Japanese parliament questions 9-11 "truth"
- Thread starter Brainwave
- Start date
Thanks a lot Mazimaz, you definitely cleared up a few questions or misunderstandings I may have had. As you have said, I'm not going to think that all Muslims translate it the way as you, but I suppose that your explanation helps me understand how a Muslim can be as a pacifist and still not be betraying their religion. That is not something I knew, I just figured that all the Muslims who didn't want to fight in the name of their religion were like the modern Christians who I doubt even believe in their own god. 'Sunday-Christians', we call them, because they are only Christian one day of the week.
Considering Islam, as a nation, has a long, long history of violent expansionism (no, I'm not repeating what I've heard, I've taken a class on this and have a book of middle-eastern history, not to mention the Quran), and Muhammad, who is the prophet and originator of the religion, was historically (if not religiously to many who call themselves Muslims) more a warlord than anything else, I think it's preposterous, frankly, to say that violence is not, traditionally, a part of the religion. Any interpretation of the Quran that deems the concept of Jihad to be only meaning an internal, mental struggle to remain pure to the tenants of the faith is not true to the original intent, I don't believe. Although I'm certainly all for the peaceful interpretation. I think reading through passages of the Quran makes it clear that Jihad, originally, meant both the internal struggle and external, violent struggle
I would also say that Christianity as a purely peaceful, pacifist religion is not a concept that's true to history or to much of the original intent of passages of their scriptures either, so don't try to play the discrimination card.
Sharia, possibly the most abominably perverse and wretched set of "laws" ever conceived in many ways (though I do like the part about no-interest loans), while perhaps not embraced by every sect of Muslims, and coming more from the traditions and societies of the area than from the religion itself, is still very much intertwined with the religion, generally.
I don't want to make a large umbrella statement that all Muslims are violent savages who want to drive the Jews into the sea (although I do believe that phrase is in the Quran) and engage in bloody Jihad with all non-Muslims. There are plenty of peaceful Muslims. But, there is no peaceful Islam. And the violent, terrorist sects are not some new fad that'll die away anytime soon.
I would also say that Christianity as a purely peaceful, pacifist religion is not a concept that's true to history or to much of the original intent of passages of their scriptures either, so don't try to play the discrimination card.
Sharia, possibly the most abominably perverse and wretched set of "laws" ever conceived in many ways (though I do like the part about no-interest loans), while perhaps not embraced by every sect of Muslims, and coming more from the traditions and societies of the area than from the religion itself, is still very much intertwined with the religion, generally.
I don't want to make a large umbrella statement that all Muslims are violent savages who want to drive the Jews into the sea (although I do believe that phrase is in the Quran) and engage in bloody Jihad with all non-Muslims. There are plenty of peaceful Muslims. But, there is no peaceful Islam. And the violent, terrorist sects are not some new fad that'll die away anytime soon.
Kyuu said:
Islam isn't a nation. Hell, Islam pre-dates the very concept of "nation-state" as we know it, so that's a bit of an anachronism.
Kyuu said:
What scriptures? The Old Testament? All messages of violence in the OT are superseded by JC's two, true commandments from his speech on the hill; love your neighbour as you love yourself and only through Jesus Christ shall you find redemption.
The old "they went from tent to tent, slaughtering everyone, including women and children" is Old Testament stuff. It's true Christians abused and abuse the OT to explain away their violent tendencies, but that has more to do with what the individual wants than with the message of the New Testament.
Kyuu said:
That's funny, you make it sound like terrorism is an Islamic concept. It's not like it was born in anarchistic revolutionary attempts in Europe and most noticeably Russia, and it's not like it's just a method and not a belief and is used by many.
Terrorism has always gone up and down through regions and history. It's an effective means to an end and hence it's popular. Muslims have no more natural tendency to terrorism than the Irish or the Russians, though, and like the Irish and the Russians, they'll get over it.
True enough, perhaps there's a better word for it than nation, but at the present I can't think of one.
Yes, that's what I meant. Of course I know about the New Testament superseding the Old and all that, which is why I wouldn't say that Christianity is a violent, expansionist religion anymore. I was just saying, historically... and I just meant to deflect the inevitable "you're a Muslim-hater!" as though I'm picking on it due to some innate bias to Judeo-Christianity.
And of course you can see the similarities here, OT Christianity and the traditional Muslim religion... problem being, there is no New Quran that espouses more pacifist, moderate values.
Not my intention at all to suggest terrorism was invented by Muslims. I simply view it as the modern extension of the traditional Islamic values of expansionism and religious-zeal fueled hatred of all non-Muslims. Straight-forward military action against Europe and the west in general simply hasn't been feasible since the fall of the Ottoman Empire.
If you believe some reports, Muslims may even be successfully "taking over" parts of Europe simply by out-breeding the native population.
maximaz
Sonny, I Watched the Vault Bein' Built!
I know right? The meaning of the verse that I quoted though is pretty clearly consistent across translations. That verse is 100% agreed upon and is never interpreted differently. Not as far as I know anyway. Here is another version: "If anyone slays a person, unless it be for murder or for spreading mischief in the land, it would be as if he slew all people. And if anyone saves a life, it would be as if he saved the life of all people." (5:32)
The word "fight" can replace a few different Arabic words. The original word may be the Arabic root word q-t-l, which means to physically fight, kill, or go to war with. A word with the root word jaahada can be used as well, and that word means to struggle, resist, strive for or against. Jihad is one of those words, by the way. Both of them are commonly translated as "fight" into English but they do not mean the same thing, one is basically physical and the other is mental.
As far as why it is more common to accept the verses 'positively', it's simply because otherwise the Quran quite obviously contradicts itself. Often, you will see verses that seemingly mean the opposite in the same chapter or even on the same page. So the context plays an important role, and in the case of Quran, supports the positive verses and gives the negative ones a different meaning. An example is the 100% agreed upon verse 60:08:
"As for such (of the non-believers) as do not fight against you on account of your faith, and neither drive you forth from your homelands, God does not forbid you to show them kindness and to behave towards them with full equity: for, verily, God loves those who act equitably." (Quran, 60:08)
There are verses that are seemingly a lot more positive, such as verse 2:62, but the meaning of it and the context can be argued. 60:08 is one of several verses on the subject that does not have another interpretation (not translation). Such verses are simply ignored by people who already made up their minds and want to make a point.
This article expands on that a bit and names some scholars who disagree. You might find the Torah example interesting. It mostly talks about what I already have though. In fact, it even kind of looks like I ripped it off, which I promise you I didn't, I just found it on Google, while looking for some supporting sources.
kyuu
It's your right to believe whatever you want. If you want to believe that Muslims are evil spawns from the pits of hell itself, go for it. It doesn't affect me or my beliefs in any way. However, if you are genuinely interested in being more informed, this article may help. I'm not trying to convince you; I'm merely telling you what most Muslims, including myself, think. If you ask me, what most Muslims believe and the way that they interpret the Quran is what counts. (Note that they are not selective, nor do they bend the meanings. They genuinely believe those are the right interpretations. Thus, there is no problem in Islam at all, as far as they're concerned). I'm not looking to argue and will not reply to posts on Islam unless a serious question is asked but you have my input.
Jihad... like I said, the physical fighting can be called Jihad if Jihad is at the heart of the fighter. It is NOT, however, what Jihad means. That's important to understand because Quran advocates Jihad. Believe what you will though.
Taken from the article:
PS. thanks to all for the interest, it's less common than you'd think.