| FrontPageMag.com | By Robert Spencer | By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Dhimmi Watch | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog | Raymond Ibrahim | Robert Spencer |  |
|
|
|||||||||||
|
|
Verses 64-120 of the Qur’an’s Sura 3, “The Family of Imran,” continue to charge that Jews and Christians reject Islam only out of perversity, and call them back to the true faith of Abraham. V. 64 caps the Qur’an’s presentation of Christianity in verses 33-63 by calling the People of the Book to accept Islam. This is presented as an invitation to an “agreement”: “that we shall worship none but Allah, and that we shall ascribe no partner unto Him, and that none of us shall take others for lords beside Allah.” This would (in the Islamic view) require Christians to reject Christ’s divinity, as well as the Jews’ and Christians’ practice of deifying their “rabbis and monks,” which the Tafsir al-Jalalayn mentions in connection with this verse. That charge comes from Qur’an 9:31.
In verses 65-68 Allah rebukes the Jews and Christians for arguing over something about which they “have no knowledge” (v. 66): the religion of Abraham. The Patriarch couldn’t have been a Jew or a Christian, says v. 65, because “the Torah and the Gospel were not revealed till after him.” In reality, he was a Muslim hanif (حَنِيفًا مُّسْلِمً) (v. 67) – as the Tafsir al-Jalalayn explains: “Abraham in truth was not a Jew, neither a Christian, but he was a Muslim, professing the Oneness of God, and a hanīf, who inclined away from all other religions towards the upright one; and he was never of the idolaters.” What’s more, Muhammad and the Muslims are “the nearest of kin to Abraham,” as Ibn Kathir says: “This Ayah [verse] means, ‘The people who have the most right to be followers of Ibrahim are those who followed his religion and this Prophet, Muhammad, and his Companions…”
Of course, if Abraham was a Muslim, Judaism is completely illegitimate. The Jews (and Christians) are simply renegades from the true faith of their own prophets – which was Islam. And that is the view of Judaism and Christianity that many Muslims have today. V. 69 emphasizes the perversity of some of the Jews and Christians: they wish to lead the Muslims astray, when it is actually they who go astray, rejecting the “signs of Allah” even though they are witnesses of them (v. 70). “Signs” is in Arabic “ayat,” which is also the word used for the verses of the Qur’an. Thus this could refer to the delegation of Christians from Najran and/or other Christians and Jews who heard Muhammad recite the Qur’an and still rejected Islam – and, according to Islamic accounts, knew Muhammad was a prophet but didn’t want to admit it for selfish reasons. Says Maududi: “This is why the Qur’an repeatedly blames them for maliciously misrepresenting the signs of God which they saw with their own eyes and to which they themselves attested.” And they even stooped, as recounted in verses 71-2, to subterfuges to try to turn others away from Islam: “they tell a lie against Allah, and (well) they know it” (v. 75). Among these dirty tricks, they pass off their own words as Holy Scripture (v. 78); some skeptics have speculated that Muhammad himself, seeking information about earlier revelations, was among their victims, before he caught on to the ruse.
Verses 79-80 dismiss as “impossible” the idea that a prophet – clearly Jesus – could have taught that he was divine. He is just a prophet like the other prophets (v. 84), and Allah will accept from no one any religion other than Islam (v. 85). And those who reject the true Faith after accepting it bear “the curse of Allah, of His angels, and of all mankind” (verses 86-7). This refers, says Maududi, to the “Jewish rabbis of Arabia” who acknowledged and then denied Muhammad. Verses 93-4 assert that Jewish dietary laws were invented by the Jews (or Jacob – Israel – himself), and v. 95 calls them to reject what Maududi calls “hair-splitting legalism” and return to the true monotheism of Abraham – i.e., Islam.
V. 96 says that the shrine at Mecca (Bakkah) was the world’s first house of worship. It was built, says Ibn Kathir, by Abraham, “whose religion the Jews and Christians claim they follow. However, they do not perform Hajj [Pilgrimage] to the house that Ibrahim built by Allah’s command, and to which he invited the people to perform Hajj.” The People of the Book “reject the signs [ayat] of Allah” (v. 98) and try to obstruct others on the path of Allah (v. 99). If Muslims listen to these Jews and Christians who reject Islam, they will become apostates (v. 100). On the Day of Judgment, the faces of the blessed will be white, and those of the damned will be black (v. 106).
On earth, meanwhile, the Muslims are “the best community that hath been raised up for mankind,” while most Jews and Christians are “perverted transgressors” (v. 110). However, the Muslims need not fear, for the Jews and Christians are also cowards: “if they come out to fight you, they will show you their backs” (v. 111). They are covered with shame – “except when under a covenant (of protection) from Allah and from men” (v. 112). This, says Bulandshahri, refers to the non-Muslims’ agreeing “to pay the atonement (Jizya) to the Muslim state, in which case they will be accorded the rights of a Dhimmi.” These rights are not equal to the rights of Muslims: the dhimmis must accept subservience and second-class status (cf. 9:29) in exchange for a guarantee of protection – as long as they do not offend the Muslims.
Now, all of this is not to paint the People of the Book with a broad brush! Some “rehearse the Signs of Allah all night long, and they prostrate themselves in adoration” (v. 113). According to Ibn Ishaq, Ibn Abbas and others, this refers to “the clergy of the People of the Scriptures who embraced the faith” of Islam. But steer clear of those who don’t accept Islam: v. 118, says Ibn Kathir, forbids Muslims from “taking followers of other religions as consultants and advisors,” for even those who are outwardly kind actually hate the Muslims (v. 119-120).
Next week: The rest of Sura 3 introduces various lessons drawn from the events of the Battle of Badr, the Muslims’ first great victory (624 AD) — when the Muslims were “a contemptible little force” (v. 123) but Allah granted them victory over a numerically superior force of the pagan Quraysh tribe. This battle has had immense influence over Islamic attitudes toward warfare to this day.
Posted by Robert at August 6, 2007 8:03 AM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
|
This explains a great deal about the teaching of reversion. I guess, in reality, Allah wanted us to all revert to being Arab as well, since it seems to be part and parcel of the package.
Unfortunately, The Prophet Who shall not be named, never gets around to explaining just what it is that we did to pervert the One True Faith....but conversely, the followers of said prophet have yet to adequately explain what they did with the following: the 10 commandments, the Psalms which glorify music, now that we know Allah hates it so much. The mercy toward sinners, as shown by Christ, who, in the name of being God Incarnate demonstrated the love of the father.
In fact, the idea of referring to Allah by his followers as Father must be vile and repulsive.
Islam sounds more like a counterfeit religion than anything else.
![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/nav-commenters.gif)
at August 6, 2007 9:07 AM
Islam a "counterfeit religion."
It's a heresy of Christianity and Judaism and perverts Christian doctrine. It's not and never was a "new" religion - it's a heresy and Mohammed's their heresiarch.
Posted by: darcy at August 6, 2007 9:20 AM
Actually it seems to me that all religion is counterfeit. No intention to offend here. I would just merely point out that all religions make absolutist claims to knowledge. Knowledge, which they certainly do not have. It seems to me the very definition of arrogance. This blog certainly gives some insight into Islam's own brand of arrogance. "Everyone else is wrong, trying to hurt us, and steal from our true knowledge." What a joke.
If only people could be more modest. Why is it so difficult for people not to assume to be better than everyone else. In each religion, the narrator's people are truly "special" and gifted individuals. And everyone else is evil. Its funny how that is a reoccurring theme amongst all religions. This one is particularly nasty.
Posted by: v4ri4bl3 at August 6, 2007 9:32 AM
Uh, excuse me, v4ri4bl3, but your analysis of religions is quite generalized and simplistic.
Nowhere in Judaism and Christianity does it say "Kill everybody not Jewish or Christian."
The Koran, however, contains 109 War Verses in which "Allah" commands -commands- his followers to "Kill the Unbelievers" (of Islam). "Slay the Infidel" (that's Jews, Christians, and anyone not Islamic). Until the whole world is "all for Allah." i.e. massacre everybody until Islam rules.
Now, which of the above would you consider to be "evil," and which not? Specifically.
(P.S. Buddhism also doesn't say "Kill everyone not Buddhist until the whole world is "all for Buddha.")
Posted by: darcy at August 6, 2007 9:47 AM
I apologize Darcy but you are incorrect. There is plenty of warrant for murder, rampant throughout the Old Testament.
Perhaps you have not read any of the Old Testament? If not you will find you are most certainly wrong on both accounts, considering the Bible (Christianity) includes the Old Testament (Judaisim).
Just to quote a few of my favorites...
1) If your own full brother, or your son or daughter, or your beloved wife, or you intimate friend, entices you secretly to serve other gods, whom you and your fathers have not known, gods of any other nations, near at hand or far away, from one end of the earth to the other: do not yield to him or listen to him, nor look with pity upon him, to spare or shield him, but kill him. Your hand shall be the first raised to slay him; the rest of the people shall join in with you. You shall stone him to death, because he sought to lead you astray from the Lord, your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, that place of slavery. And all Israel, hearing of this, shall fear and never do such evil as this in your midst. (Deuteronomy 13:7-12 NAB)
2) One day a man who had an Israelite mother and an Egyptian father got into a fight with one of the Israelite men. During the fight, this son of an Israelite woman blasphemed the LORD's name. So the man was brought to Moses for judgment. His mother's name was Shelomith. She was the daughter of Dibri of the tribe of Dan. They put the man in custody until the LORD's will in the matter should become clear. Then the LORD said to Moses, "Take the blasphemer outside the camp, and tell all those who heard him to lay their hands on his head. Then let the entire community stone him to death. Say to the people of Israel: Those who blaspheme God will suffer the consequences of their guilt and be punished. Anyone who blasphemes the LORD's name must be stoned to death by the whole community of Israel. Any Israelite or foreigner among you who blasphemes the LORD's name will surely die. (Leviticus 24:10-16 NLT)
3) Suppose you hear in one of the towns the LORD your God is giving you that some worthless rabble among you have led their fellow citizens astray by encouraging them to worship foreign gods. In such cases, you must examine the facts carefully. If you find it is true and can prove that such a detestable act has occurred among you, you must attack that town and completely destroy all its inhabitants, as well as all the livestock. Then you must pile all the plunder in the middle of the street and burn it. Put the entire town to the torch as a burnt offering to the LORD your God. That town must remain a ruin forever; it may never be rebuilt. Keep none of the plunder that has been set apart for destruction. Then the LORD will turn from his fierce anger and be merciful to you. He will have compassion on you and make you a great nation, just as he solemnly promised your ancestors. "The LORD your God will be merciful only if you obey him and keep all the commands I am giving you today, doing what is pleasing to him." (Deuteronomy 13:13-19 NLT)
Posted by: v4ri4bl3 at August 6, 2007 11:23 AM
I will concede Darcy, however, that Christians and Jews have done much better about ignoring these despicable passages or completely forgotten them all-together as it seems in your case. Therefore, Islam poses a much more significant threat. Except of course for certain militias in Africa who slaughter other's in the name of Christianity. But they don't have to much affect on the western world.
Posted by: v4ri4bl3 at August 6, 2007 11:25 AM
v4ri4bl3
In each religion, the narrator's people are truly "special" and gifted individuals. And everyone else is evil. Its funny how that is a reoccurring theme amongst all religions. This one is particularly nasty."
Outside of the notion of the "chosen" people its a non-starter. You won't find it in Hinduism, Taoism, Buddhism, or even Christianity(unless you're dealing with a fundie). Being any of these faiths doesn't mean you're special, but that it demands you comport yourself in a moral and ethical manner and follow other injunctions.
Islam is in class by itself in terms of preaching violence, deception and treachery as means to convert or kill unbelievers. How do you think Islam spread from Arabia to Spain to the Indus in little over century? not by peaceful conversion but by the sword.
As far as the OT passages go, name the last time these were used by Jews for violence.
That said, that in secular religions like Maoism and Communism you will find followers of them killing and torturing non-believers like the Tibetans for sport. Its also funny that you don't hear squat from liberal secularists about this. Guess they love their Chinese made IPOD more than people.
Posted by: waltc at August 6, 2007 12:23 PM
I don't want to join into a 'which religion is better' argument, but I totally disagree with v4ri4bl3. I know of no religion, none, that have the kind of all or nothing sentiment of the Quran.
Much of the 'old testament' evil is understood by most people through the filter of hillbilly Christian preachers.
Posted by: Melek Taus at August 6, 2007 12:36 PM
I don't want to join into a 'which religion is better' argument, but I totally disagree with v4ri4bl3. I know of no religion, none, that have the kind of all or nothing sentiment of the Quran.
Much of the 'old testament' evil is understood by most people through the filter of hillbilly Christian preachers.
Posted by: Melek Taus at August 6, 2007 12:40 PM
"If Muslims listen to these Jews and Christians who reject Islam, they will become apostates (v. 100). On the Day of Judgment, the faces of the blessed will be white, and those of the damned will be black (v. 106)."
So a discussion with Jews or Christians who think Islam sucks turns Muslims into apostates? Well, well, let's chat then!
And...
If you're ancestors were from Sub-Saharan Africa, and you convert to Islam, you get to go to paradise as a Caucasian? And get 72 virgins and young boys too!?!?!!! Saweeeeet!!!! Wait though, what if you're female? Do you get 72 eunuchs? 71 gay guys and Brad Pitt? A perpetual virgin who loses her virginity every day for the rest of eternity? Can we get a clarifying cleric on this topic please?
Shalom,
Theosebes
at August 6, 2007 12:42 PM
To both Walt and Melek, I believe I already conceded that Islam is particularly nasty about Infidels. However, similar injunctions to murder, enslave etc. can be found in the Old Testament. Just wanted to point out that it does no good to play Holier than Thou using Christianity or Judaism vs Islam. It is up to the individual whether or not they follow an injunction or not.
Specifically to Walt,
I was not touching specifically on eastern religions but merely Abrahamic. I agree that even secular ideologies can be used equally as justification to commit atrocities.
Of course Islam being very governmental has been used to spread and that seems to be the current idea. This was done to a lighter degree by Christianity as well, albeit quite some time ago. Doesn't appear to be such a problem now, except in certain parts of Africa.
I am certainly glad Jews aren't using the OT to incite violence. It is that very discretion to ignore the injunctions of violence in their holy texts that is missing in the world of Islam.
Just wanted to point out that we shouldn't try to say, if only they were like Christianity. Even though I just did purchase Mr. Spencer's new book. I'm sure that I will agree with him on many aspects he presents. I just don't have a need for any religion.
Posted by: v4ri4bl3 at August 6, 2007 12:58 PM
To both Walt and Melek, I believe I already conceded that Islam is particularly nasty about Infidels. However, similar injunctions to murder, enslave etc. can be found in the Old Testament. Just wanted to point out that it does no good to play Holier than Thou using Christianity or Judaism vs Islam. It is up to the individual whether or not they follow an injunction or not.
Specifically to Walt,
I was not touching specifically on eastern religions but merely Abrahamic. I agree that even secular ideologies can be used equally as justification to commit atrocities.
Of course Islam being very governmental has been used to spread and that seems to be the current idea. This was done to a lighter degree by Christianity as well, albeit quite some time ago. Doesn't appear to be such a problem now, except in certain parts of Africa.
I am certainly glad Jews aren't using the OT to incite violence. It is that very discretion to ignore the injunctions of violence in their holy texts that is missing in the world of Islam.
Just wanted to point out that we shouldn't try to say, if only they were like Christianity. Even though I just did purchase Mr. Spencer's new book. I'm sure that I will agree with him on many aspects he presents. I just don't have a need for any religion.
Posted by: v4ri4bl3 at August 6, 2007 12:59 PM
To both Walt and Melek, I believe I already conceded that Islam is particularly nasty about Infidels. However, similar injunctions to murder, enslave etc. can be found in the Old Testament. Just wanted to point out that it does no good to play Holier than Thou using Christianity or Judaism vs Islam. It is up to the individual whether or not they follow an injunction or not.
Specifically to Walt,
I was not touching specifically on eastern religions but merely Abrahamic. I agree that even secular ideologies can be used equally as justification to commit atrocities.
Of course Islam being very governmental has been used to spread and that seems to be the current idea. This was done to a lighter degree by Christianity as well, albeit quite some time ago. Doesn't appear to be such a problem now, except in certain parts of Africa.
I am certainly glad Jews aren't using the OT to incite violence. It is that very discretion to ignore the injunctions of violence in their holy texts that is missing in the world of Islam.
Just wanted to point out that we shouldn't try to say, if only they were like Christianity. Even though I just did purchase Mr. Spencer's new book. I'm sure that I will agree with him on many aspects he presents. I just don't have a need for any religion.
Posted by: v4ri4bl3 at August 6, 2007 1:14 PM
Robert
Given the above discussion, does your upcoming book 'Why Christianity is and Islam isn't' - covers Judaism as well, in the context of Abrahamic faiths, or is it restricted to the various sects of Christianity - Catholic, Protestant, Orthodox and any other?
Posted by: Infidel Pride at August 6, 2007 1:27 PM
In any religion, faith and logic must intersect at some point. This never happens in Islam. Ask yourself, do you really believe that God recited the Book of the Luke and the Torah AGAIN, changing it the second time?
In the Book of Revelation it says, "Nothing shall be added, and nothing shall be taken away."
That sums up the heresies that try to base their faiths on the Bible, and Islam is a heresy.
at August 6, 2007 2:09 PM
V4r14bl3:
The Old Testament is understood by most Christians to be a historical record. It takes a lot of time and reading to understand that in most, if not all, cases of these "evils", that those that are on the receiving end were warned numerous times to repent of their sins. If the people did not repent, then often the Lord would send in his chosen people as punishment. If they did repent, as they did in Nineveh, then God would show his mercy and spare them of punishment.
As a Christian, I see the world through the eyes of the New Testament. It is a testament of love, grace and mercy. It is a testament of the death of the law and the birth of God's eternal grace through his Son Jesus Christ. It is a testament that teaches us to "Love the LORD your God with all your heart." and to "Do unto others and you would have them do unto you." It is a testament that accepts all in spite of themselves and their sins, forgives them and wipes the slate clean.
The New Testament truly is The Religion of Peace.
I think a majority of Christians would agree with me on this.
Posted by: Canadian Christian at August 6, 2007 2:15 PM
Canadian Christian,
Good post. Of course I could not be further in disagreement with you than I am about the Bible itself, I agree that most Christians would see it your way. And we should all be thankful for that.
As an Atheist I see the Bible how you probably view Homer's Illiad. A book of Mythology that at this point in time is considered an accurate account of history but I wouldn't doubt if future people of Earth look at it as fable.
Problem with the bible is that you have to accept that all people who disagree with it will be punished eternally. There is no mercy in that. Its the same type of Mercy Allah would allow if you converted to Islam. This is by no means mercy. This is totalitarianism. At least in the Old Testament you would just be murdered if you didn't "Repent" what early believers considered sin. It wasn't until Jesus came around that anyone who didn't surrender their mind to ancient literature and dogma would be tortured eternally. I would consider that, ironically, a much greater "Sin," than murder, slavery etc. Most Americans, rightly so, won't even justify torture against criminals, and yet as a Christian you have to openly accept the eternal torture of those who think differently. What a ghastly immoral idea.
The only type of Love, Grace, and Mercy that exists, only when you do as I say, is the same kind that you see in abusive relationships. Where as long as, for instance, the abused woman does what she is told, the husband will love her and protect her. We consider this pretty sick when it involves domestic relationships but in a supposed perfect being this is glorified.
A true religion of peace would have a God who accepted all individual merely because they were alive. One who would allow people to think for themselves but still have responsibility for their own actions.
But I am certainly glad, most Christians think like you do.
Posted by: v4ri4bl3 at August 6, 2007 3:00 PM
Re: Spencer: Blogging the Qur’an: Sura 3, “The Family of Imran,” verses 64-120
It is difficult not to react to these supremacist delusions/rationalizations without anger. The whole thing is like an Ibby Hooper distortion-lie-misrepresentation of the facts and watching the well-praised media-education-often-government "weaklings" (as Hitler called them in Mien Kampf) pretend that supremacist Islamic lies are not being told by CAIR-style-liar-Islam-fascists. "Islam is a religion of peace" is the "big lie" of all. (You have to unleash that "barrage of slander and lies" to break the critics, as Hitler advised, don't you Ibby?)
I will not say more or else I will get another reprimand from Robert. However, how does it feel to be part of a religion (Islam) of deception, Ibby? How does it feel to be a liar, Ibby? How does it feel to constantly have to fool non-Muslims, Ibby?
The "weaklings" are fewer and fewer, Ibby. The cat's out of the bag, Ibby.
at August 6, 2007 5:38 PM
Uh, yeah, v4ri4ble - We live according to the New Testament, not the Old.
Nice try.
The Koran has no "New Koran" - only the same old same old "Kill everybody who's not Islamic."
End of story.
Posted by: darcy at August 6, 2007 7:09 PM
The Koran commands Hate and Murder for All Time.
The New Testament preaches love, mercy, compassion, and forgiveness, for All Time.
Which would you choose, Mr. Atheist?
Posted by: darcy at August 6, 2007 7:15 PM
Like I have posted before. Whenever you hear any of these idiots spouting off. Just take everything they are saying positive or negative on any subject and the truth will be the opposite.
So "Islam is the religion of peace" You can replace the word with hate or death or any antonym that fits. Now you won't be confused and can get down and understand were they are really coming from. Oh, and if the inverse does not make sense then they are lying.
SIMPLE! 8^)
Posted by: Im.mad.as.HELL! at August 6, 2007 7:24 PM
Darcy,
As I said previously,I am ecstatic that Christians choose to be hypocritical about their own doctrines. The fact that they are is a benefit to us all. The fact is Muslims are better at religion than Christians and Jews. As far as following their religion I mean. It in no way justifies the actions they take on account of their religion. Once they learn to "Reinterpret" all of their texts into abstraction we will have a more peaceful society.
You made the claim that Islam is a heresy of a religion. Just wanted to make it clear that all religion is a fabrication so don't pull the better than your holy texts BS because it is extremely hypocritical. All religions stand on the non-exist platform of faith.
Second, you claim that no where in Christianity or Judaism does it say you should kill unbelievers. There you were so wrong it bordered on deception. I hope you now have a better insight into your own religion and won't play Holier than Thou with Islam.
If you want to be useful in the conversation how about explaining to Muslims why they should not take their texts so literally as by your example. I'm sure another religious person would be much better at convincing them than a bloodthirsty heathen like all atheists are.
Posted by: v4ri4bl3 at August 6, 2007 7:44 PM
Darcy,
Sorry to litter the page with our conversation but something about what you said struck me as funny.
You said you follow the Old Testament not the new. Do you not realize that without the Old Testament the whole New Testament would be invalidated?
Original Sin, the whole reason why Jesus supposedly died for our sins...guess where that one comes from? If you guessed Adam and Eve you scored a point on bible trivia for the day. If you say the Old Testament doesn't count, Jesus is a lunatic and sacrificed himself for nothing.
You probably follow the 10 commandments right, and think they are valid in your faith? Guess where they came from?
Shall we remove Moses with the Exodus and Noah as well?
And perhaps you don't recall that in order for Jesus even to be considered God he had to fulfill the Messianic Prophecy. Well Darcy, since you eliminated the Old Testament I guess Jesus becomes just a man.
Please, learn a little more about this before you make such claims. You may here it all the time at church, but a little reading into the claim makes things fall apart. In order for Christianity to even hope to stay together, you MUST include the Old Testament.
Posted by: v4ri4bl3 at August 6, 2007 7:53 PM
v4ri4bl3
Perhaps God should have carved an 11th commandment on the stone tablets..
"Thou shalt not steal the thread and steer it where it wast not meant to go"
A public stoning for you Sir.
I am a follower of Jesus Christ (I prefer to say Mossiach Yeshua), and fully accept the "Old Testamant" (Tanaach) as an integral part of my faith. Christians don't go around stoning people, yet they do accept Tanaach as an integral part of their faith, because Yeshua brought a new covenant (new testamant) to us.
As you rightly point out, the New Testament would be void of meaning if it wasn't understood in relation to the Tannach (old testament, old covenant). This does not however bind Christian to "stone unbelievers" as we are commanded to simply brush the dust off our shoes and walk away from them.
There is no contradiction nor hypocrisy here.
Posted by: Ozi_bloke at August 6, 2007 10:23 PM
Right Bloke,
Because you ignore the things you know are evil there is absolutely no hypocrisy. Well sir I am glad you choose to ignore half of the book. That is fabulous.
I do apologize for derailing the thread. But when I smell bullshit. I have to call it.
Posted by: v4ri4bl3 at August 6, 2007 11:57 PM
v4ri4bl3, do you understand what the word "hypocrisy" means? I don't think you're able to detect bs...As a "thought" experiment, let's pretend that the word "atheist" actually refers to a "religion." Ok? Now, who (pray tell) is claiming to be "better" than all the others? hmm? who would that be? other than "the atheists" are claiming to be smarter and better than the religious folk. You do this in your posts. Or how about, in thinking about how atheists worship, consider: "Why is it so difficult for people not to assume to be better than everyone else?" Sound familiar? (as I laugh)
Posted by: J.S. at August 7, 2007 11:38 AM
J.S.,
I am not going to play in to Ad Hominem games with you. Atheism isn't a religion. And as any person who chooses to study religion I am by all means capable of conversing about it.
I don't think I am better than anyone here. I merely pointed out that calling Islam a fabrication of a religion is a bit of a joke. Islam is every bit as much a religion as Christianity or Judaism and it is condescending to state otherwise, regardless of the differences of their doctrines or the violence enacted in their name.
I don't assume to be better than anyone else and have never made that claim. Never did I state that atheists are less likely to be violent because we don't have the violent Christian doctrine to follow etc. It was Darcy who made the claim that Christianity and Judaism do not warrant violence against unbelievers in their texts. That is a blantently untrue.
Perhaps in your oversight you can correct me? After all I am being hypocritical and conceited by bringing up the point that Darcy was wrong about her religion on several accounts?
What exactly do you disagree with about what I said? Instead of actually take into account any of the content of the posts I made you decide to attack me personally. Smooth tactic but nonetheless doesn't change whether or not I am right or wrong.
Lets all now talk smack about the atheist because he corrected us on the Bible.
Posted by: v4ri4bl3 at August 7, 2007 1:16 PM
I did not intend to attack you -- just thought I'd mention that (from my vantage point) you were doing some of the same as those dubbed "religious." Don't you think being an atheist is better? Doesn't that put you on a "higher plane?" O yeah, and speaking of prophesies, wasn't there a pronouncement regarding future people seeing religious texts as "fable"? (again, this is not so much as an attack as an attempt to understand.)
Posted by: J.S. at August 7, 2007 2:23 PM
J.S.,
Hopefully I didn't come across too brash. After reviewing some of my posts I can sense my own sarcasm so I can see how that may lead to false interpretations. I just get irritated when I see people talk about how their religion is better than the other for reasons which do not appear to be accurate.
Perhaps I came across as condescending but that is not my intent. Merely to argue the point. For instance, I have a completely non-arabic westernized friend I work with who is Muslim. While I don't agree with the tenets of the religion in any case, she still chooses not to follow the parts that are violent etc. I am sure she reinterprets them so they are compatible with her life, just as most Christians do. But the books still say what they say regardless of how we try to twist the words. Only point I was making.
Maybe thats how I can come across as religious. But the only thing that I have in common with a religious point is a particular worldview. I however do not believe in anything which does not have credible, objective evidence. That kind you might be able to test in a lab for instance.
I am definitely on no higher plane. I do know a decent amount about religion though and actively study it. And I think you are right about the "prophecy" if that term isn't ironic enough for the situation but wasn't it Nietzsche who said "God is Dead?" Maybe thats what you are referring to.
I refuse to think that all religion or mythology will completely disappear. Just look at the sales of the book "The Secret." But I think our current popular religions will fade away. At least thats what history has demonstrated. One evolves into another or dies out completely against the mountain of time.
Posted by: v4ri4bl3 at August 7, 2007 5:24 PM
When you write: "I just get irritated when I see people talk about how their religion is better than the other for reasons which do not appear to be accurate," I think that (perhaps everyone?) has his or her own version of "truth" (which could be expressed religiously or atheistically). and I think that people will insist that their way *is* "better" -- I just think this is "natural." that is, people hold such beliefs not because they think their views are false or evil...they make a commitment to these beliefs (again, this could be atheistic beliefs or scientific ones) because they judge the beliefs to be accurate and true (and "better" than all the others.) Maybe where the problems begin is when it turns to a "triumphalism?" or the person believes that he or she is superior to others due to belief in X -- or develops so strong an aversion to alternative views that the person becomes narrow-minded, bigoted? I read an interesting article on tolerance some years ago, wish I could find it again -- it provided some interesting insights into what constitutes "tolerance" -- and when things cross the line -- for example when "tolerating" the intolerable becomes no longer a virtue but becomes in itself a problem...
at August 7, 2007 11:44 PM
I agree with you to a degree. But if you look to my original argument it isn't based on my personal beliefs about Christianity or Islam. Had I been arguing my beliefs I would have been arguing that both are simply untrue completely.
However, the argument I made was that the Old Testament contains injunctions to commit murder against unbelievers. There is no opinion in this matter. It is simply a fact. If you don't believe me you can simply lookup the verses I presented earlier in my comments. This has nothing to do with opinion. It is concrete factual information. How the believer chooses to take this text into their own ideology is another question in its own right. They may choose to act on the injunction as Christians did during the Crusades and the Spanish Inquisition. Or they can choose to take it with a grain of salt. Neither has any impact on my original argument.
Posted by: v4ri4bl3 at August 8, 2007 8:42 AM
I realize that your original argument was not based on a belief in any form of religion. I realize that you are taking an atheistic stance. (my point was only that -- from my point of view -- whether one is arguing from a religious stance or from an atheistic stance, it sounds the same...that is the claimants for Belief X (atheist or religious) will assert that it is "the truth", that their views are "accurate," and "better"...again, I don't think this is "abnormal" (and it doesn't irritate me -- although, I guess it irritates you if you hear such beliefs expressed from a religious position.)
I don't suppose it's really worthwhile to get into a huge debate about (what you term) the "Old Testament". But, you are presenting a false view...it's a common error...no where in the "Old Testament" is murder sanctioned. (In the Hebrew, there is a distinction made between "killing" and "murder." There is a extreme prohibition against "murder" -- repeated over and over and over again.) consider also, even in the United States today -- is all "killing" considered "murder?" The answer is "no." A person who kills another in self-defense faces no criminal prosecution. If you can prove that you were risking death and killed an attacker -- that's not "murder." It's self-defense, and perfectly permissible. (I sometimes suspect that people want "easy" answers, so that they don't have to think -- for example, they would like a religious text to be absolutistist in its claims -- so that ALL "killing" is prohibited or all killing is considered "murder." But, this is not the case. The text is actually a challenge to the reader...and it must be approached in this way...but, that's a different topic.)
Posted by: J.S. at August 8, 2007 1:33 PM
I agree that the bible contains injunctions against murder just as it incites it. That is not what I am getting at. The fact is if you read the following statement from what I posted earlier:
"If your own full brother, or your son or daughter, or your beloved wife, or you intimate friend, entices you secretly to serve other gods, whom you and your fathers have not known, gods of any other nations, near at hand or far away, from one end of the earth to the other: do not yield to him or listen to him, nor look with pity upon him, to spare or shield him, but kill him. Your hand shall be the first raised to slay him; the rest of the people shall join in with you. You shall stone him to death, because he sought to lead you astray from the Lord, your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, that place of slavery. And all Israel, hearing of this, shall fear and never do such evil as this in your midst. (Deuteronomy 13:7-12 NAB)"
You can call this anything you like but the above statement is an injunction to murder or kill the person. You my choose to call this self-defense but if you live in a Westernized country, the above offense would land you in jail for murder.
Posted by: v4ri4bl3 at August 8, 2007 4:38 PM
"just as it incites it [murder]..." Please, the text is NOT "inciting murder." One more time, not all "killings" are "murder."
Do you understand the context in which this speech occurs? Moses gives three farewell speeches to the people of Israel. This is one of those farewell addresses. He is admonishing and reminding the people of Israel what to do and what NOT to do. One of the central themes is to (at all costs) avoid becoming like (that's imitating) the pagans. Do you recall what the Pagans were doing? The pagans were idolaters who (among other things) would burn their own children alive. They engaged in human sacrifices to pagan deities. Moses wishes to remind the people of Israel that this is a wicked, grievous act, and "worship" of such evil deities was not to be permitted in Israel. And those who did "seduce the people of Israel," or "led them astray to worship false gods" were to be executed.
Whether or not people were, in fact, stoned because they became idolaters is a moot point. There are sources which say that the injunction to raze to the ground (that's Deuteronomy 13:16-17) the idolatrous cities never ever occurred. It was an injunction which was never put into practice or carried out.
Another point to consider is "presentism." I do not believe it is fair to judge people in the past by our present-day standards. In fact, I think it is due to the very sensitivity Moses had instilled in the people regarding the sanctity and holiness of each and every human life, that we now can click our tongues and shake our heads. But, please, it wasn't always thus. Also, by ensuring that the people of Israel remained distinct from the surrounding murderous Pagans, this ensured the survival of Judaism...otherwise they would have blended into the surrounding cultures. (Even speaking of today's times -- suppose there's someone who wanted to "worship" an Aztec God and ripped the heart out of his unsuspecting next-door-neighbor. What do you think his punishment should be, if not execution?)
Anyway, just some thoughts...
Posted by: J.S. at August 8, 2007 5:42 PM
Good points, J. S. I've just re-read Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy. You're right, especially in emphasising context.
Do we have, here, any observant Jewish lurkers or Jewish regular posters who can fill us Gentiles in on the way in which the harsher moral/social and religious laws of the Pentateuch, those calling for a death penalty, were traditionally interpreted and applied within mainstream Jewish tradition? What do the Talmud and the Mishnah say? What do the rabbis say, today, about the harsher provisions of the Torah? I am familiar with only two modern Jewish texts that touch on Biblical interpretation - Abraham Heschel's "God in Search of Man", and Eli Wiesel's "Five Biblical Portraits".
v4ri4bl3 - if you are at all interested in finding out how Christians wrestle with difficult texts of scripture, try Phyllis Trible, "Texts of Terror". You could also try Jacques Ellul: "The Ethics of Freedom", "Politics of God, Politics of Man", "The Meaning of the City" and "Violence".
Posted by: dumbledoresarmy at August 9, 2007 12:39 AM
Now, on-topic.
When I first read the Quran and encountered 'Mohammed''s versions of Biblical and para-Biblical material, my reaction was that he had to be a complete idiot who had either not heard the originals in full at all, or if he had, had totally misunderstood them. That is, I made the charitable assumption that he was an ignorant fool.
However: the more I learn, from rereading the Quran, from Robert's patient blogging of the material, in this surah in particular, but also after reading Mark Durie's book "Revelation: Jesus, Holy Spirit, God in Christianity and Islam", the more I am driven to a different conclusion. I now think that ''Mohammed', to use that name as shorthand for whatever process and person/s created the Qur'an, was consciously and deliberately creating 'foefic'. The pattern of omissions, alterations, perversions and flat contradictions (e.g. the Big Lies - 'Abraham offered Ishmael, not Isaac'; 'Jesus wasn't crucified') is not accidental. It is consistent, destructive and hostile. Even 'Mohammed's' choices from things like the Talmud and the Gnostic gospels bear out an overall hostile purpose, a will to invert and to pervert.
Worse still: having created his foefic, 'Mohammed' has the hide to try to pass it off to the owners/ publishers of the originals (Jews and Christians) as 'the real version'! It's as if someone were to write a 'Harry Potter' foefic in which Harry becomes a Death Eater, and were then to try forcing the millions of devoted fans to believe that HIS concoction was the original and that Rowlings' books were the foefic.
To employ a different analogy - if one knows the Biblical stories well, meeting their travesties in the Quran is like encountering one's sister or mother after she has been raped and then prostituted.
Alain Besancon, in his preface to a collection of Ellul's thoughts on Islam, in "Islam et Judeo-Christianisme", writes (I translate): "The Christians are very wrong to regard Islam as a simplistic, elementary religion, a 'religion of camel-drivers'. On the contrary, it is an extremely strong religion, a specific formulation of the god-man relationship WHICH IS COMPLETELY IN OPPOSITION [my emphasis added] to the Jewish and Christian account of that relationship, but is no less coherent...The Quran, by contrast to Homer, Plato and Virgil, cannot be regarded as a praeparatio evangelica". In other words, the Quran is not just non-Christian, but actively ANTI-Christian.
(Though, pace Besancon, there is more than one account of actual Muslims first being attracted by the fragmentary image of 'Isa' in the Quran, and then finding their way to the Jesus of the Gospels and becoming Christians).
Posted by: dumbledoresarmy at August 9, 2007 2:07 AM
It's the Oral Tradition which softens "the Torah." There's "the Torah" (written), then there's Torah."Moses received Torah on sinai, and passed it on to Joshua, Joshua to elders, and elders to prophets. And prophets handed it on to the men of the great assembly. They said three things: (1) Be prudent in judgment. 2) Raise up many disciples. 3) Make a fence around the Torah."
To "build a fence" around the Torah means to preserve the interpretative tradition of Torah (through oral transmission).
Posted by: J.S. at August 9, 2007 12:23 PM
I think an excellent text is "Biblical Literacy" by Rabbi Joseph Telushkin (1997) (Modern Orthodox). Also, Louis Jacobs' "Jewish Values" (although it might be out of print (?)).
Posted by: J.S. at August 9, 2007 12:32 PM
Comments are turned off and archived for this entry.
(Note: The Comments section is provided in the interests of free speech only. It is mostly unmoderated, but comments that are off-topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise annoying stand a chance of being deleted. The fact that any comment remains on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch, or by Robert Spencer or any other Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch writer, of any view expressed, fact alleged, or link provided in that comment.)