The criminal parts of the Koran

[McGiver]

... how many of those people on your list believed that the world was flat?

I would guess only Augustine. Not positive about that even.

zoom.

hear that?

that was the point going right over your head.

[Peter]

So, is it only idol-worshippers that are to be slaughtered?  Are atheists safe?

[El]

i could agree with this use for religion.  same for many cults.
i way to unify several minds and to give people a sense of belonging.

I'm not sure if you're being sincere, or trying to undercut my point by using a hot-button word like "cult."  I'd have to have you tell me how you're defining cult before I agree or disagree; there are dozens of definitions, and no way to know what one you mean unless you tell me.

hale bopp's and the jim jones peoples come to mind.  these people were taking their salvation into their own hands and speeding up the process.  they died happy, did they not?
also, the hari krishna's seem like the happiest people in the world.

religion is a unifying force.  nothing wrong with giving people hope.  take a good look around at the secular world....there isn't much hope here.

I'll pretend that I'm sure that you're being sincere; I can't really hold that much esteem for a religion/cult that actively encourages the end of human life to such an extent, but I don't see all that much wrong with the hari krishnas in compairson to other popular religions, though all I know I picked up just now from wiki.

As for hope in religion vs. hope in the secular world, I think that whether or not you see hope in something depends on your personal experiences with it/ability to think clearly about it.  Although, to be fair, in the most cosmic sense, religions promising eternal afterlives do have more hope than the secular world, because earth, the solar system, and the universe itself are expected to crap out eventually, to my understanding.

[odeon]

So, is it only idol-worshippers that are to be slaughtered?  Are atheists safe?

Not if they are the aggressors.

[McGiver]

i could agree with this use for religion.  same for many cults.
i way to unify several minds and to give people a sense of belonging.

I'm not sure if you're being sincere, or trying to undercut my point by using a hot-button word like "cult."  I'd have to have you tell me how you're defining cult before I agree or disagree; there are dozens of definitions, and no way to know what one you mean unless you tell me.

hale bopp's and the jim jones peoples come to mind.  these people were taking their salvation into their own hands and speeding up the process.  they died happy, did they not?
also, the hari krishna's seem like the happiest people in the world.

religion is a unifying force.  nothing wrong with giving people hope.  take a good look around at the secular world....there isn't much hope here.

I'll pretend that I'm sure that you're being sincere; I can't really hold that much esteem for a religion/cult that actively encourages the end of human life to such an extent, but I don't see all that much wrong with the hari krishnas in compairson to other popular religions, though all I know I picked up just now from wiki.

As for hope in religion vs. hope in the secular world, I think that whether or not you see hope in something depends on your personal experiences with it/ability to think clearly about it.  Although, to be fair, in the most cosmic sense, religions promising eternal afterlives do have more hope than the secular world, because earth, the solar system, and the universe itself are expected to crap out eventually, to my understanding.

i was being serious.
they all offer a sense of belonging and hope.
even the cults where the members killed themselves, they did so as a group and with the confidence that they were going to a better place.

[El]

OK.  I guess I was having trouble because you took it father than I was willing to as far as accpetance/praise, and I thought I was making a point that nobody would agree with at all in the first place.

[McGiver]

OK.  I guess I was having trouble because you took it father than I was willing to as far as accpetance/praise, and I thought I was making a point that nobody would agree with at all in the first place.

i really think that they are all cults.  which are meant to unify the masses, or at least a chink of people, to have like minded goals.

[Teejay]

[9:4-5] If the idol worshipers sign a peace treaty with you, and do not violate it, nor band together with others against you, you shall fulfill your treaty with them until the expiration date. GOD loves the righteous. Once the Sacred Months are past, (and they refuse to make peace) you may kill the idol worshipers when you encounter them, punish them, and resist every move they make. ...

What version you quoted may I ask?, I am reading version translated by NJ Dawood, which was published by Penguin Books, in this version

9-5 goes like this

When the sacred months are over slay the idolaters wherever you find them. Arrest them, beseige them, and lie in ambush, everywhere for them. If they repent and take to prayer and render the alms levy, allow them to go their way. God is forgiving and merciful.

The meaning I get is once such agreements with Disbelievers have expired, providing before hand that the disbelivers have honored the treaties they have made with you in every detail. Outside the holy months, it is fair game to fight the disbelivers, oh that if such a treaty has not been honored in full, that treaty is considered broken.

[El]

OK.  I guess I was having trouble because you took it father than I was willing to as far as accpetance/praise, and I thought I was making a point that nobody would agree with at all in the first place.

i really think that they are all cults.  which are meant to unify the masses, or at least a chink of people, to have like minded goals.

I figured you probably though of all organized religion as some kind of cult.

[McGiver]

OK.  I guess I was having trouble because you took it father than I was willing to as far as accpetance/praise, and I thought I was making a point that nobody would agree with at all in the first place.

i really think that they are all cults.  which are meant to unify the masses, or at least a chink of people, to have like minded goals.

I figured you probably though of all organized religion as some kind of cult.

yes, but this does not negate their utility.

[odeon]

[9:4-5] If the idol worshipers sign a peace treaty with you, and do not violate it, nor band together with others against you, you shall fulfill your treaty with them until the expiration date. GOD loves the righteous. Once the Sacred Months are past, (and they refuse to make peace) you may kill the idol worshipers when you encounter them, punish them, and resist every move they make. ...

What version you quoted may I ask?, I am reading version translated by NJ Dawood, which was published by Penguin Books, in this version

9-5 goes like this

When the sacred months are over slay the idolaters wherever you find them. Arrest them, beseige them, and lie in ambush, everywhere for them. If they repent and take to prayer and render the alms levy, allow them to go their way. God is forgiving and merciful.

The meaning I get is once such agreements with Disbelievers have expired, providing before hand that the disbelivers have honored the treaties they have made with you in every detail. Outside the holy months, it is fair game to fight the disbelivers, oh that if such a treaty has not been honored in full, that treaty is considered broken.

I usually browse the one available at http://www.submission.info/quran/.

The Dawood translation has been cast into doubt many times, for example, in this article. Here's an interesting quote (but do read the entire article):

Consider, for example, the most widely available translation in English, by N J Dawood, the first edition of which was published by Penguin in 1956. This translation subverts the original in several ways. Often a single word is mistranslated in a verse to give it totally the opposite meaning. In 2:217, for example, we read: "idolatry is worse than carnage". The word translated as "idolatry" is "fitna", which actually means persecution or oppression. Dawood's translation conveys an impression that the Qur'an will put up with carnage but not idolatry. In fact, the Qur'an is making persecution and oppression a crime greater than murder. The extract should read: "oppression is more awesome than killing".

Here's another that I find interesting:

This is why, as Abdel Haleem points out in the introduction, you cannot lift a single verse out of context and use it to argue a point or to show what the Qur'an has to say about something. To illustrate the point, he refers to the oft-quoted verse "Slay them wherever you find them" (2:191). This was taken out of context by Dawood, Haleem argues, and thus used to justify the claim that the Qur'an sanctions violence against non-Muslims; and, after 9/11, to rationalise the actions of extremists. In fact, the only situation in which the Qur'an sanctions violence is in self-defence. This particular verse has a context: the Muslims, performing pilgrimage in the sacred precinct in Mecca, were under attack and did not know whether they were permitted to retaliate. The verse permits them to fight back on this - but not necessarily any other - occasion.

[Teejay]

I have little reason to doubt the language which protrayed in translation of the Koran I have read, the language is the same as Old Testament, which is equally as bellcose.

However Judaism has been a religion of minorities living under the rule of others, prescuted and marginalised for 2000 years. Which has changed the religion. However Islam from day one for the last 1400 years has been the religion of rulers, the doctrine of expanding Islamic rule to the whole world, if necessary by war and conquest, is built into the theology of about every orthodox sect of Islam.

The jihadists are merely following Islamic tradition, set down by the Umayyad and Abbasid Caliphates and Ottoman Empire, along with many other smaller kingdoms and empires who spread Islam through conquest. Right now a suprisingly large proporation of the world's conflicts involve Muslim populations and their non-muslim neighbours and the main threat of terrorism is from the jihadists.

[odeon]

I have little reason to doubt the language which protrayed in translation of the Koran I have read, the language is the same as Old Testament, which is equally as bellcose.

However Judaism has been a religion of minorities living under the rule of others, prescuted and marginalised for 2000 years. Which has changed the religion. However Islam from day one for the last 1400 years has been the religion of rulers, the doctrine of expanding Islamic rule to the whole world, if necessary by war and conquest, is built into the theology of about every orthodox sect of Islam.

The jihadists are merely following Islamic tradition, set down by the Umayyad and Abbasid Caliphates and Ottoman Empire, along with many other smaller kingdoms and empires who spread Islam through conquest. Right now a suprisingly large proporation of the world's conflicts involve Muslim populations and their non-muslim neighbours and the main threat of terrorism is from the jihadists.

Translation: "I'll continue to believe in what I believe in, no matter what you say." You're full of hot air and little else, choosing the swallow the propaganda whole. It's cute when you say "I have little reason to doubt..."  but where's your evidence? Or didn't the puppet masters give you every answer? Don't you think you should start thinking for yourself?

It is interesting how you choose to interpret what is happening around the world today. Yes, quite a few of the world's conflicts involve Muslims. I wonder why that is--don't you? Let's take one: Palestine. There are Muslim (and Christian) refugees that have been living in camps since 1949, after Israel was formed, driven from their homes. I don't deny Israel's rights in any way, but it is interesting how you choose Judaism as an example, considering how they deny the Palestinians their rights.

(This is where you'll shut your ears and repeat the mantra "suicide bombers, sucide bombers"...)

Or take another, Iraq. The Muslims weren't the aggressors, the US was.They started a war based an false evidence and unsurprisingly, chaos ensued. Is this the conflict on your mind?

(This is where you say "Saddam was evil, we were right in overthrowing him"...)

Or take what's happening throughout the Western world, with Islamophobia on the rise through the likes of yourself and others. Plenty of aggression, plenty of propaganda, plenty of persecution. Yet, what people see are things like the murder of Theo van Gogh.

(Several options available for you here, from honour killings to female circumcision; pick one... the idea is to counter with something universally accepted as horrible and thus not have to talk about what is done against the Muslims, every day. )

"Jihadist" is a cute word, btw, but did you stop for long enough to check what the word "jihad" actually means, or what most Muslims have to say about terrorism? Here's a link for you.

I know you'll label me as a "Muslim apologist" and whatnot, but you really go out of your way to show how little some have learned from what happened to the Jews during the second world war.

[Teejay]

Translation: "I'll continue to believe in what I believe in, no matter what you say." You're full of hot air and little else, choosing the swallow the propaganda whole. It's cute when you say "I have little reason to doubt..."  but where's your evidence? Or didn't the puppet masters give you every answer? Don't you think you should start thinking for yourself?

It is interesting how you choose to interpret what is happening around the world today. Yes, quite a few of the world's conflicts involve Muslims. I wonder why that is--don't you? Let's take one: Palestine. There are Muslim (and Christian) refugees that have been living in camps since 1949, after Israel was formed, driven from their homes. I don't deny Israel's rights in any way, but it is interesting how you choose Judaism as an example, considering how they deny the Palestinians their rights.

I chose pre-rabbical Judaism, which existed before the destruction of the second temple by the Romans. Not modern Judaism which is quite different.

Might I refer you to the fact that Arabs living in the state of Israel have equal rights to Jewish population and indeed enjoy better rights than in any other Arab country.

Those Arab states could have integrated the refugees from today's Israel and Palestinian territories successfully, back at the end of World War II, millions of ethnic Germans were deported from places Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Romania, Poland, The Soviet Union, Yugoslavia. They had lived in those places for many centuries and in some areas were wholly German (like East Prussia or Sudetenland). However the German government saw to it they would be integrated into German society. However the Arab states saw to it they would remain in refugee camps for nearly SIXTY years, because they had this belief that the Israeli state will be destroyed in the long run.

The modern Jewish-Arab conflict started when the first ancient alien settlers moved into Palestine in the late 19th century and refused to live as Dhimmi's. The status conferred to people's of the book (Jews and Muslims) living under Muslim rule, which is described by Koran sura 9:29

Fight against such those to whom Scriptures were given to believe in neither God or Last Day, who do not forbid what God and His apostle have forbidden, and do not embrace the true faith, until they pay tribute our of hand or utterly subduded.

I am not making the Israeli's into total saints, however their conduct has been remarkably restrained.

[odeon]

Might I refer you to the fact that Arabs living in the state of Israel have equal rights to Jewish population and indeed enjoy better rights than in any other Arab country.

Yeah, right, as long as they don't require their own country, in which case they are severely discriminated.