Some Muslim groups just seem to love being public enemy number one.

[Dinner]

Mike, I don't bother with Oerdin. He's obviously a bigot.

What ever. I'm speaking the truth here about the Koran even if you don't like it.

[Dinner]

That said, the Koran does not order Muslims to kill all non-Muslims, or even all who don't convert, and this deserves no more refutation.

OK, you only can kill them if they don't submit to Muslim rule and force them to pay a tax. Of course, every Jihadi will point out that most nonMuslims haven't submitted to Muslim rule nor paid a tax and so therefor they're fair game for killing.

[duke o' york]

I was 'mugged' by a gang of Jehovah's Witnesses yesterday, on my way to the pub to watch the match.

The lead guy said that his name was Elder Josiah, but looked about 24, so when I asked if he was a little Junior to be an Elder, they all buggered off.

Damned Christian terrorists wasting my important World Cup seat-bagging time.

[Kitschum]

The other difference between Islam and Christianity is that Islam was born strong, meanwhile christianity was born weak and remained an important but minority religion competing with other religions like mithraism or judaism for centuries before Constantine.

Although Islam in the really earliest times wasn't strong (as Muslims were persecuted and had to flee Mecca) it became a strong political force already under Muhammad. To an extent the Koran must be a reflection of a sense of impending triumph after a struggle, both spiritual and military (conflated, obviously, as jihad). With that in mind I would agree that the Koran is relatively more concerned with war - but not necessarily less peaceful in its peaceful aspects.

But you could just as well spin that as Islam is the more realistic religion because it isn't silent on statecraft, including (just) wars, while Christian rulers are the greater hypocrites, because they can be just as oppressive as any pagan. In other words the Bible addresses the lambs (which in no real way turns the lions into lambs), while the Koran speaks to both lamb and lion.

[Kitschum]

OK, you only can kill them if they don't submit to Muslim rule and force them to pay a tax. Of course, every Jihadi will point out that most nonMuslims haven't submitted to Muslim rule nor paid a tax and so therefor they're fair game for killing.

I said I wouldn't but ok. Some "Jihadis" might agree with you, but most Muslims today believe that those directives only apply to a specific time and a specific group of people (Muhammad and his followers in the situation they were in).

As said, context is important even if people disregard it looking to justify their hatred or bigotry (goes both ways obviously).

[Kitschum]

I feel the need to clarify one thing. I wasn't quoting Qutb before because he is correct, but to show that Islamists like him, who in modern times have criticized purely "defensive" jihad, are aware of the more peaceful passages. The critique needs to be more sophisticated.

I don't think we should try to hide the fact that as the power and importance of the Muslim world have waned Muslims have adapted to changing circumstances and become less inclined to justify religious war, but then I don't think that is against Islam either.

A minority seem to react in a different way. Frustrated by their own sense of inadequacy and identity crisis they use Islam or Islamic concepts as a vehicle and outlet to attack modern civilization, and the USA and more broadly the West as its standard bearer. Islamists are generally not more traditional or indeed more fundamental(ist) than other Muslims, but they are definitely more angry.

[Dinner]

Mike, I don't bother with Oerdin. He's obviously a bigot. Ben shows more understanding of Muslims.

I honestly don't know where you get off defending Islam; it must just be a throw back to when you were a Muslim. Speaking of which according to the Koran faithful Muslims are supposed to kill anyone who gives up Islam and converts to another religion so one would guess you'd not like that bit. How is that not evil to order people killed because they decide on a different religion? Look up what the Koran says about apostates. I call holy books ordering the murder of people because of their religion evil and you claim that's bigoted.

[Dinner]

I said I wouldn't but ok. Some "Jihadis" might agree with you, but most Muslims today believe that those directives only apply to a specific time and a specific group of people (Muhammad and his followers in the situation they were in).

Again, I see that as good people trying to get out of carrying out the orders of their holy book to do evil things. Sure, I'm glad they do ideological back flips and play word games to get out committing mass murder but that doesn't change the fact that their holy book directly orders them to commit mass murder in very plan language. Just like it orders all apostates to be killed unless they immediately convert back.

That's a whole lot of murdering being ordered by a supposedly peaceful religion.

[Cort Haus]

Jesus was off course completely different. He was not the warrior messiah jews exected

This casual Catholic anti-Semitism is as depressing as it is retarded.

Jesus was killed by the ROMANS. Despite this fact, many Catholics routinely describe Jewish people as 'Jesus-killers', and have done for centuries. No wonder the idea got so much traction in the 30's.

Sorry, which historically evil religion is this thread about again? I forgot.

[Dinner]

Again. Individual and even groups of Christians have done some extremely unChristian and even evil things in the past but that is completely different from a religion directly ordering murder. That's a religion being evil in my book and it is unreformable no matter how many backflips people do to try to pretend it doesn't mean what it says.

[Elok]

This casual Catholic anti-Semitism is as depressing as it is retarded.

Jesus was killed by the ROMANS. Despite this fact, many Catholics routinely describe Jewish people as 'Jesus-killers', and have done for centuries. No wonder the idea got so much traction in the 30's.

Sorry, which historically evil religion is this thread about again? I forgot.

? The bit you quoted (and the post it's from) doesn't call Jews Jesus-killers, it just says they were expecting their Messiah to be different from what they got (from the Christian POV).

[Wernazuma III]

As stated earlier. While Christians often act in very unchristian ways there is no support for such actions in the teachings of Christ. Campare that to the Muslim cult leader ordering the faithful to kill everyone else.

Really Oerdin, wake up. I have my own issues with (much, including main stream variants, of ) Islam's approach to the use of violence, yet your statement that Islam orders the killing of everyone else is so nutty that it doesn't require direct refutation.

I'm glad that you know TEH TRUTH about Islam though, congratulations.

[Kitschum]

Again, I see that as good people trying to get out of carrying out the orders of their holy book to do evil things.

To do that you have to disregard the fact that those verses were addressed to a certain group of Muslims in history who happened to be at war, and not to all Muslims in all times and situations.

The Koran can't be read as simply a set of universal commandments. Some of its rules must apply only in specific circumstances or else it is full of contradictions. You might believe that it is, but Islam has always been practical and adaptable (and remains so to the majority of its adherents). When something is meant forever and ever it is usually said to be, and otherwise assumed to depend on circumstance to be interpreted at your peril.

The Koran is telling a story that pretends to be history, much like the Bible and the Gospels are. The Christians hated the Romans but they were too weak to do anything about it faced with overwhelming Roman might, so Jesus chose the wisest course of action at that time ("render unto Caesar"). The Muslims weren't as weak (or their neighbors were weaker), and with the aid of God they fought to bring down the oppressive regimes of their time and the wars, however they might have started (the polytheists apparently did not respect truces, but the invasions of Roman and Persian territory are iffier), they quickly became wars of liberation.

Even if we depart from Muslim tradition it is hardly beyond imagination that (some? most?) the people so freed preferred the Muslims to their old rulers and their constant wars with each other. In the conquest of Syria, for example, many Christian Arabs defected and fought with the Muslims against the Ghassanids and Romans. This must have been a pattern, because how else could the Muslims have conquered so much territory so fast? As for the jizya it probably was not a harder burden than the taxes that any rulers must collect. It is true that it was/became a symbol of the non-Muslims' subjugation and humiliation and there are Muslims that delight in it, and so on, but that is just the sin of arrogance.

In the Old Testament God often used the Jews as his instrument. This is similar to how God in the Koran used the Muslims to do his work, but just because those wars were commanded by God it doesn't mean that one is justified now to wage any kind of war in the present time. Neither is one justified in disregarding the numerous Islamic rules of war including prohibitions against attacking the innocent, women, children, mosques (etc), like the Taliban and others have done.

I won't exclude the possibility that there could be reasoned Islamic arguments made for "offensive" war even now, but there is no blanket permission or order to do so. There is certainly oppression in the world even today, but that doesn't mean that war is the solution, yes, even in the eyes of the staunchest, fundamentalist'est Muslim.

Sure, I'm glad they do ideological back flips and play word games to get out committing mass murder but that doesn't change the fact that their holy book directly orders them to commit mass murder in very plan language.

The Muslims were ordered in war to kill their enemies (God's enemies) who had broken a truce, not innocents.

It is true that in God's eyes certain crimes carry the penalty of death, but then we must be extremely clear on what those crimes are. Muslims should sincerely try to understand it on a deep level and it is not an ideological back flip or a word game.

[Nikolai]

I was 'mugged' by a gang of Jehovah's Witnesses yesterday, on my way to the pub to watch the match.

The lead guy said that his name was Elder Josiah, but looked about 24, so when I asked if he was a little Junior to be an Elder, they all buggered off.

Damned Christian terrorists wasting my important World Cup seat-bagging time.

Jehova's Witnesses is not Christian, they don't believe in Jesus as God.

[MikeH]

No point posting actual facts about what it says in the Koran Kitschum, if it doesn't agree with Oerdin's prejudice he'll just ignore it and restate his inaccurate views again and again and say he can't see what you're defending, as if that makes it more correct.

Imran's right, he's Ben like on this.