didn't believe the warlike verses...

So in the last verse of At tawba, allah recommend to Mohammd to just turn on those who do not want to follow him, ie leave them alone and not not go kill them. So if the Abrogation work the way you said, it should mean that all verses before this one in this chapter (all of them basically) are null and void.

It was bad that the Crusaders killed in the name of Christ, as Christ specifically forbad such actions, without any abrogation to confuse the issue. He was very clear.

No he wasn't. Christ, part of the Trinity never comdemned the act of violence of the Father againt humanity. If you are OK with a Deity that annihilate all human kind by a few, or raze whole cities from the face of Earth just because they did not have sex the way you want them to, how is that messsage clear ?

I agree that socio-political conditions contribute...
However, there are Muslims all over the world are lashing out in religiously inspired violence... from all sorts of socio-political conditions. Remember the underwear bomber? Wasn't he from some well to do family in England or something?
I contend that this is due to the Koran directing violence.

Oh when I see socio-political condition, I actually refer more to those of the perceived community or nation and not of individuals.

Christ was clear... non-violence, love your enemy.
This brings me back to the Crusades.
Anyhow, back in the day when the laymen couldn't read the Bible, Christianity was doing all sorts of violence. The people couldn't read, and were being manipulated into things.

Not all those who participated to the Crusades were ignorant. The Crusades was led by nobles and Kings. Saint Louis (yep he was made a Saint) was the King of France and he was definetly not illeterate. You want to think that the Message of Gospels is all about love and tolerance, like a Soufi will think about the Message of the Koran. I am however sorry to tell you that you're both wrong, the Holy message is ambigus, and those who "read" the violent one are not necessarily "misreading" the text, it's just that they are reading it the way it suits them

This happens many times in Islam today, clerics, right or wrong in context of the Koran, telling people to do things. It is sad.

EDIT: Interestingly though, most muslim terrorists, from what I have read, are literate and of middle class backgrounds.

I know. And that is why I find it counter productive (and wrong) labeling Islam as violent when you fight Muslim Fundamuntalism. We need to remember that Islam extremism is a problem for Muslims before being a problem for other people. The people who suffer most from Islamism are Muslims themselves, and the only one who will win againt Islam extremism are moderate muslims. So labeling Islam as violent is not helping tham at all, you are basically giving amnution to those Islamist Bastards. When Italy was suffering from Communist terrorism, It would have been a bad idea to label all Italian, or even left wing italians as being "BAD"

 

[Ajidica]

Because the OT doesn't tell Christians what to do, that's why.

Thank you for not answering my question about the Jewish terrorist attacks in the British Mandate of Palestine.

Most of the major terrorist attacks have been committed by people who were hardly "medieval", literate, middle class, etc... much like OBL was (except he was quite rich).

As I said, there are some outliers. Bin Laden was one guy, and if I remember the CIA estimates right, Al-Qaeda was never larger than 2000 people involved with it.

Some are spun that way... some are that way...

 

[kochman]

So in the last verse of At tawba, allah recommend to Mohammd to just turn on those who do not want to follow him, ie leave them alone and not not go kill them. So if the Abrogation work the way you said, it should mean that all verses before this one in this chapter (all of them basically) are null and void.

My interpretation, limited as it may be, is it just says turn your backs on those who don't join in your Jihad, rather than killing them, as he commands against the infidels...

No he wasn't. Christ, part of the Trinity never comdemned the act of violence of the Father againt humanity. If you are OK with a Deity that annihilate all human kind by a few, or raze whole cities from the face of Earth just because they did not have sex the way you want them to, how is that messsage clear ?

Because the actions of God are not comparable to the actions of humans.

Oh when I see socio-political condition, I actually refer more to those of the perceived community or nation and not of individuals.

Ah. So, then the question is, how does that change? It must be from within, right?

Not all those who participated to the Crusades were ignorant.

No, many were greedy, opportunists, etc.

The Crusades was led by nobles and Kings.

Hardly the typical lot... they got money and power... it was common for 2nd and 3rd sons to join the Crusades to inherit lands there, as the holdings in their homeland would go to the 1st son.

Saint Louis (yep he was made a Saint) was the King of France and he was definetly not illeterate.

I don't know enough about him, actually, but I know the Kings of the european nations at the time also did this stuff for the prestige of their empire, etc. I don't know his specific motives though.

You want to think that the Message of Gospels is all about love and tolerance, like a Soufi will think about the Message of the Koran.

Except, due to abrogation, the Soufi are technically wrong... but I wish they'd get a bigger voice!

I am however sorry to tell you that you're both wrong, the Holy message is ambigus, and those who "read" the violent one are not necessarily "misreading" the text, it's just that they are reading it the way it suits them

Jesus's Word is quite unambigous.

I know. And that is why I find it counter productive (and wrong) labeling Islam as violent when you fight Muslim Fundamuntalism. We need to remember that Islam extremism is a problem for Muslims before being a problem for other people. The people who suffer most from Islamism are Muslims themselves, and the only one who will win againt Islam extremism are moderate muslims. So labeling Islam as violent is not helping tham at all, you are basically giving amnution to those Islamist Bastards. When Italy was suffering from Communist terrorism, It would have been a bad idea to label all Italian, or even left wing italians as being "BAD"

I am not labeling Muslims as bad... but I believe that the core message of Islam is bad... I wish it weren't so, as I think it would have precluded soooo much killing (remember, even the Crusades were a reaction, not a spontaneous idea, for example) over the centuries right up to today.