NationStates Jolt Archive

i would like to add that the quran also contains
a ruling that all people must eventually become muslims and that you deserve to die if you dont.

Fine

Happy now?



Don't be ridiculous.

Where do those 'laws' come from, Neo?

What was your source?

The same site? Again?

Are they Hadith laws? Are they from the Qu'ran?

Which verse?

All you have at the moment, is what I have said all along... someone else's reporting... no evidence.

So, why are you claiming Islam is intolerant, when you have STILL proved NO LINK between the source you cite, and any ACTUAL dogma or doctrine?

I
But, Neo KEEPS referring to the Old Testament laws as 'debunked'... his wording is peculiar.. he is not saying 'replaced', he is saying 'proved untrue'.

I obviously made a mistake with the word "debunked" there. Thanks for that. :)

Don't be ridiculous.

Where do those 'laws' come from, Neo?

What was your source?

The same site? Again?

Are they Hadith laws? Are they from the Qu'ran?

Which verse?

All you have at the moment, is what I have said all along... someone else's reporting... no evidence.

So, why are you claiming Islam is intolerant, when you have STILL proved NO LINK between the source you cite, and any ACTUAL dogma or doctrine?

Are you implying that these laws are simply made up? Its not someone elses reporting, it is investigation which highlights particular laws. Read the web site

According to Muslim jurists, the following legal ordinances must be enforced on Zimmis (Christians and Jews alike) who reside among Muslims:

And it then explains the laws I just showed you

Agian for the {insert large number time} I am attmepting to discover where the link is between the two. Which is what this entire thread is about. So far neither you nor anyone else has provided me with this infomation. Now either someone actually disproves that these laws are in any way related to Islam and that the author of the website is wrong or someone explain the link between Islam and these laws. Either way Grave, you are not adressing the question but just attacking me. And I would like you please to be mature and actually answer the question as opposed to attacking me.

Are you implying that these laws are simply made up? Agian for the {insert large number time} I am attmepting to discover where the link is between the two. Which is what this entire thread is about. So far neither you nor anyone else has provided me with this infomation. Now either someone actually disproves that these laws are in any way related to Islam and that the author of the website is wrong or someone explain the link between Islam and these laws. Either way Grave, you are not adressing the question but just attacking me. And I would like you please to be mature and actually answer the question as opposed to attacking me.

No, we're not saying they're made up. We want to know chapter and verse of the Koran where you get these laws.

It's important. You wouldn't want me saying that the Christian God wants us to slaughter everything in sight in war unless I could cite a Biblical reference.

It's not the religion neccearily that's evil. It's the people practicing it. People have a tendancy to pervert things and use it to their own gain. Trying to pass off their own beliefs as religious edict. Regardless of what religion it is. And the lure of "Eternal damnation" if you don't follow, even if the person is obviously someone who's a little unbalanced is hard to resist.

Neo... I realise this is hard for you to understand... this will be about the fourth time this thread....

YOU made the assertion that this is dogmatic or doctrinal... based on ONE source, which is (of course) a subjective work.

It should be YOUR responsibility to actually check the allegations you throw into the Forum... at the moment, all you are doing is waving someone else's intolerance as a banner, and asking other people to defend themselves against it.

If you really think that Islam is intolerant - how about finding some evidence, rather than just trafficking other people's prejudices?

It is NOT an opinion. An opinon would imply an interpretation of facts which can be seen in a diffrent light. I am attempting to establish the linke (if any) between the laws this website discribes and Islam as a whole. Look here.

According to Muslim jurists, the following legal ordinances must be enforced on Zimmis (Christians and Jews alike) who reside among Muslims:

And it then discribes the laws those said Muslim jurists enforce. So what I am attempting to get at here Grave is where do these laws come from. If Muslim Jurists need to enforce them I can only assume that it is somehow linked to Islam. My question is HOW?

No, we're not saying they're made up. We want to know chapter and verse of the Koran where you get these laws.

It's important. You wouldn't want me saying that the Christian God wants us to slaughter everything in sight in war unless I could cite a Biblical reference.

Thats what I am trying to establish as well. Its clear that they are not directly from the Quran yet Islamic scolars and legal experts seem to support them. So why is this. I am aware they are not part of the Quran yet they seem to be supported by Muslim scolars. So why is this?

I obviously made a mistake with the word "debunked" there. Thanks for that. :)

(That's why I asked it as a question... I wanted to make sure you knew what you were 'saying' wasn't what you might have THOUGHT you were saying...)

:)

And it then discribes the laws those said Muslim jurists enforce. So what I am attempting to get at here Grave is where do these laws come from. If Muslim Jurists need to enforce them I can only assume that it is somehow linked to Islam. My question is HOW?

Here is the contention, Neo.

HOW do you KNOW that Muslim Jurists "need to enforce" these 'laws'?

How do you know that the 'laws' described are real laws?

You are making an assumption, based on that ONE website... without checking that the assertions made on that site are even TRUE!

And then, you claim Islam is intolerant... but without any evidence... just a few questions that you really should have answered before you made such a claim... don't you think?

Just a clear part of the specification of where some of the laws come from

The above punishment [death] is prescribed in a Hadith recorded by the Bukhari: "It is reported by `Abaas ... that the messenger of Allah ... said, `Whosoever changes his religion (from Islam to any other faith), kill him."

So that one is from a Hadith. Is that Hadith replaced by something else.

They don't all subscribe to the same jurists.

I'll post a bit on the history of Islam later tonight. Perhaps that will clear something up for you - it's suffered from the problem of heterodoxy for hundreds of years.

What you're doing is as ignorant as someone saying, "well, it says here that Christians have to confess their sins to a priest (reading from a Catholic website)" and then making the leap to say that all Christians do the confessional with a priest.

Islam is intolerant

Quran

Surah 8

65 O Prophet! Exhort the believers to fight. If there be of you twenty steadfast they shall overcome two hundred, and if there be of you a hundred (steadfast) they shall overcome a thousand of those who disbelieve, because they (the disbelievers) are a folk without intelligence.

Are you implying that these laws are simply made up? Its not someone elses reporting, it is investigation which highlights particular laws. Read the web site

And it then explains the laws I just showed you

Agian for the {insert large number time} I am attmepting to discover where the link is between the two. Which is what this entire thread is about. So far neither you nor anyone else has provided me with this infomation. Now either someone actually disproves that these laws are in any way related to Islam and that the author of the website is wrong or someone explain the link between Islam and these laws. Either way Grave, you are not adressing the question but just attacking me. And I would like you please to be mature and actually answer the question as opposed to attacking me.

I'm not attacking you, Neo... I am attacking the fallacy that your assumption is based on.

For all you know those laws ARE made up...

And yet, you make an assertion that 'Islam is intolerant', based on this one source as 'evidence'.

You are attempting to discover the link? Maybe there IS no link. You are asking us to defend this one source, when the source is clearly faulty.

You are saying "disprove law x"... but haven't shown that 'law x' is real, or connected to actual doctrine or dogma... so how do you want us to disprove it?

Here is the contention, Neo.

HOW do you KNOW that Muslim Jurists "need to enforce" these 'laws'?

How do you know that the 'laws' described are real laws?

You are making an assumption, based on that ONE website... without checking that the assertions made on that site are even TRUE!

And then, you claim Islam is intolerant... but without any evidence... just a few questions that you really should have answered before you made such a claim... don't you think?

Are you implying that all this is made up? Because I find that extremely hard to believe. Samuel Shahid repeatedly refers to various other Muslim scolars and what they have to say.

Perhaps a better idea would be for you to seriously look at this article and if you can find inconsitancys. However you (as far as I am aware) are not a Muslim. So I am attempting to ask others if this website is accurate. I tried before but no one was interested.

Just a clear part of the specification of where some of the laws come from



So that one is from a Hadith. Is that Hadith replaced by something else.

Once again, Neo... just because that site SAYS it is recorded in a Hadith, doesn't make it so... WHICH Hadith... When?

The accusations are not corroborable, since your site does not cite it's sources.

Are you implying that all this is made up? Because I find that extremely hard to believe. Samuel Shahid repeatedly refers to various other Muslim scolars and what they have to say.

Perhaps a better idea would be for you to seriously look at this article and if you can find inconsitancys. However you (as far as I am aware) are not a Muslim. So I am attempting to ask others if this website is accurate. I tried before but no one was interested.

Why shouldn't this site be made up?

Do you believe that there is but one god, and his name is Allah?

Do you believe in Aliens?

Do you believe that the Norse warriors were dragged from the battlefield by valkyries?

If you answered "no" to any of the above, then you must concede that some things ARE "just made up".

I HAVE looked at the article, in detail... and I see no 'evidence'. The author doesn't actually credit any sources... and makes a lot of assertions that are, therefore, unverifiable.

Just because you find something hard to believe, doesn't make it untrue.

I find Christianity 'hard to believe', but many people would say I am wrong.

What are we talking about, tolerance?

Recently it seems that Christianity has been more tolerant toward the system, but in the past it was more centered on preventing oppression of individuals.

Islam is such a mixed bag. There is too much chaos. For a muslim man who follows the usual rules there is probably a lot of tolerance and a great sense of peaceful brotherhood. However one could say that, in relation to the system for example, Islam is very intolerant of skyscraper architecture.

Most strongly however, the thought occurs to me that due to economics, and to our puritanical neighbors gleefully taking up their long awaited inheritance of the Earth, tolerance in the Etats Unis these days is a thing of the past. The mechanisms in support of political power have been working to harden the religious electoral base of the current administration. The wider effects to our society are either ignored, or whitewashed into a notion of a yellow ribbon Texas cotton candy future.

It is NOT an opinion. An opinon would imply an interpretation of facts which can be seen in a diffrent light. I am attempting to establish the linke (if any) between the laws this website discribes and Islam as a whole. Look here.

The laws are based on an opinion of what the Scripture says.

Get it now?

It would be like if I said "Nope, my interpretation disagrees with yours. The laws of the OT still stand. If you eat pork, you are unclean."

The laws are based on an opinion of what the Scripture says.

Get it now?

It would be like if I said "Nope, my interpretation disagrees with yours. The laws of the OT still stand. If you eat pork, you are unclean."

Man, that sucks... I love pork... especially bacon... I could have been a vegetarian once, if it wasn't for bacon.... :)

Man, that sucks... I love pork... especially bacon... I could have been a vegetarian once, if it wasn't for bacon.... :)

streaky strips, just as good as bacon

I HAVE looked at the article, in detail... and I see no 'evidence'. The author doesn't actually credit any sources... and makes a lot of assertions that are, therefore, unverifiable.


Abdullah, Najih Ibrahim Bin, The Ordinances of the People of the Covenant and the Minorities in an Islamic State, Balagh Magazine, Cairo, Egypt, Volume 944, May 29, 1988; Volume 945, June 5, 1988.

Al Muslimun, Vol. 8; issue No, 418; Friday 2, 5, 1993.

Doi, `Abdur Rahman I.; Shari`a: The Islamic Law; Taha Publishers; London UK; 1984.

Mawdudi, S. Abul `Ala', The Rights of Non-Muslims in Islamic State, Islamic Publications, LTD. Lahore, Pakistan. 1982

Muraghi, Abdullah Mustapha, Islamic Law Pertaining to Non-Muslims, Library of Letters. Egypt. Undated

The sources of his article. You are wrong Grave.

Abdullah, Najih Ibrahim Bin, The Ordinances of the People of the Covenant and the Minorities in an Islamic State, Balagh Magazine, Cairo, Egypt, Volume 944, May 29, 1988; Volume 945, June 5, 1988.

Al Muslimun, Vol. 8; issue No, 418; Friday 2, 5, 1993.

Doi, `Abdur Rahman I.; Shari`a: The Islamic Law; Taha Publishers; London UK; 1984.

Mawdudi, S. Abul `Ala', The Rights of Non-Muslims in Islamic State, Islamic Publications, LTD. Lahore, Pakistan. 1982

Muraghi, Abdullah Mustapha, Islamic Law Pertaining to Non-Muslims, Library of Letters. Egypt. Undated

All 5 of the sources cited as references at the bottom of that site are either works of fiction or op/ed peices published by a magazine.

Do we really need to go over this again?

It's sort of like the fervor over The Davinci Code. You can't take fiction as a valid source of scriptural truth. You simply can't.

You ask where Shariah comes from? Here's your answer: Men.

That's it. Nothing more. No grand, glorious, amazing connection to Qur'an or Allah. Nothing more than the greed and power mongering of Men brought about Shariah by interpreting Hadith, not Qur'an.

When asked, earlier in this thread:

What, pray tell, motivated the action? (in referrence to the Inquisition, Witch burnings, etc)

You replied:

Social greed and religous corruption.

Why is that answer good enough for Christendom, but not Islam?

Do we really need to go over this again?

Mawdudi, S. Abul `Ala', The Rights of Non-Muslims in Islamic State, Islamic Publications, LTD. Lahore, Pakistan. 1982

That seems to me to be a Muslim legal document. Would you care to explain that.

The sources of his article. You are wrong Grave.

Missing the point, Neo... these show where he SAYS the evidence comes from... these 'sources' do not show where these 'laws' are supposed to exist.

Not one single actual 'doctrinal' or 'dogmatic' source.

Neo, if you have it in for Muslims, I'm sure the SAS will take you.

That seems to me to be a Muslim legal document. Would you care to explain that.

Impossible. There is only one Muslim legal document and one only: Qur'an.

It may be a Pakistani legal document. I wouldn't know. However, if you wish to find out, you may contact Pakistani senators through this site:

http://www.senate.gov.pk/BrowseMembers.asp

Oh ... and if you do write to them to ask (which I'm sure you won't), be nice. Don't present your question as loaded toward a truth you're already aware of. Just be nice. Can you do that?

Impossible. There is only one Muslim legal document and one only: Qur'an.

There is also only one US law, the statutes. But that does not prevent people writing about them


Oh ... and if you do write to them to ask (which I'm sure you won't), be nice. Don't present your question as loaded toward a truth you're already aware of. Just be nice. Can you do that.

Don't patronise.

There is also only one US law, the statutes. But that does not prevent people writing about them

Yes, but if someone writes about US law, it doesn't make it then become a US legal document. It makes it someone's opinion on legal interpretation. The only opinions that matter when it comes to US legal interpretation are Supreme Court Justices.

There is only one acceptable voice in the interpretation of Qur'an and that is the voice of the Caliph and, well, guess what? There is no Caliph anymore!

Hence, Islam is now individuated. No single person has supreme authority in interpretation of Qur'an. Let me repeat that: No single person has supreme authority in interpretation of Qur'an.

Do you understand that?

It means you can't take one guy's opinion and apply it to all of Islam. You can't take S. Abdul's opinion as being any more or less valid than mine, but only decide for yourself.

If you have two conflicting opinions:

1] Islam is a religion of tolerance, peace, and understanding. Sources cited: Qur'an.

2] Islam is an exclusive club in which reward is only guaranteed for followers and non-followers are lesser humans. Sources cited: Hadith.

Qur'an is the supreme authority, so whose opinion do you believe? Which do you choose? The word of Allah or the word of Muhammed? Which is more important to you? I can assure you that the word of Allah is more important to 90% of Muslims.

Don't patronise.

You leave me little choice. You express an answer to this same question (from post 1) concerning Christianity with the same answer you were given for Islam and, yet, you don't accept it when the answer is about Islam.

See a few posts back ... I even quoted you on it.

It's sort of like the fervor over The Davinci Code. You can't take fiction as a valid source of scriptural truth. You simply can't.

Those pecies of work are not fiction

You ask where Shariah comes from? Here's your answer: Men.

That's it. Nothing more. No grand, glorious, amazing connection to Qur'an or Allah. Nothing more than the greed and power mongering of Men brought about Shariah by interpreting Hadith, not Qur'an.

Fine, thats all I wanted to know. I would like some detail on how these laws came about if you could give it. Eg when they came about and why they were written.


When asked, earlier in this thread:

You replied:

Why is that answer good enough for Christendom, but not Islam?

Well the notion was that it was an action and did not apper to be a legal system. Christianity has not allowed religious corruption to create a system of opressive laws. Not that I would put it past previous religious leaders, given the dictatorial nature of some nations in the past.

Christianity has not allowed religious corruption to create a system of opressive laws. Not that I would put it past previous religious leaders, given the dictatorial nature of some nations in the past.

I guess you aren't familiar with "indulgences", or the Spanish Inquisition.

In fact, the Inquisition is still with us at:
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/

Those pecies of work are not fiction

How do you know? Can you prove that? You say they're valid sources ... so prove it.

Fine, thats all I wanted to know. I would like some detail on how these laws came about if you could give it. Eg when they came about and why they were written.

Google will probably take care of that for you. Or, perhaps, a history class or two. There's no single, definitive answer. Shariah was developed over time, not in a single revelation.

There is only one acceptable voice in the interpretation of Qur'an and that is the voice of the Caliph and, well, guess what? There is no Caliph anymore!

Hence, Islam is now individuated. No single person has supreme authority in interpretation of Qur'an. Let me repeat that: No single person has supreme authority in interpretation of Qur'an.

Do you understand that?

It means you can't take one guy's opinion and apply it to all of Islam. You can't take S. Abdul's opinion as being any more or less valid than mine, but only decide for yourself.

If you have two conflicting opinions:

1] Islam is a religion of tolerance, peace, and understanding. Sources cited: Qur'an.

2] Islam is an exclusive club in which reward is only guaranteed for followers and non-followers are lesser humans. Sources cited: Hadith.

Qur'an is the supreme authority, so whose opinion do you believe? Which do you choose? The word of Allah or the word of Muhammed? Which is more important to you? I can assure you that the word of Allah is more important to 90% of Muslims.

Thank you.

This is the kind of infomation I have been asking for the entire time. I am glad that someone finally gave it to me. Since this article is based on the Hadiths I can see where it is comming from. I apologise if it had seemed otherwise, the only reason I titled my article in this way is that last time I tried to do this no one responded without insulting me. Although the same was true here it seemed that more people understood what I was trying to say. Thanks for your help.

The Quran states, in Surah 8

65 O Prophet! Exhort the believers to fight. If there be of you twenty steadfast they shall overcome two hundred, and if there be of you a hundred (steadfast) they shall overcome a thousand of those who disbelieve, because they (the disbelievers) are a folk without intelligence.

Is this not intolerant?

The Quran states, in Surah 8

65 O Prophet! Exhort the believers to fight. If there be of you twenty steadfast they shall overcome two hundred, and if there be of you a hundred (steadfast) they shall overcome a thousand of those who disbelieve, because they (the disbelievers) are a folk without intelligence.

Is this not intolerant?


No, it's a pep talk for when going to battle against an aggressor (meaning: self-defense only ... ONLY). Go team Go! Fight Fight Fight! Stiff upper lip and all that rot. Those who take up arms against truth and righteousness are fools and their seeming power is but a broken reed.

Also, it's not a very good translation.

No, it's a pep talk for when going to battle against an aggressor (meaning: self-defense only ... ONLY). Go team Go! Fight Fight Fight! Stiff upper lip and all that rot. Those who take up arms against truth and righteousness are fools and their seeming power is but a broken reed.

Also, it's not a very good translation.


What's a more accurate translation then?

No, it's a pep talk for when going to battle against an aggressor (meaning: self-defense only ... ONLY). Go team Go! Fight Fight Fight! Stiff upper lip and all that rot. Those who take up arms against truth and righteousness are fools and their seeming power is but a broken reed.

Also, it's not a very good translation.

I was going to say the same. I have read simmilar things when the Bible talks about the Isralites going into battle. Although I suspect that the poor intellegnce part is a mistranslation.

What's a more accurate translation then?

Well ... 65 doesn't really work by itself ... it really needs the rest of the section to understand it ... single verses from Qur'an rarely stand alone well.

However, a better translation:

"O Prophet! Rouse the believers to the fight. If there are twenty amongst you, patient and preserving, they will vanquish two hundred: if a hundred, they will vanquish a thousand of the unbelievers: for these are a people without understanding."

However, this is not a call to wage war on unbelievers. Muslims are not allowed, by Qur'an, to act as the aggressor in a war, but can only go to war in self-defense and in defense of Islam. Muslims are also not allowed to go to war against one another (yes, I know it happens, but that doesn't mean it's allowed).

Read 65-69, though, instead of just the 1 verse alone.

could you also get me a better translation of Surah 26

224 As for poets, the erring follow them.

sounds like islam is intolerant of poets

I was going to say the same. I have read simmilar things when the Bible talks about the Isralites going into battle. Although I suspect that the poor intellegnce part is a mistranslation.

Nod. Many people do the same thing with the Bible. They take a single verse, by itself, and use it as proof of the greater truth of the whole. It's just not really possible.

Is that a more accurate translation or just a more comfortable one?

could you also get me a better translation of Surah 26

224 As for poets, the erring follow them.

sounds like islam is intolerant of poets

Abdullah Yusuf Ali ... Google him. He's the only acceptable English translator of Qur'an.

26:224 "And of the Poets - It is those straying in Evil who follow them:"

However, it goes on to say that this means those who use poetry and the arts for evil purpose.

Is that a more accurate translation or just a more comfortable one?

It's Abdullah Yusuf Ali's translation, which is the only acceptable English translation. If you'd like, I can post the original Arabic and you can compare the two or, if you cannot read Arabic, you can print it out and take it to a language professor.

ok, from the 'only acceptable english translation'

5 The Table Spread

14. But because of their breach of their covenant, We cursed them, and made their hearts grow hard; they change the words from their (right) places and forget a good part of the message that was sent them, nor wilt thou cease to find them- barring a few - ever bent on (new) deceits: but forgive them, and overlook (their misdeeds): for Allah loveth those who are kind.

The jews are (all bar a few) bent on new deceit?

or 3 The Family of 'Imran

118. O ye who believe! Take not into your intimacy those outside your ranks: They will not fail to corrupt you. They only desire your ruin: Rank hatred has already appeared from their mouths: What their hearts conceal is far worse. We have made plain to you the Signs, if ye have wisdom.

Pretty much tarring all disbelievers with the same intolerant brush

ok, from the 'only acceptable english translation'

5 The Table Spread

14. But because of their breach of their covenant, We cursed them, and made their hearts grow hard; they change the words from their (right) places and forget a good part of the message that was sent them, nor wilt thou cease to find them- barring a few - ever bent on (new) deceits: but forgive them, and overlook (their misdeeds): for Allah loveth those who are kind.

The jews are (all bar a few) bent on new deceit?

You're quoting 13, not 14. Anyway ...

Remember: This is coming from a Jew (me).

If you were Muslim in the 6th century, believe me, Jews could not be trusted. Major factions in the Jewish communities sought everything from open and direct harm to political and economic harm against Muhammed and his followers.

I also agree, wholeheartedly, that when my people started putting the writings of the Prophets on the same level as Torah, they deliberately broke the Covenant. It's the same thing the Christians do when they put the writings of Paul on the same level as the words of Jesus and the same thing many Muslims are doing today when they put the Hadith as equal to Qur'an.

Men corrupt Allah's message. They always have. They always will. Allah will eventually bring a new one.

You're quoting 13, not 14. Anyway ...

Remember: This is coming from a Jew (me).

If you were Muslim in the 6th century, believe me, Jews could not be trusted. Major factions in the Jewish communities sought everything from open and direct harm to political and economic harm against Muhammed and his followers.

I also agree, wholeheartedly, that when my people started putting the writings of the Prophets on the same level as Torah, they deliberately broke the Covenant. It's the same thing the Christians do when they put the writings of Paul on the same level as the words of Jesus and the same thing many Muslims are doing today when they put the Hadith as equal to Qur'an.

Men corrupt Allah's message. They always have. They always will. Allah will eventually bring a new one.


The 14 came with it when I copied and pasted.

So are you agreeing that all jews are bent on deceit?

or 3 The Family of 'Imran

118. O ye who believe! Take not into your intimacy those outside your ranks: They will not fail to corrupt you. They only desire your ruin: Rank hatred has already appeared from their mouths: What their hearts conceal is far worse. We have made plain to you the Signs, if ye have wisdom.

Pretty much tarring all disbelievers with the same intolerant brush

And among Jews we have a saying, "Scratch a goy and you'll find an antisemite". At the time, though, this was correct. There was a lot of rank hatred from Jews towards Muslims in the 6th century. Any animosity held now is a moon cast shadow when compared to the seething hatred of the Jew towards the Muslim back then.

So ... the advice was given to stick to Muslim communities and don't do business outside of it. I'd say, given the circumstances, it was some damn good advice.

The 14 came with it when I copied and pasted.

So are you agreeing that all jews are bent on deceit?

Against Muslims in the 6th century? Yes, I will agree with the ayyat (verse). Most (not all) Jews were bent on deceits against the Muslim people.

It's historical fact.

And among Jews we have a saying, "Scratch a goy and you'll find an antisemite". At the time, though, this was correct. There was a lot of rank hatred from Jews towards Muslims in the 6th century. Any animosity held now is a moon cast shadow when compared to the seething hatred of the Jew towards the Muslim back then.

So ... the advice was given to stick to Muslim communities and don't do business outside of it. I'd say, given the circumstances, it was some damn good advice.


But the Quran wasn't written as a guide for the times was it?

It is divinely inspired and unaltered word of Allah isn't it?

Makes historical interpretation worthless

or 3 The Family of 'Imran

118. O ye who believe! Take not into your intimacy those outside your ranks: They will not fail to corrupt you. They only desire your ruin: Rank hatred has already appeared from their mouths: What their hearts conceal is far worse. We have made plain to you the Signs, if ye have wisdom.

Pretty much tarring all disbelievers with the same intolerant brush

Well, Paul writes that Christians should avoid non-Christians as well - for the same reasons.

The leaders of most faiths have assumed that they are perfectly right and that interaction with those of other faiths will "corrupt".

But the Quran wasn't written as a guide for the times was it?

It is divinely inspired and unaltered word of Allah isn't it?

Makes historical interpretation worthless

14:4 "He sent not a messenger except to teach in the language of his own people in order to make things clear to them. Now Allah leaves straying those whom He pleases and guides those whom He pleases: and He is exalted in power, full of wisdom."

Allah's word is a dynamic, living thing. Historical context is as essential with Qur'an as it is with Torah. Every Muslim and Jew knows this truth.

14:4 "He sent not a messenger except to teach in the language of his own people in order to make things clear to them. Now Allah leaves straying those whom He pleases and guides those whom He pleases: and He is exalted in power, full of wisdom."

Allah's word is a dynamic, living thing. Historical context is as essential with Qur'an as it is with Torah. Every Muslim and Jew knows this truth.


If you want to look at historical context have a look at how it benefitted muhammed.

Especially with the extra wives over everyone else ( Sura 33:50 )

Well, Paul writes that Christians should avoid non-Christians as well - for the same reasons.

The leaders of most faiths have assumed that they are perfectly right and that interaction with those of other faiths will "corrupt".

The main reason I have a problem with Paul. He wasn't Jesus, but he's got more writing and rules, so it looks like a lot of people went with that.

The main reason I have a problem with Paul. He wasn't Jesus, but he's got more writing and rules, so it looks like a lot of people went with that.

I have many problems with Paul, although I do believe that some of what he wrote was divinely inspired.

I think Paul's writings were adopted by many churches because he was one of the main ones who went out to Gentiles and spread the Gospel. Thus, his ideas were spread further than those of the other Apostles. When it came down to put the Canon together, more churches used his stuff, so it got included.

Men corrupt Allah's message. They always have. They always will. Allah will eventually bring a new one.

Eventually, Kervalia my friend who do you think Baha'u'llah is?

Consort with all the peoples, kindreds and religions of the world with the utmost truthfulness, uprightness, faithfulness, kindliness, good-will and friendliness; that all the world of being may be filled with the holy ecstasy of the grace of Baha, that ignorance, enmity, hate and rancor may vanish from the world and the darkness of estrangement amidst the peoples and kindreds of the world may give way to the Light of Unity.

(Abdu'l-Baha, Baha'i World Faith - Abdu'l-Baha Section, p. 445)

If you want to look at historical context have a look at how it benefitted muhammed.

Especially with the extra wives over everyone else ( Sura 33:50 )

Extra wives is not a benefit to anyone. It is permissable if everyone agrees and there is enough money to take care of everyone equally. If your wife says "NO" then you *cannot* have a second wife. Period.

Eventually, Kervalia my friend who do you think Baha'u'llah is?

But his message isn't a new one, it's only a retelling of what's already in Qur'an. Fine for some, and I'm all for it if it brings people closer to Allah, but it doesn't work for me.

But his message isn't a new one, it's only a retelling of what's already in Qur'an. Fine for some, and I'm all for it if it brings people closer to Allah, but it doesn't work for me.

I'm afraid that the message of Baha'u'llah goes beyond what is in the Qu'ran. You might want to look up the Baha'is in Houston, (That is where you live isn't it?) or go to the library and read some of what Baha'ullah says about the return. Read the history and ask yourself why were the Mullas so afraid of the spread of this new religion?

X. The time foreordained unto the peoples and kindreds of the earth is now come. The promises of God, as recorded in the holy Scriptures, have all been fulfilled. Out of Zion hath gone forth the Law of God, and Jerusalem, and the hills and land thereof, are filled with the glory of His Revelation. Happy is the man that pondereth in his heart that which hath been revealed in the Books of God, the Help in Peril, the Self-Subsisting. Meditate upon this, O ye beloved of God, and let your ears be attentive unto His Word, so that ye may, by His grace and mercy, drink your fill from the crystal waters of constancy, and become as steadfast and immovable as the mountain in His Cause.

(Baha'u'llah, Gleanings from the Writings of Baha'u'llah, p. 12)


And likewise, He saith: "Say, O people of the Book! do ye not disavow us only because we believe in God and in what He hath sent down to us, and in what He hath sent down aforetime, and because most of you are doers of ill?"[1] How explicitly doth this verse reveal Our purpose, and how clearly doth it demonstrate the truth of the testimony of the verses of God! This verse was revealed at a time when Islam was assailed by the infidels, and its followers were accused of misbelief, when the Companions of Muhammad were denounced as repudiators of God and as followers of a lying sorcerer. In its early days, when Islam was still to outward seeming devoid of authority and power, the friends of the Prophet, who had turned their face toward God, wherever they went, were harassed, persecuted, stoned and vilified. At such a time this blessed verse was sent down from the heaven of divine Revelation. It revealed an irrefutable evidence, and brought the light of an unfailing guidance. It instructed the companions of Muhammad to declare the following unto the infidels and idolators: "Ye oppress and persecute us, and yet, what else have we done except that we have believed in God and in the verses sent down unto us through the tongue of Muhammad, and in those which descended upon the Prophets of old?" By this is meant that their only guilt was to have recognized that the new and wondrous verses of God, which had descended upon Muhammad, as well as those which had been revealed unto the Prophets of old, were all of God, and to have acknowledged and embraced their truth. This is the testimony which the divine King hath taught His servants. *
[1 Qur'án 5:62.]

(Baha'u'llah, The Kitab-i-Iqan, p. 217)

Especially with the extra wives over everyone else ( Sura 33:50 )what about it?

As someone currently taking a calss called "Women in Islam" (HIST 352 at the University of Kansas-Go Jayhawks!), perhaps I can help out here.
These aspects of Qur'anic law are still on the books, as every aspect of the Qu'ran is considered to be relevant. As to them actually being enforced in Islamic states.... thats a bit more fuzzy. Egypt does not, nor does Jordan, the UAE, Syria, or Iran. All of these countries have a thriving set of Christians and yes, even Jews, that interact very favorably with the Muslim population.
One problem we encounter with articles like this is that these ancient practices are no longer used or invoked in thier entirety, yet because of the average Westerner's ignorance (not meant in a bad way) of the subject, they tend to be hyped up. Remember that Surah 62 in the Qur'an says " Those who believe 9in the Qur'an, meaning recitations or words of God), and those who follow the Jewish (scriptures), and the Christians and the Sabians, and who believe in God and the Last Day, and work righteousness, shall have thier reward with thier Lord: on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve." Of course, it is important to seperate what a religion preaches and what many of it's subjects actually do, but I think that all of you are familiar enough with that theme to allow me to not delve there.
A big part of the problem of this article is that it is not dealing with (unless I missed them) the Qur'an, but rather with Shar'ia,literalyl "the straight path to the watering-hole" which is not divine law as set forth by God in the Qur'an. It is roughly analogous with the laws of Catholicism, if I may, many are not outlined in the Bible, but they are practiced and held as canon by the Church anyhow.
I guess I should put in more, but I always start these things and don't feel like making the effort to finish them. Perhaps tommorrow!

Muh took wives out of pity. He felt responsible for so many women being widows and orphans. His second wife, Aisha, was the only one who was not either a widow or an orphan. More than one wife is only allowed, like another already posted, if you can afford to treat them all equally and can afford to keep them. In 7th century Makkah, any women left without a man to protect her was pretty screwed. This idea was meant as a mercy to those women, to help protect them against a society that otherwise outcast them. Muh also stopped the practice of burying infant girls alive in the sands.

Read the history and ask yourself why were the Mullas so afraid of the spread of this new religion?


The Mullahs are afraid of everything. There is never a reason to ask why. It is as it is because it is. I have no sympathy for them.

As for me, the Baha'u'llah has not presented me with adequate proof of his message being Divine. Nice, yes, but Ghandi and M.L. King had nice messages, but they were not Divine revelations.

There is also only one US law, the statutes. But that does not prevent people writing about them


You don't even see the irony here, do you?

If I write about US law... but don't ACTUALLY show physical evidence... why should you believe anything I write?

Would you automatically believe everything I write? I hope not.

This is the trap you have fallen into, here.

Some 'anti-Islamist' has written about what he perceives Islamic 'law' to mean... and you have taken his words as gospel.

You don't even see the irony here, do you?

If I write about US law... but don't ACTUALLY show physical evidence... why should you believe anything I write?

Would you automatically believe everything I write? I hope not.

This is the trap you have fallen into, here.

Some 'anti-Islamist' has written about what he perceives Islamic 'law' to mean... and you have taken his words as gospel.

I had already settled things here as Keruluvia had explained to me about the Sharia (however you spell it) but since you make the claim, perhaps you can support it. Why are the sources he quotes fictional?

Well, Paul writes that Christians should avoid non-Christians as well - for the same reasons.

The leaders of most faiths have assumed that they are perfectly right and that interaction with those of other faiths will "corrupt".

I'd just like to quietly offer my congratulations... on seemingly being the ONLY Christian in the thread that seeks balance...

I had already settled things here as Keruluvia had explained to me about the Sharia (however you spell it) but since you make the claim, perhaps you can support it. Why are the sources he quotes fictional?

Why are the sources he quotes FACTUAL?

You have used this one document of hate, as your entire platform for the thread so far... and have shown NO EVIDENCE of any connection between this 'text' and any FACTUAL material.

You presented a document that has been questioned.

The onus is on your to prove the veracity of your source, not on me to prove ALL the ways in which it is not a valid citation.

Again - I ask - Did you believe, without checking in any fashion, ALL that you read on this site?

Why are the sources he quotes FACTUAL?

You have used this one document of hate, as your entire platform for the thread so far... and have shown NO EVIDENCE of any connection between this 'text' and any FACTUAL material.

You presented a document that has been questioned.

The onus is on your to prove the veracity of your source, not on me to prove ALL the ways in which it is not a valid citation.

Again - I ask - Did you believe, without checking in any fashion, ALL that you read on this site?

Since he quotes sources it is up to you (questioning them) to find out if they are faulty yourself. It is not up to me since he has quoted the sources. He's not going to quote them if they are not serious. Have you read up on who produced this document. Lets just say he is very educated.

And yes I did check, with some Muslim friends of mine at college. They agreed the accuracy of what was being said (Zimms, Jizarah etc) but couldnt help me as to the link between the law and Islam itself.

Since he quotes sources it is up to you (questioning them) to find out if they are faulty yourself. It is not up to me since he has quoted the sources. He's not going to quote them if they are not serious. Have you read up on who produced this document. Lets just say he is very educated.

And yes I did check, with some Muslim friends of mine at college. They agreed the accuracy of what was being said (Zimms, Jizarah etc) but couldnt help me as to the link between the law and Islam itself.

Wrong, Neo.

If I present you with a webpage that claims that Jesus was a homosexual, and goes on to describe several pieces of evidence...

(But, fails to say where those 'evidences' come from...)

By your logic, we have to immediately assume that Jesus was a homosexual, UNLESS someone can find a way to disprove the source of my page?

That isn't how it works, Neo.

You presented a site, which has been called into question. You have based your argument (that Islam is intolerant) on THAT source.

If you insist on that source, you have to back it up.

Quoting myself again, since you refuse to answer the question:


Again - I ask - Did you believe, without checking in any fashion, ALL that you read on this site?