Today at FrontPage a panel discusses the effort by the organization Muslims Against Sharia to create a new Qur'an with the violent verses removed, and other efforts to reform Islam. The participants are Khalim Massoud, president of Muslims Against Sharia; Edip Yuksel, a Kurdish-Turkish-American Islamic reformer; Thomas Haidon, a Muslim commentator on human rights, counter-terrorism and Islamic affairs who has often commented here at Jihad Watch; Abul Kasem, an ex-Muslim who is the author of hundreds of articles and several books on Islam including Women in Islam; Bill Warner, the director of the Center for the Study of Political Islam (CSPI) and spokesman for politicalislam.com; and me.
It's a lengthy, fascinating, and illuminating discussion. Read it all, but here are my concluding remarks, which give some hints of the tenor of the whole:
Spencer: Nothing I have read in this elephantine and contentious exchange has led me to modify my view that, as Mr. Haidon has said, “Muslims will never accept, on any level, removal of parts of the Qur’an.” Not only are large numbers of Muslims ever likely to accept a drastically edited Qur’an, but they are also unlikely ever to flock to a wholesale reevaluation of Islamic theology involving the dismissal of the Hadith and Sira as “hearsay stories.”Mr. Warner is correct: “And there is no mechanism for reform. Our results--good, bad or indifferent—do not make any difference. There is no body or group that could vote or agree on any change.” Many strange things have happened in history and I would never say that Islamic reform is absolutely impossible, but Westerners are extraordinarily foolish when they harbor any hopes of it actually happening on a large scale. We need instead to focus on efforts to defend ourselves both militarily and culturally from the jihadist challenge, and to continue to call the bluffs of pseudo-reformers who intend ultimately only to deceive Western non-Muslims – many of whom are quite anxious to be deceived.
Because of the entrenched nature of Islamic orthodoxy, and its willingness to commit violence to enforce conformity, I am skeptical of the claims put forward by both Mr. Massoud and Mr. Yuksel to the effect that Muslims are flocking to their reform efforts.Mr. Warner’s insight is excellent -- that “all scholarship in Islam is either from the viewpoint of the kafir (kafir-centric), the dhimmi (dhimmi-centric) or believer (believer-centric).” In a world in which dhimmi-centric and believer-centric studies dominate the universities and media treatments of Islamic issues, Mr. Warner and others have stepped into the breach and begun to provide kafir-centric analyses to help non-Muslims understand exactly what we are dealing with. I myself have tried to fill a gap in kafir-centric scholarship on Muhammad with my book The Truth About Muhammad, and on the Qur’an in my Blogging the Qur’an series at hotair.com. At this point, which such a fog of ignorance and propaganda enveloping us and impeding our understanding of the jihad threat, to be informed is an essential first step.
And Mr. Warner is also quite right, of course, that “for the believer, Allah is wise, forgiving, knowing, and so forth. But for the kafir, Allah is a hater, a torturer, a plotter, a sadist, and an enemy. Allah makes us kafirs. Then he goes ahead to tell the Muslims what filthy scum we are.” This dualism is deeply rooted in the Qur’an, which tells Muslims to be merciful to one another but harsh or ruthless to unbelievers (48:29), and tells them that they are the “best of people” (3:110) while the unbelievers are the “vilest of created beings” (98:6). Even worse, unbelievers have no control over their fate – while there are many verses in the Qur’an that assume that human beings have free will, early in Islamic history the proponents of this idea, the Qadariyya, were defeated, and human free will was declared a heretical infringement of Allah’s absolute sovereignty.
The guiding principle on this issue in Islamic theology has been Qur’an 10:99-100: “And if thy Lord willed, all who are in the earth would have believed together. Wouldst thou (Muhammad) compel men until they are believers? No soul can believe, except by the will of Allah, and He will place doubt (or obscurity) on those who will not understand.” Allah even boasts that he could have made everyone a believer, but instead will fill hell with humans and spirit beings: “If thy Lord had so willed, He could have made mankind one people, but they will not cease to dispute, except those on whom thy Lord hath bestowed His Mercy, and for this did He create them. And the Word of thy Lord shall be fulfilled: ‘I will fill Hell with jinns and men all together.’” (11:118-119).
This put the unbeliever in the position of being a victim of Allah’s decision not to make him a believer – a decision over which the unbeliever has no control, but for which he will suffer. This only reinforces the idea that the unbeliever – hated by Allah, more vile than any other creature, is not to accorded basic human respect. The presence of such material in the Qur’an first demonstrates, along with the Islamic supremacist and violent material that is also in the Qur’an, that a Qur’an-only Islam would not necessarily be an Islam in which Muslims respect and live in peace with their neighbors as equals
When, however, Mr. Warner makes his excellent observations about the position in which Islam puts the kafir, the inimitable Mr. Yuksel responds by scratching his head in wonder that anyone would want to be classed as an unbeliever. “There is variety of kafirs (ingrates),” he informs us, “and each treated according to the severity of their hostility, aggression and crimes. For instance, the Quran condemns the ingrates (kafirs) for attacking weak men, women and children (4:75-76), and Warner’s feelings are hurt because we are asked to stand against those Kafirs.” But unless Mr. Yuksel is postulating that anyone who doesn’t believe in Islam will inevitably attack weak men, women and children, he is putting the cart before the horse.
The fundamental reason why the Qur’an demonizes kafirs is because they are kafirs, and any evil they do other than disbelieve in Allah flows from that disbelief. This is the sort of attitude, as Mr. Yuksel’s demeanor here abundantly demonstrates, that militates against establishment of the basic respect that is required for people of differing views to live together in peace. For orthodox Muslims, and even unorthodox ones like Mr. Yuksel, to be able to have that respect would require that they first reject all this demonization. But it is deeply embedded in the Qur’an.
Mr. Yuksel errs when he attributes to the estimable Abul Kasem this statement: “He accuses Jamie Glazov of relying on 'unreliable hearsay stories' for information about Muhammad, but fails to inform us that the great majority of Muslims around the world rely on those same 'unreliable hearsay stories,' and offers no program for convincing those hundreds of millions of Muslims of the historical weakness of these stories.” Actually, I said that, and I stand by it. Mr. Yuksel responds to this by saying, “If you had read the Reformist Translation or Manifesto for Islamic Reform you would learn that we offer a theologically consistent and very powerful argument to trash all those hearsay stories.”
That’s great, if it’s true, but that’s only part of what I said. Since Mr. Yuksel doesn’t deign to share his “theologically consistent and very powerful argument” with us, but only asserts that it exists, I can’t evaluate the chances of its gaining wide acceptance among Muslims worldwide, but that remains the key question. I haven’t heard of any of the established Islamic sects or jurisprudential schools or the ulama of any Muslim country embracing his vaunted Reformist Translation. Perhaps Mr. Yuksel would be so kind as to provide us with a list.
Mr. Yuksel again errs by attributing to Abul Kasem my objection to his Qur’anic numerology. I pointed out that another Muslim writer had noted the forced and artificial character of Mr. Yuksel’s apologetic, and concluded that “When Mr. Yuksel's fellow Muslims so readily notice such inaccuracies in his presentation, it's unlikely that many will accept his program for reform.” Mr. Yuksel, however, now tells us that his “opponents finally accepted their error.” In this, however, he did not simply ask us to take his word for it, but gave us a link – and I went there, only to find the Muslim source to which I had referred earlier saying this about Mr. Yuksel: “He is the man who published a list, supposedly of all occurrences of the word ‘day’ in the Qur’an, and this list was false on its face, and even more false when examined in detail. If I have erred in my publication, I invite correction, something Yuksel does not do; in fact he hates it.”
This is Mr. Yuksel’s opponent eating crow? It is in fact illustrative of a trait Mr. Yuksel shares with the Islamists he abhors: an inability to engage in self-criticism, and the displacement of one’s own faults onto another, as in his complaint about Mr. Warner’s alleged “diatribes and vitriolic attacks,” when he himself is the only one who has actually engaged in such attacks. I am not saying, after all the squabbles above, that Mr. Yuksel is an Islamist; however, his attitudes are still redolent of the supremacism and contempt that characterizes Islamists. I respectfully suggest that his reform efforts would find better reception were he to rid himself of such attitudes.
Finally, he tells us that in his Reformist Translation we will “learn that the Quran justifies fighting against aggressor and violent Kafirs, that is warmongering ingrates, not peaceful ingrates like Kasem and Warner.” Unfortunately, given the widespread Muslim belief that a resistance to or even a simple rejection of Islamic proselytizing constitutes “aggression,” or that non-Muslims are aggressors against Allah for having rejected Islam, this is not enough to establish a framework for peaceful coexistence between Muslims and non-Muslims as equals on an indefinite basis.
Finally, Abul Kasem’s question is highly pertinent and brilliantly put: "Mr. Yuksel, please tell me why must I not trust the most celebrated exegetes of the Koran, such as Jalalyn, ibn Abbas, ibn Kathir, Maududi and so on? Are you claiming they are inferior to you, or that they did not understand the Koran?"
To this, Mr. Yuksel answers only by telling us that he has answered this question elsewhere. Great. But in a symposium discussing the reform of Qur’anic ideas and Islam in general, it would have been nice if he had deigned to favor us with his wisdom on this all-important question. And his ridiculous finger-pointing Bible quotes, which are used today by no Jewish or Christian group to justify violence, have already been well answered by Jamie Glazov. But they put the coup de grace to any hope I might have had that we will see any real reform effort coming from such quarters.
Short of wholesale conversion of moslems to either Christianity or perhaps secularism, RS assessment is spot on.
That begs the question then, what are we going to do about it?
Uh, oh. I foresee some new fatwas on the way.
Over the past year or more, on JW and other blogs, I have seen the statement that Moslems in Europe are converting to Christianity (or perhaps simply "leaving Islam") at the rate of 2000/day. Does anyone know the source of this figure? Or its accuracy? If true, it's good news for Europe. The bad news is that there is probably a similar number of new Moslem arrivals.
Muslims against Sharia. Sounds a lot like 'Criminals Against Crime'. It's not so much that the membership wants to eliminate crime, they want to eliminate the competition.
You can maybe take the unpleasant verses out of the Quran, but you can't erase it from the minds of millions who have memorized it. And you can't replace these memories with better ones unless you convince the receiver, that they 'are' better.
Somehow I don't think the vast majority of muslims will go for tampering with the Quran, and then having the tamperers tell them, we did it for your own good...Uh huh...
Don't mess with the books. Let the Muslims leave Islam.
Bravo Robert for bringing much needed clarity to this debate.
It would be so easy to accept the 'moderate' view of Islam and try to find a way forward based on denial of all those uncomfortable facts about Islam as enumerated above. If we just accept the views of the likes of Ed Husain or Asim Siddiqui,- see here:-
http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/asim_siddiqui/2008/04/our_third_way.html
then all would be well. At least until the next radical fundamentalists come along. By which time it may be too late to resist total Islamization.
We must never accept reform which requires acceptance of a false distinction between Islam and Islamism, as in the Guardian piece above. (A popular article with many positive responses in the comments field, but fatally flawed)
Only genuine radical reform of canonical texts can render this dangerous ideology less harmful, and thanks to you for doing more than anyone else to make this apparent to so many of us.
Your efforts are not wasted.
Now, are you an Islamistophobe, or maybe an apologistophobe?
If the unbelievers were made that way by Allah then why do Muslims allow anyone not born into the faith ever to become a Muslim? Surely someone raised in the Catholic faith should be ineligible to become a Muslim by virtue of having practiced another faith well into adulthood. How is this reconciled in Islam?
One minute they're saying we all need to accept Islam and accept Allah. The next minute they're saying Allah made some people into non-believers. How do they have it both ways? Confusion reigns!
What revision ?
Will the "new" book say that the prophet never molested Aisha ?
Will the "new" book say that the prophet never committed genocide ?
Will the 'new" book say that the prophet never fornicated Zainab ?
What will the "new" version have to say about abrogation ?
Revised koran is as bad as "remedy worse than the disease".
In Islam, reform is un-Islamic, is it not?
Excellent work Robert. You provided some much-needed sanity to that symposium.
Edip Yuksel is not only a loon, but if he is representative of a "moderate" or a "reformist", we best just take Warner's advice and declare Islam and all its adherents the enemy and begin that education at birth.
Robert would not call him an Islamist, but I sure am.
It is becoming increasingly evident that when debating Muslims one does not need to present much more than their own words against them. Their own subscription to illogical and contradictory principles, rooted firmly in their ideology, renders them ineffictive at debating from the onset.
I quite enjoyed reading Mr Yuksel's unabashed arrogance. It is like watching a man busily painting his floor, while backing himself into a corner. Of course he never intended to participate in any serious manner. His over-weening conceit would never let hm do that.
This is what happens to babies who are brought up to believe that they are superior, simply because of who they are. Self criticism is the key to growing up.
There is a dreadful conflict coming in the western world. I see no way of avoiding it, but I feel no desire to avoid it either. We need to re-establish geographical seperation between the western and islamic worlds. And the enemy is here in the west, and doesn't want to leave. I don't think they should have the choice.
Monty,
Amen.
"to create a new Qur'an with the violent verses removed"
...then you could learn the QUr'an from cover to cover in about 10 minutes.
""Even worse, unbelievers have no control over their fate "
as long as they have weapons and believe in God they do ..
OK OK , so I am one of those bitter Americans that Obama Barack referred to..what a putz.
Just leave this mess of plagiarized, superstitious silliness and join the peaceful, intelligent Buddhists or Taoists, if more organized-like-Islam faiths don't appeal to Muslim apostates.
Islam is fatally-flawed by its founder's follies.
Rejection of and opposition to Islam is better than reform. As for those Muslims who will, nevertheless, attempt reform....
Khalim Massoud's proposal to remove violent and hateful parts of the Quran is the bravest and most honest approach to Islamic reform I've seen to date. Of course, I don't believe it is very coherent, but that doesn't mean some Muslims might not go along with it.* As a non-Muslim, what I like about Massoud's proposal is that it entails a frank admission that there are such problematic verses in the Quran, thereby helping non-Muslims see through the widespread public-relations efforts of Islamic and dhimmi propagandists. In addition, if publicized widely, it is likely to "provoke" major outrage among hard-line Muslims world-wide, thus showing non-Muslims once again that there are still major problems in Islam and that the massive influxes of Muslims into non-Muslim countries needs to be halted, and immigration policies reformed. In short, I see it as something that will weaken Islam as a political, legal, militaristic entity.
*According to Massoud's poll, which can only be viewed as casual evidence based on a selective sample, about 22% of the Muslim respondents (when I viewed it over an hour ago) thought that Massoud's approach was perfect or, indeed, did not go far enough. This is surprising. Yet a major poll taken in the U.S. last year suggested that about 8% of Muslims believe the Quran was written by men, is not the words of God, and another 11% did not know or refused to respond whether or not the Quran was the word of God.
Massoud's poll also showed that 33% of Muslim respondents thought that those proposing reforms to Islam should be beheaded.
Massoud's poll is problematic because the question refers to "reform"--it does not explicitly mention Massoud's specific proposal to actually remove verses.
Whether or not Muslims can reform Islam, by whatever methodology, is practically irrelevant as far as non-Muslims should be concerned--I agree with Bill Warner on that point. As Warner and Spencer point out, the important task at hand is to educate the non-Muslims about Islam from a non-Muslim (or "Kafir") perspective, or with broad non-Muslim interests in mind.
Edip Yuksel is yet one more example of a so-called reformer who has not at all abandoned the base hostility against non-Muslims which is the foundation of Islam as we know it and as it is written in the Quran. Yuksel's protest that "This is an infidel-friendly...", in reference to Massoud's proposal to remove the violent or hateful verses, sums up practically all we need to know about Yuksel--i.e., he can be dismissed without wasting further time.
Thomas Haidon said:
"...pseudo-reformers can be dangerous because they tend to build false expectations, and lull non-Muslims into a false sense of security."
I agree; though I am not sure that Massoud is any more or less "pseudo" than any of the people Haidon listed. We would have to have at least a brief substantive description of some examples of what those reformers in Haidon's list propose to do more effectively...but generally all we see from Haidon are abstract promises about what could be done at some as yet to be determined time. Haidon has been questioned many times in these (JW) threads, and I've never seen any concrete answers from him in response to direct questions about how to deal with specific problematic verses.
I noticed only one potential error of Bill Warner's:
"Islam is a political and religious doctrine found in three books--Koran, Sira and Hadith. Those books are posited to be complete, eternal and perfect."
Of course, Warner probably knows that many parts of the Hadith and Sira are not regarded as perfect; only the Quran is generally regarded as perfect. Regarding the claim that Quran is complete (or is regarded as such by Muslims), also note that some Islamic scholars think that the verses of stoning for adultery, which are documented in the Hadith, were originally in the Quran but were misplaced.
Abul Kasem and Bill Warner were outstanding. Warner laid out a beautiful criteria of what sort of a reformed Quran could conceivably be neutral towards Kafirs, and therefore the foundation of an Islam the rest of the world could live with, and he then demonstrates that more than 61% of the Quran would disappear (the numbers becoming worse once the Golden Rule is applied not only to Infidels, but also to gender inequities between Mohammedan men & women).
Abul Kasem did an outstanding job identifying the elephant(s) in the room: why would contemporaries of Mohammed, or people in the Ummah who did nothing else but wrote various tafsirs, such as Ibn Abbas, for any reason, be papered over by the likes of even Yuksel, let alone Massoud?
Another point about Yuksel, aside from the ad hominem nature of his participation in this forum (hope this is his last on FPM, particularly given his Farrakhan style usage of numerology for justifying his work on the Quran) - not only does he provide his own translations of the Quran, but he also cleverly substitutes 'Allah' with 'God', so that the supremacist nature of the verses get masked:
The above verses then look more like an act of hostility between deist believers and atheists, rather than between Muslims and unbelievers. An outstanding piece of kitman by the notable Turkish reformer. Like Warner pointed out, it is irrelevant to us Kafirs whether there ends up being one God, no God or a million Gods.I'm surprised Haidon uses his approach for his reform project.
As for the underlying project itself, I agree with FPM when they asked:
That being said, I do think that Massoud's approach of altering verses makes more sense than Haidon's approach of re-interpreting verses to mean anything - which could then be applied on any verse(s) to come out with an outcome that meant whatever its readers wanted it to mean.One last thing - I do think Warner overdoes the 'dualism' theory about Islam.
Bill Warner writes,"From the kafir-centric point of view, the Koran is not remotely a holy book. For the scholar, who sees the Koran as simply another old text, the Koran is a derivative work, taken from the Torah, heretical Christianity, Zoroastrianism and the aboriginal Arabic religions. The only new ideas in the Koran are jihad and that Mohammed is the "messenger" of Allah."
Count me in as "kafir-centric."
It appears to me that Pope Benedict XVI can also be classified as "kafir-centric." Consider what he said at Regensburg, 12 September 2006:
How do you square this circle? It's easy! Kafirs like Pope Benedict XVI are free to convert to Islam, and Muslims are free to kill them if they don't, per Moahammad/Allah's express will. Have I captured the essence?
BTW, as expected, the Pope's Regensburg comments provoked outrage all over the Islamic world.
The moral of the story is that if you call a violent zombie a violent zombie, he will respond like a violent zombie. Ameen.
Ebonystone
I dont know where JW got his numbers of conversion but this is not what is happening in Europe at all.
I will say it is the contrary.
I was watching the other day a video of a worker in Paris explaining why he converted to Islam
and it said it all.
The man was not an Einstein but he was tired of the loose morality he was seeing around and when an islamic scholar came along and presented Islam as peaceful but with conservative principles, he went for it.
People need rules and in Europe that used to be almost all Roman Catholic, the loss of faith, the lack of priests and role models opened the door to something new , more attractive.
The devil sometimes disguised himself and the progress of Islam in Europe, if it is due in part to massive immigration , it is mostly the fault of the Christians . They don't have the guts to stand for what they believe in .
duh_swami,
“Muslims against Sharia. Sounds a lot like 'Criminals Against Crime'. It's not so much that the membership wants to eliminate crime, they want to eliminate the competition.”
And what would the competition be?
“You can maybe take the unpleasant verses out of the Quran, but you can't erase it from the minds of millions who have memorized it.”
Really? And in your scholarly estimation, how many Muslims actually read the Koran?
Awake,
“Edip Yuksel is not only a loon, but if he is representative of a "moderate"”
He is not. And FrontPage’s labeling Yuksel as a moderate is clearly way off base.
Kinana of Khaybar,
“Massoud's poll is problematic because the question refers to "reform"--it does not explicitly mention Massoud's specific proposal to actually remove verses.”
We have a specific poll asking “Should passages that may incite violence be expunged from the Koran and other Islamic religious texts?” at http://www.reformislam.org/polls/
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH, that is so funny...
Muslims Against Sharia to create a new Qur'an with the violent verses removed, you have to be joking, so they think that we are that stupid...
Firstly..If they took out all the violent verses there would not be much of a book left..
Secondly.. Most of the Muslim world would never except the revised version, so we would still have a problem, what are they going to do??? go into every house and find the old ones and burn them, of course not so the old ones will still be there for the allah/Mohammad loving people to follow his example of murder, rape, raid, and violence until all the world is for allah, then what version of allah will be excepted is our guess, the strongest one at the time I supose..
MASh,
Thanks; after seeing your later post here I scrolled down and had a look at some of your other poll question. Looks like some interesting questions....too bad Haidon dismissed it all...I don't think he really gave your site a fair reading.
I was surprised to find that about 27% of your Muslim respondents would agree that some verses need to be excised from the Quran.
[Note: A minor technical annoyance is that the percentages shown are for the overall percentages rather than for Muslim and non-Muslim respondents separately, so it's necessary for the reader to do the calculations to find the percentages within Muslim or non-Muslim groups].
Another surprising finding was that a total of about 40% of Muslim respondents thought that 9/11 was justified or that New York should be nuked (i.e., 40% answered one or the other).
[I guess a problem here too is that some people may not be responding seriously. Another problem is that one can't be sure that some Muslim respondents are actually Muslims and not some anti-Islam responders who want to make Islam look bad]
Regarding your Quran, with some verses excised, in a brief check I found some that I'd remove. (I took only a brief sweep, looking for a few problem cases; I did not go through all or even most of it, though I have read the Quran before). I noted that you removed Sura 9 entirely...didn't Irshad Manji also suggest that?
I list verses from your text that I'd remove, with a note explaining why in each case.
• 2.194: The Sacred month for the sacred month and all sacred things are (under the law of) retaliation; whoever then acts aggressively against you, inflict injury on him according to the injury he has inflicted on you and be careful (of your duty) to Allah and know that Allah is with those who guard (against evil).
-needs to go because the retaliation advocated there is eye-for-eye; doesn't distinguish justice from revenge.
• 3.142: Do you think that you will enter the garden while Allah has not yet known those who strive hard from among you, and (He has not) known the patient.
• 3.143: And certainly you desired death before you met it, so indeed you have seen it and you look (at it)
-these verses glorify seeking death as a test of religious faith.
• 3.145: And a soul will not die but with the permission of Allah the term is fixed; and whoever desires the reward of this world, I shall give him of it, and whoever desires the reward of the hereafter I shall give him of it, and I will reward the grateful.
-so people who die of disease, starvation, natural disasters, and terrorist attacks all die by the permission of Allah? If so, how can Allah be good?
• 4.77: Have you not seen those to whom it was said: Withhold your hands, and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate; but when fighting is prescribed for them, lo! a party of them fear men as they ought to have feared Allah, or (even) with a greater fear, and say: Our Lord! why hast Thou ordained fighting for us? Wherefore didst Thou not grant us a delay to a near end? Say: The provision of this world is short, and the hereafter is better for him who guards (against evil); and you shall not be wronged the husk of a date stone.
-religiously-ordained fighting (i.e., holy war); devaluation of earthly life.
• 4.80: Whoever obeys the Apostle, he indeed obeys Allah, and whoever turns back, so We have not sent you as a keeper over them.
-too much power given to Muhammad. Hadith and Sira may be ignored in your approach(?), but there are still some problems in the Quran pertaining to Muhammad (e.g., Sura 66 and many other spots).
• 5.32: For this reason did we prescribe to the children of Israel that whoever slays a soul, unless it be for manslaughter or for mischief in the land, it is as though he slew all men; and whoever keeps it alive, it is as though he kept alive all men; and certainly Our apostles came to them with clear arguments, but even after that many of them certainly act extravagantly in the land.
-contains enormous and deadly loophole re "mischief in the land," such that even without 5:33 this (5:32) still allows killing people who've committed "mischief" --e.g., apostasy, blasphemy against Allah or Muhammad, etc.
• 5.47: And the followers of the Injeel should have judged by what Allah revealed in it; and whoever did not judge by what Allah revealed, those are they that are the transgressors.
• 5.49: And that you should judge between them by what Allah has revealed, and do not follow their low desires, and be cautious of them, lest they seduce you from part of what Allah has revealed to you; but if they turn back, then know that Allah desires to afflict them on account of some of their faults; and most surely many of the people are transgressors.
-above verses say those who don't follow the Quran are "transgressors" or evil etc. (see other transl.)
• 7.4: And how many a town that We destroyed, so Our punishment came to it by night or while they slept at midday.
-reason for removal seems obvious to me; there are many, many verses of this type describing past genocides including collective punishment by Allah
• 22.15: Whoever thinks that Allah will not assist him in this life and the hereafter, let him stretch a rope to the ceiling, then let him cut (it) off, then let him see if his struggle will take away that at which he is enraged.
-tells non-Muslims to commit suicide (see tafsirs and other translations)
• 33.57: Surely (as for) those who speak evil things of Allah and His Apostle, Allah has cursed them in this world and the here after, and He has prepared for them a chastisement bringing disgrace.
• 33.58: And those who speak evil things of the believing men and the believing women without their having earned (it), they are guilty indeed of a false accusation and a manifest sin.
-too vague; could imply that any criticism of Allah, Muhammad, or Muslims is deserving of earthly penalties, penalties to be carried out by Muslims (2:251), and therefore gives Muslims licence to interpret it broadly and implement whatever penalties they want.
• 33.59: O Prophet! say to your wives and your daughters and the women of the believers that they let down upon them their over-garments; this will be more proper, that they may be known, and thus they will not be given trouble; and Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.
-the verse tells Muslim women to cover up so that they won't be harrassed; but the instruction should be for men to control themselves and not to harrass the women. Also, the verse distinguishes between Muslim (covered) and non-Muslim (less covered) women such that men are not prohibited from harrassing the latter.
• 47.35: And be not slack so as to cry for peace and you have the upper hand, and Allah is with you, and He will not bring your deeds to naught.
-should be obvious why that needs to be removed
• 48.28: He it is Who sent His Apostle with the guidance and the true religion that He may make it prevail over all the religions; and Allah is enough for a witness.
-Islamic supremacy
56.36: Then We have made them virgins,
• 56.37: Loving, equals in age,
-What, don't want to give up the houris?
• 57.25: Certainly We sent Our apostles with clear arguments, and sent down with them the Book and the balance that men may conduct themselves with equity; and we have made the iron, wherein is great violence and advantages to men, and that Allah may know who helps Him and His apostles in the secret; surely Allah is Strong, Mighty.
-"we made/brought down/revealed iron" is religious endorsement of the use of weapons, hence holy war, which should be off limits for a religious text.
• 58.20: Surely (as for) those who are in opposition to Allah and His Apostle; they shall be among the most abased.
• 58.21: Allah has written down: I will most certainly prevail, I and My apostles; surely Allah is Strong, Mighty.
• 58.22: You shall not find a people who believe in Allah and the latter day befriending those who act in opposition to Allah and His Apostle, even though they were their (own) fathers, or their sons, or their brothers, or their kinsfolk; these are they into whose hearts He has impressed faith, and whom He has strengthened with an inspiration from Him: and He will cause them to enter gardens beneath which rivers flow, abiding therein; Allah is well-pleased with them and they are well-pleased with him these are Allah's party: now surely the party of Allah are the successful ones.
-again, supremacist, bellicose, intolerant verses.
• 68.4: And most surely you conform (yourself) to sublime morality.
-Muhammad is not of sublime morality
70.29: And those who guard their private parts,
• 70.30: Except in the case of their wives or those whom their right hands possess -- for these surely are not to be blamed,
• 23.5: And who guard their private parts,
• 23.6: Except before their mates or those whom their right hands possess, for they surely are not blameable,
-sex slaves
• 24.32: And marry those among you who are single and those who are fit among your male slaves and your female slaves; if they are needy, Allah will make them free from want out of His grace; and Allah is Ample-giving, Knowing.
• 24.33: And let those who do not find the means to marry keep chaste until Allah makes them free from want out of His grace. And (as for) those who ask for a writing from among those whom your right hands possess, give them the writing if you know any good in them, and give them of the wealth of Allah which He has given you; and do not compel your slave girls to prostitution, when they desire to keep chaste, in order to seek the frail good of this world's life; and whoever compels them, then surely after their compulsion Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.
-talks about managing and regulating slavery instead of abolishing it
Despite his denial, Mr. Yuksel is truly an Islamist, and that is demonstrated in his hatred and disdain for non-Muslems and his misrepresentation of facts. R.S. points the latter out with the link that Yuksel posted that actually contradicts his assertions.
Its interesting to note that, after Yuksel quotes a few Old Testament verses out of context as examples of violent scripture, he goes on to simply list (but not quote) a number of New Testament verses. Looking those verses up, demonstrates why he does not want to actually quote the scripture:
Mat 5:17-19
17"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
I suppose Mr. Yuksel is implying that, because of the previous Old Testament verses he ripped out of historical context, that these verses support the continued use of violence. However, as has been stated in the debate, the Old Testament scriptures he quotes are presented as past history, and not commands for future violence. Furthermore, Christians don't view 17-19 as saying they are commanded to follow everything in the Old Testament. Jesus specifically mentioned the Law and the Prophets, and Christians have taken this to mean the ten commandments and prophecy -- which do NOT command users to do violence.
Mat 5:29-30
29If your right eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell. 30And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to go into hell.
This is clearly hyperbole. None of the disciples gouged out their eyes or cut off any body parts, and you wont find any mainstream denomination that has ever taught a literal interpretation of these verses. (When was the last time you met a Christian who had performed self-mutilation?????)
Mat 10:34
34"Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.
Jesus was prophesying that His teachings were controversial and that many who accepted His teachings would be put to death. He wasn't commanding His followers to take up the sword in violence. This is demonstrated prior to the crucifixion, when Peter tried to defend Jesus by cutting off the servant's ear. Jesus rebuked Peter and healed the servant. By His personal example, Jesus demonstrated that (unlike Islam) His Way was not that of The Sword.
Mat 19:12;
12For some are eunuchs because they were born that way; others were made that way by men; and others have renounced marriage[a]because of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it."
Jesus is clearly using analogy here. The verses preceding Matthew 19:12 are discussing divorce, which Jesus condemns harshly. His disciples exclaim that, with such a strong view against divorce, it would be better not to marry at all. Jesus then responds with these verses saying that, just as there are some men born without sexual desire ("eunuchs ...born that way" who do not marry) and others who have been castrated (and thus do not marry), so there are others who remain celibate and unmarried for religious reasons.
The Catholic church uses this scripture as basis for requiring priests to remain unmarried and celibate. However, they do not castrate their priestss. And Protestant denominations don't require ministers to remain unmarried. So there is no way you can view this text as encouraging self-mutilation.
Mat 21:19;
19Seeing a fig tree by the road, he went up to it but found nothing on it except leaves. Then he said to it, "May you never bear fruit again!" Immediately the tree withered.
So Jesus cursed a non-sentient plant. (Big deal!!) All this tells us is that Jesus wasn't some foaming-at-the-mouth liberal tree-hugger!!!! It certainly can't be interpreted as encouraging anyone to violence!
John 15:6
6If anyone does not remain in me, he is like a branch that is thrown away and withers; such branches are picked up, thrown into the fire and burned.
Note how Jesus uses the phrase "he is LIKE...". Sorry, but this is an obvious analogy for hell. It doesn't have anything to do with burning witches, and certainly isn't a command for anyone to do violence against anyone else.
Concepts of hell show up in all religions. Personally, it does not matter to me if some other religion (e.g. Islam) claims I will go to hell for being an unbeliever. If the pedophile murderer rapist Mohammed is actually the Prophet of the one "true" god "Allah", and I don't believe him, then I guess I will indeed burn in hell.
If I had concerns that Islam might possibly be true, than I should indeed convert. But, since that isn't likely at all, I am certainly not worried about that!
Likewise, before I became a Christian, it never bothered me that the New Testament declared I was going to hell for my unbelief. Since I didn't believe it was true, it wasn't a threat to me.
So, as far as I am concerned, hell is a non-issue, and is a waste of time discussing in a debate like this.
1 Peter 2:13-14
13Submit yourselves for the Lord's sake to every authority instituted among men: whether to the king, as the supreme authority, 14or to governors, who are sent by him to punish those who do wrong and to commend those who do right.
Again, this does not command anyone to do violence. It is commanding submission to authority, not violence against anyone. If anything, this verse could tend to support passivism, if verse 13 is read without verse 14.
However, note the qualifier at the end of verse 14: "who are sent by him to punish those who do wrong and to commend those who do right."
This is NOT commanding people to submit to any authority whatsoever (e.g. Hitler, Mohammed), but only to those righteous authorities who are sent by God to punish wrongdoing and encourage good.
No one may have any objection on carrying out of any research on the subjects given in the Holy Book of Quran; because this book is for the guidance of the entire mankind and subject peoples may rightly so may explore the given guide lines and may exercise their rights to discuss the contents in details. Efforts, hard work or investment put into any research, in it self bears no value; what matters most is the ‘aim’ and the ‘mind set’ implied; in it …which must be taken in account.
The vicious design of under mining and blemishing the teaching of Divine Scripture found in the deliberations of participants in the panel is very glaring. One is bound to think that knowing it to be such that; this is the scripture given by God; why after all there is an objection being raised to the authenticity of divine scripture or God given discretions in the wide scheme of God? What is at stake?
The past history of panellists shows that main aim of assembly of this panel may not be to high light the strictness of Quranic verses containing admonishes itself but under the cover of removing supposedly the harshness from the scripture (after seeing the list of verses earmarked); the prime aim seems to be; to delete all the reference of the old denominations; where the unwarranted conduct of Judaic and Christian that God high lights in these verses; that they earned wrath of God for their wrong doings. They also exceeded limits and were declared defunct and there after they stay as a rejected lot of the past. With these references God directs and admonishes the Muslim that now ball is in their courts; they must stay alert and be warned; not to go down those stricken roads and end up as a forsaken bunch!
Here…these are the references which prick and make some panellist uneasy with the urge to delete them altogather. Looks like there is another New Testament in making?
Adabarez
For clarity purpose above post is edited as under:
Holy Quran is a book of light and guidance for the whole of humanity and the entire God-fearing people have their right to carry out any research in it to reach for the truth that it contains and may discuss the prose and cons in details. This is observed that efforts, hard work or investment put into any research; in it self bears no value; what matters the most is the ‘aim’ and the ‘mind set’ implied in it. This aspect needs specific consideration before weighing any body’s efforts.
A symposium held under the auspice of Frontpagemag .com seems to be a futile effort to portray Quran as a book, which promotes aggression and violence in the societies. It is a deliberate attempt to misguide and mislead the people and keep them away from the word of truth. While going through the deliberations of the participants on the panel; their craving to shape or scramble up some kind of plot to undermine the Divine scripture of Holy Quran is very much evident. The effort to malign and blemish the claim of Holy Book of Quran being a pristine scripture having its original purity; uncorrupted or unsullied commandments and to bring it down in the line of old obliterated scripture is quite glaring. Nevertheless, at the same time, surprisingly it is not difficult to judge that they all do believe in the divinity of the scripture and this being true.
One is bound to think that after knowing it to be such that; this is the true scripture given by God; why after all an objection is raised now to criticize the particular admonishing commandments often repeated in Quran to warn the believers? After all; what is there in the scripture, which panelists find so disturbing? What is there which is at stake?
The past history of panelists involved in the symposium shows that the main aim of assemblage of this panel may not be to high light the strictness found in commandment of Quranic verses containing admonishes itself. But it is a plot that under the cover of removing the supposedly the harshness from the scripture (after seeing the list of verses earmarked); the prime aim seems to be; to delete all the reference of the old denominations, where the unwarranted conduct of Judaic and Christian that God high lights in these verses earned them a severe displeasure. They earned wrath of God for their wrong doings. The Quran repeatedly speaks that they exceeded limits; were declared defunct and are placed as rejected. With the references given above, God directs and admonishes the Muslims that now ball is in their courts; they must stay alert and stay warned that to go down those old stricken roads will bring them the severe displeasure of God and they may end up as forsaken bunch!
Here…these are the references, which prick and perturb the panelist and make them uneasy> It urges them to better delete these references altogether. No allegation; no charge sheet; no reprimand; No bamboo shoots; no flute will be made to play; Mirza may roam the streets freely with the clean slate. It looks like some big conspiracy is in offing and another New Testament is in making?
Adabarez
Ladies and gentlemen
lo and behold, a Muslim Disruptor appears, posting on the Thread in hopes of gaining the Last Word.
Observe the mad-hattery.
But he or she is wasting their key-strokes attempting to throw sand in the eyes of anyone who may happen to read their rubbish whilst browsing the archives.
No intelligent human being, in possession of their senses, including especially their moral sense, would prefer the Quran, and Sira, and Hadith, to either the TaNaKh (Hebrew scriptures - what Christians call the Old or First Testament) or the Christian Scriptures, also called the New Testament. I have read the Quran. I have also read the entire Bible.
The Quran is chaotic, boring, endlessly repetitive, and laced with hatred; it seeks to terrify, deceive and enslave. 'Allah' is a capricious, deceitful tyrant - a typical middle-eastern despot writ large. The Torah and the Gospels shine with the holy light of the loving and faithful, promise-keeping YHWH, who does not enslave human beings - he sets them free, making them His beloved children.
As for basic ethics, the difference between Bible and Quran can be put in a nutshell.
Torah and Gospels teach the Golden Rule - 'you shall love your neighbour as yourself', 'do unto others as you would they should do unto you' (and who the 'neighbour' is, and who those 'others' might be is not limited to one's co-religionists - indeed, in Jewish and Christian practice it potentially applies to the entire human race; charity toward all is the 'default' position; one does NOT actively seek to hurt or harm ANYONE, first up).
The Quran, on the other hand, takes it for granted that Muslims will be nice to one another and horrible toward non-Muslims: Surah 48:29, "those who follow him (Mohammed) are ruthless to the unbelievers but compassionate to one another".
See the difference? A bottomless chasm divides the universal ethic of the Jews and Christians, from the dualistic ethic of the Muslims, by which compassion is reserved exclusively for fellow Muslims whilst cruelty may be meted out to non-Muslims as a matter of course.
Further: no person with any solid knowledge of how literature works, and possessing even a modicum of knowledge of the textual history of the Jewish and Christian scriptures, and the history of the Jewish people and also of the early church, not to mention archaeology and history in the Levant 1000BC-600 AD, would EVER entertain for a moment the idea that the Quran, and Islamic religion, was the 'original' and that the Jewish and the Christian scriptures, and the faith derived from them, was a corrupted copy.
The historical fact is exactly the other way around. The Torah and the Gospels are the ancient, complex, interesting, beautiful and morally luminous original.
The Quran is a johnny-come-lately, grossly distorted, amoral and hostile copy/ anti-text - foefic through and through.