Islamic Iconoclasm - Page 7 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 06-27-2006, 05:07 PM   #91
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,471
Local Time: 10:26 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar

But let's look at this from a worldwide view, how many Muslims approach their religion with this "convert or die" mentality? Small percentage.

Your posts come off as incredibly bad generalizations.


this is true.

i would speculate that the infinitestimal percentage of Christians who think homosexuals, for example, should be put to death (the "God Hates Fags" crowd), or that abortion doctors should be killed, is comparable to the infinitestimal percentage of Muslims who think all "infidels" should be killed.
__________________

__________________
Irvine511 is online now  
Old 06-27-2006, 05:25 PM   #92
War Child
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
Posts: 760
Local Time: 03:26 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by yolland

Great info, thanks.

Zakat sounds like it might well be a cognate for the Hebrew tzedeka, which stipulates precisely the same thing. Do you happen to know if zakat has the dual meaning in Arabic, as tzedeka does in Hebrew, of "justice"?
I don't think there's set agreement as to the origins of this. Tzedeka is a viable option for the origin. There are others. There's a good discussion of it here:

http://www.faithfreedom.org/forum2/v...5eb9326085ca3c


"Scholars also disagreed concerning the similarity between and possible origins of zakat and sadaqa in parallel institutions and cognate words from the vocabulary of other religions in the area. R. Bell held that "the word zakat is Syriac and therefore Christian", but J. Schacht and others expressed the view that it was borrowed brom Jewish usage of Hebrew-Aramaic zakut.

"His footnote at the bottom says: "A. Jeffery, Foreign Vocab. in the Qur'an, Baroda 1938, p 153, where it is stated that neither of the Aramaic or Syriac cognates seem to have ever meant alms, though this meaning could easily be derived from them." And the same was held concerning sadaqa as a transliteration of the Hebrew sedaka which originally meant "honesty". We are also told that, as applied by the Pharisees for what they considered the chief duty of the pious Israelites, namely almsgiving, the proper sense of this word, which is voluntary or spontaneous "charity", was still retained at the time of the coming Islam and elsewhere.

"One scholar, H.P. Smith, held that Muslim tazkiya in the sense of purification of property corresponds to a similar notion expressed in Deuteronomy 14:28, though, later, zakat emerged as a regular tax of the Muslim State. C.C. Torrey, in turn, expressed the view that zakat and sadaqa are loan words from the North Semitic languages, corresponding in particular to Aramaic zakut and sidakta and Hebrew sidaka, respectively. The Aramaic words, he held, originally meant "purity" and were used by both Jews and Christians in the sense of "virtuous conduct". To this he added the view that "the latter term (sidakta) was widely used in Aramaic speech to mean alms".

...

"The sense of being innocent, declared not guilty in court and pure, are often born also by Syriac and Imperial Aramaic words derived from the roots ZK/H/I/W. Besides, such words in Syriac are used also in the senses of to be victorious, overcome, occupy and rule by force. And the same can be noted about Hebrew [89] cognates occurring in the Old Testament as well as Talmudic and Midrashic Hebrew. Note also that the adjective zakay (from the root ZKH) occurs in the Old Testament, Micah 11/6 in the sense of one who is proved innocent when charged with cheating, while in Psalms 76/13, 119/9, Proverbs 20/9, Isaiah 16/1 and Daniel 23/6, the sense conveyed are: being clean, morally clean and not guilty. And once in the Talmud, the same root is applied in the sense both of payment of a monetary fine and an obligatory poor tax."
__________________

__________________
Judah is offline  
Old 06-27-2006, 05:49 PM   #93
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
AEON's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: California
Posts: 4,052
Local Time: 08:26 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by yolland

Would you actually prefer it if Christianity was still essentially a small Mediterranean sect?
Of course not, but neither do I support an "Ends Justify the Means" type of evangelism.

Because Christians have used a "convert or die" method to spread the religion, is an indictment of the MEN performing the acts - but not of the actual text Christianity is based on (The NT never advocates spreading the gospel through violence. There is not one passage in the NT that even hints that we are to teach and make disciples of the nations using violence).

However, I will say again, the Muslims that have used and are using the "convert or die" method of spreading religion are, in fact, following their equivalent of the Great Commission. In other words, they are precisely commanded to do such a thing according to their religious text.
__________________
AEON is offline  
Old 06-27-2006, 06:13 PM   #94
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
AEON's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: California
Posts: 4,052
Local Time: 08:26 AM
Here is the framework of my argument:

1) In order to show that the religion of Islam is a “convert or die religion,” one must demonstrate that the main sacred texts of Islam, the Quran, actually teaches that non-believers should either convert or be killed by its followers for not converting.

2) The Quran DOES TEACH that non-believers should either convert or be killed by its followers for not converting (verses already posted and can be found with a quick google search)

3) Hence, the religion of Islam IS a “convert or die” religion. (It matters not if people actually obey - the argument is regarding the teachings of the religion itself)



1) In order to show that the religion of Christianity is a “convert or die religion,” one must demonstrate that the main sacred text of Christianity, the New Testament, actually teaches that non-believers should either convert or be killed by its followers for not converting.

2) The New Testament DOES NOT teach that non-believers should either convert or be killed by its followers for not converting. (There is not ONE passage in the NT that can counter this premise)

3) Hence, Christianity IS NOT a “convert or die” religion. (Again, it matters not if people actually obey - the argument is regarding the teachings of the religion itself)
__________________
AEON is offline  
Old 06-27-2006, 06:33 PM   #95
Forum Moderator
 
yolland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 7,471
Local Time: 04:26 PM
So how do you understand the passage, "Let there be no compulsion in religion"?
__________________
yolland [at] interference.com


μελετώ αποτυγχάνειν. -- Διογένης της Σινώπης
yolland is offline  
Old 06-27-2006, 06:33 PM   #96
War Child
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
Posts: 760
Local Time: 03:26 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by AEON
Here is the framework of my argument:

1) In order to show that the religion of Islam is a “convert or die religion,” one must demonstrate that the main sacred texts of Islam, the Quran, actually teaches that non-believers should either convert or be killed by its followers for not converting.

2) The Quran DOES TEACH that non-believers should either convert or be killed by its followers for not converting (verses already posted and can be found with a quick google search)

3) Hence, the religion of Islam IS a “convert or die” religion. (It matters not if people actually obey - the argument is regarding the teachings of the religion itself)
Man...ok, do we EVER need a Muslim expert in here. Anyone? Buller?

First of all, the Quran decrees "There is no compulsion" in Islam. Please read:

http://healing.about.com/library/uc_islam_0110.htm

Also, Koran DOES NOT teach that non-believers should either convert or be killed:

http://qa.sunnipath.com/issue_view.a...9801&CATE=3000

"Even as Islam spread beyond the borders of Arabia into the Byzantine and Sassanid Empires (Syria and Persia), non-Muslims were accorded certain rights. If they accepted the authority of the new Islamic government, then treaties were concluded and the non-Muslims paid a special tax, called a jizya. The options were not convert, die, or pay the tax. Instead, non-Muslims were allowed to practice their own religions and maintain their own institutions. In lieu of converting to Islam, they paid the jizya, or poll tax. This tax exempted them from military service and gave them special status under the Islamic system. Many non-Muslims actually welcomed Muslim rule, knowing that they had certain rights under the new system. In fact, some Muslim rulers actually discouraged conversion, because they preferred collecting the poll tax. This tribute system was very compatible with the political economy of the premodern world.

..........

"Let's look at one of the most misunderstood passages of the Qur'an:

"And fight in the cause of Allah with those who fight with you, and do not exceed the limits, surely Allah does not love those who exceed the limits. And kill them wherever you find them, and drive them out from where they drove you out..."
Most people usually only quote the first part.

Here's the entire passage:

"And fight in the cause of Allah with those who fight with you, and do not exceed the limits, surely Allah does not love those who exceed the limits. And kill them wherever you find them, and drive them out from where they drove you out and persecution is severer than slaughter, and do not fight with them at the Sacred Mosque (in Makkah) until they fight with you in it, but if they do fight you, then slay them; such is the reward of the unbelievers. But if they desist, then surely Allah is Forgiving, Merciful. And fight with them until there is no persecution, and religion should be only for Allah, but if they desist, then there should be no hostility except against the oppressors." (Qur'an, 2:190-192)

"Let's look at the interpretation of the above verses. First, examine the historical context. These verses were revealed at a time when Islam was under siege, when the small Muslim community was fighting for its very existence against powerful polytheists. The biography of the Prophet Muhammad, Allah bless him and give him peace, makes it very clear that the Prophet preached peacefully for the first 13 years of his mission. He left Mecca for Medina to make a new start. Even when the polytheists in Mecca were persecuting Muslims and looting their houses, the Prophet hesitated to fight. He only took up arms when God gave him permission:

""Permission (to fight) is given to those upon whom war is made because they are oppressed, and most surely Allah is well able to assist them." (Qur'an, 22:39)

"The first battles the Muslims waged were in self-defense. They were disciplined and adhered to strict codes of conduct. Noncombatants, including women and children were not targeted. Furthermore, the Muslims avoided destroying property, livestock, and trees."
__________________
Judah is offline  
Old 06-27-2006, 06:35 PM   #97
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 10:26 AM
I long for my trip to heaven, where by the grace of God, Jews, Muslims, and Christians ect.....will all be seated together with a few gay and lesbians......while we watch the Christian extremists and Muslim extremists have the HOLY SHIT look about their faces when they see who has been invited to the party.
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 06-27-2006, 06:37 PM   #98
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,645
Local Time: 09:26 AM
Don't associate with non-Christians. Don't receive them into your house or even exchange greeting with them.

2 John 10

Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.

Matthew 10:34

Lord delievered his people out of Eygpt, but later destroyed those who did not believe.

Jude 5

The NT can't always be easily interpreted as peaceful or tolerant either...
__________________
BVS is offline  
Old 06-27-2006, 06:38 PM   #99
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,645
Local Time: 09:26 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Dreadsox
I long for my trip to heaven, where by the grace of God, Jews, Muslims, and Christians ect.....will all be seated together with a few gay and lesbians......while we watch the Christian extremists and Muslim extremists have the HOLY SHIT look about their faces when they see who has been invited to the party.
__________________
BVS is offline  
Old 06-27-2006, 06:50 PM   #100
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
AEON's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: California
Posts: 4,052
Local Time: 08:26 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar
Don't associate with non-Christians. Don't receive them into your house or even exchange greeting with them.

2 John 10
This doesn't exactly condone a "convert or die" method. It is also written for those that are not yet fully equipped to blend with "the world" without succumbing to it.

Quote:
Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar
Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.
Matthew 10:34
This is referring to the quarrels within the family that will be the result of one's conversion.


Quote:
Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar
Lord delievered his people out of Eygpt, but later destroyed those who did not believe.

Jude 5
This is a reference to the Jews, not Christians. Also, notice it is the Lord doing the destroying - not the Christians.
__________________
AEON is offline  
Old 06-27-2006, 07:08 PM   #101
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,471
Local Time: 10:26 AM
^ but don't you see AEON? you're putting these passages into context because you know the context.

perhaps if you knew more about Islam, then you'd be able to understand the context of what you've labled a "convert or die" command from the Koran.

basically, you're making accusations about the Koran that could be just as easily leveled against the NT. however, because you've spent time learning about the NT, you are able to defend it from such accusations using the same methods as anyone else who's called upon to defend their religion.

perhaps if you knew more about the Koran, you'd be able to defend it from precisely the same charges you've leveled at it.

and, to my mind, all this just goes to show the silliness of literal interpretations of *any* holy book.
__________________
Irvine511 is online now  
Old 06-27-2006, 07:15 PM   #102
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 10:26 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511

and, to my mind, all this just goes to show the silliness of literal interpretations of *any* holy book.
It's only silly if it is not a literal interpretation of my chosing.
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 06-27-2006, 07:17 PM   #103
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,645
Local Time: 09:26 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by AEON


This doesn't exactly condone a "convert or die" method. It is also written for those that are not yet fully equipped to blend with "the world" without succumbing to it.
But without context how would anyone know this? It would just sound like intolerantance.


Quote:
Originally posted by AEON

This is referring to the quarrels within the family that will be the result of one's conversion.
Sorta, but once again you have prior knowledge of context.



Quote:
Originally posted by AEON

This is a reference to the Jews, not Christians. Also, notice it is the Lord doing the destroying - not the Christians.
Still convert or die...
__________________
BVS is offline  
Old 06-27-2006, 07:18 PM   #104
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
AEON's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: California
Posts: 4,052
Local Time: 08:26 AM
Finally we are getting somewhere I would like to get past the emotions and get down to the essence of this argument. My position is not emotionally appealing, nor does it provide cute little sound bytes – but I think the issue is still worth addressing.

However, I must not be communicating effectively. (not your problem, but mine) It seems I am drawing a ton of fire and by looking at most of the responses – I am simply only agitating and not receiving many “counter points.” There are a few exceptions.

Judah, I do appreciate your attempt to put the text into context. That is all I have been asking for. And I would love to discuss this further. On the surface, it does still seem to advocate violence to non-believers and that violence should only cease once they stop resisting. I am definitely open to more discussion on this and other misunderstood quotes from the Quran.

Yolland, I have no answer to the "Let there be no compulsion in religion.” Quote. I admit, it is there in the text. But so many other passages seem to contradict it. Also, within the framework of my argument, it doesn’t defeat the conclusion because the premise remains true – that “The Quran DOES TEACH that non-believers should either convert or be killed by its followers for not converting (verses already posted and can be found with a quick google search).

By demonstrating the “positive” of my argument (at least once) is enough to make it essentially true. Of course it seems there are several passages that must be dismissed as misunderstood before my premise can be considered “false.” This can still be done, and I am open to it, especially because I WANT to be wrong about it.

The thing is - people hate my premise. I hate it. So I am either wrong (which is entirely possible) or I am right. If I am wrong, then hey, I am wrong and I will admit it. If I am right, well, everyone who is reading this needs to consider this discussion within their own hearts and minds and draw their own conclusion.
__________________
AEON is offline  
Old 06-27-2006, 07:20 PM   #105
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,645
Local Time: 09:26 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511
^ but don't you see AEON? you're putting these passages into context because you know the context.

perhaps if you knew more about Islam, then you'd be able to understand the context of what you've labled a "convert or die" command from the Koran.

basically, you're making accusations about the Koran that could be just as easily leveled against the NT. however, because you've spent time learning about the NT, you are able to defend it from such accusations using the same methods as anyone else who's called upon to defend their religion.

perhaps if you knew more about the Koran, you'd be able to defend it from precisely the same charges you've leveled at it.

and, to my mind, all this just goes to show the silliness of literal interpretations of *any* holy book.


I'm glad someone gets it. I was beginning to think I wasn't making my point.
__________________

__________________
BVS is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:26 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com