Becoming Muslim: I Did Not Read The Fine Print

reply to post by Sahabi

Hey Sahabi!

I write this post as a muslim who disagrees with your understanding of Islam. While the "concept" of Salafiism would be great, unfortunately, the salafists don't follow the spirit of their stated goal. I personally dislike labelling myself as being of any madhab or fiqh except plain and simple "Islam", because that is what Muhammad preached. I stick to the Quran first and foremost, and then a very careful analysis and understanding of the Sahih hadith, and nothing else (no tafsirs, commentaries, suspicious sirats, supposed teachers or "traditional" approaches throughout the ages of supposed muslims etc).

Now I'm addressing each of your points one by one because I know your posting history, and as far as I can tell, you aren't just another anti-islam troll who mass-pastes hate-mongering tirades from anti-islam sites.

Your [1] presumes that "harb" which is generally (and literally) translated as "make war" means "to oppose or contradict". Admittedly, this is most certainly an interpretation that the Salafists take. However, it is not one that I agree with, and I do not believe it is supported by the Quran or Hadith.

In [2] you quote 2 hadith which are actually referring to the same occasion. the 2nd one (if you read it in full) is actually a paraphrasing by someone else of what Muhammad said in the 1st hadith you quoted. Another hadith that refers to this very same occasion was in Sunan Abu Dawud, Vol. 4, #4353. Only in this one, instead of the wording being "one who reverts from Islam and leaves the Muslims", it is "one who went out fighting against God and His Messenger; he is to be killed or crucified or exiled from the land" (the same message as the first quranic verse you quoted!). So if one analyses these two hadith, it becomes obvious that someone who abandons the Islamic faith ONLY does not deserve to be killed, unless they "leave the muslims" and "go out fighting against God and his Messenger" (i.e. become traitors and perform treason).

As for [3], for me at least, it is clear proof that the concept of "abrogation" is nonsense. Heck, it says so right there in the text! Previous revelations may be replaced (for example, the Gospel and laws as given to Jesus may have been suitable at the Christians of that time and place, but while if Christians still follow that today there is no wrong in that, the book had been replaced and superceded by the Quran as a more universal book), and certain commands may be upgraded (like how originally muslims weren't allowed to pray while drunk, then later a command came that prohibited drinking alcohol completely), but the new command doesn't contradict or nullify the old one in any way. So when people use the concept of "abrogation" as a proof that "the bad/violent verses of the Quran supercede the good ones, they are displaying a fundamental misunderstanding of Islam.

The verse you quoted in [4] is more accurately translated as "guardians" or "protectors", as can be seen, for example in (2:107) and (3:68): "no protector or guardian but Allah".

Yes, the Quran does elevate the "spiritual rank" of those who are actual muslims over those who are not. But that is because it is a guidebook for living like that, which is supposed to be followed suchly. You'd be hard-pressed to find many religions that don't consider themselves spiritually superior to non-members of that religion. However, interestingly enough, the Quran shows that those who believe in God and do good deeds have nothing to fear, even if they are not muslims.

And yes, Islam addresses slavery, but really, it seems to me to be one of the few religion that makes freeing slave an active thing, a good thing, something that should be done. The same could not be said of Judaism and Christianity (just for an example). And if one were to follow Islam properly, there would soon be no slaves left. They are only allowed prisoners of war, and after the war is over, they have to be returned, or at the very least, at least ransomed back.

As for women's testimony being half the worth of a man's, that is simply not true. In business dealings, it is a requirement to have 2 women, yes, but that is hardly the same thing. For example, in another verse, the Quran also says that if the husband accuses his wife of adultery without any proof, and the wife denies it, neither's testimony is considered greater than the others. Another example from the hadith is where a woman came to the Prophet saying she was raped, and because of that, (not with the requirement of another woman), the rapist was put to death.

Translating [9] as "in charge" of women is not entirely accurate, a better term would be "sustainers" or "maintainers" or "caretakers" (check 2:255 or 4:5 or 13:33 for other usages of the same word). And in that sense, yeah islam prescribes roles for men in the family- baring any extenuating circumstances, it is their job to provide support for the family.

In [10] you didn't give the actual verse that supposedly gives the allowance to men to marry up to 4 wives, but if you check it (I believe it is at the beginning of Surah 4), you'll notice something that many muslims also miss... it isn't a blanket allowance. It is there to provide support for widows and orphans, not for personal pleasure or some such other silliness.

As for the Satanic verses incident, I find it historically suspect, as it doesn't match up with the given histories, and doesn't show up except for in some suspect texts. And as for "houris" it certainly doesn't translate into "heavenly virgins".

As for the original lack of diacritical marks, they weren't needed originally, because the first muslims were mostly arabs, who spoke arabic completely fine, and didn't need them. They were introduced later, after Muhammad had died, because that is when new, non-arab adherents to the religion started showing up. The Quran had certainly been written (by others) at the time of Muhammad, and he used to hear their recitations as well, but knocking it because it also had an oral tradition doesn't always work. Just because something is oral doesn't make it less valid or accurate or consistent than a non-oral tradition, especially in early communities where oral traditions were so important.

I just provided this stuff to show you that the Salafi ideology is certainly not the purest form of Islam, nor the majority form of Islam, nor the standard form of Islam.


PS: I'm not really in agreement of your use of Gandhi as a paragon of love peace and unity, considering that he lent his support and approval to 2 wars (World War 2 against the Germans, and the pre-emptive attack on Kashmir after the partition of India) and was known to have racist beliefs (which is what fueled his original civil rights movement in South Africa- he believed Indians were superior to Africans, and considered it an insult that Indians were classed along with Africans).

reply to post by babloyi
We often hear how the Quran doesn't urge its followers to kill others or treat women as animals.

In practice we see the horrifying truth. The practitioners of Sharia law all fall back on the Quran as their guiding light.
As with any written material, from God or not, there will be various ways of interpreting its meaning....especially things that are written ambiguously to begin with.

We hear how it is just a few that do these horrible things in the name of Allah. Maybe just a few countries, eh?
Iran, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, Yemen, Pakistan, Somalia..........

reply to post by pthena


Right on. But it is easier to dissimilate violent doctrine out and away from Christianity; simply allow the teachings of Jesus to supersede Mosiac Law.

It is, however, far more difficult to dissimilate violence from Islam, because Light (Moral/Spiritual Guidance) is mixed with Darkness (Violence and Inequality) throughout the Qur'an. It's not as simple as removing the "chapter about jihad," because one chapter may be talking about giving charity, then the next verse in that same chapter is saying to kill disbelievers. All moral principle, parables, guidance, jihad, and various stories are all topics mixed together. The Qur'an does not read chronologically nor orderly. It does not help that there are instances in the Hadith collection calling jihad the sixth pillar of Islam.

Yes, there are different types of Muslims, but they are all reading the same verses about killing, sexism, superiority, inequality, and lawful earthly punishments because it's mixed in with everything else.

I'm just trying to help people consider the very real, very dark side of Islam. There is a wonderful message in Islam, but somewhere along the religion the concepts of Love, Mercy, Equality, Fairness, Peace, Forgiveness, and Global Human Unity got watered down and confused.

May Peace be upon us all.

reply to post by phatpackage


I feel we see similarities in religion because each one is trying to describe and explain the same human experience. I feel religion is flawed and different because in each instance a person's interpretation was used. Seems to me that the concept of Relativity transcends even spirituality, meaning spirituality is similar and attainable by all to experience, but yet each person's understanding is relative to their own experience.

I believe all religion, if followed as philosophy instead of judicial code, has great moral guidance. There have been many discussions on the concept of Morality versus Religion. I used to believe religion was essentially needed for moral guidance, but after I read a few things and had a few discussions, I now understand morality to actually be built into the "instincts" of living beings. Morals are a natural knowing of -right- versus wrong.

Religion should be a personal means to becoming a better person, not forced onto others. We all feel hot, cold, anger, and happiness to different degrees and for different reasons... same with spirituality; we experience it, but our experiences are relative.

Thanks for weighing in. Peace

reply to post by Xerxes1434


Yeah, say anything in opposition to anyone, even in true respect, and you will be met with the "anti" card. Political correctness is getting pretty crazy. Freedom of speech is going down the drain because everyone is so sensitive nowadays. I don't know...

reply to post by butcherguy

The Quran certainly allows defending oneself by fighting, and sometimes this involves killing others, yes.

I'm not quite sure what you mean by "treat women as animals", though. It is such a vague thing, that if I addressed any one point, you'd could say you were talking about others. But claiming that Islam intrinsically necessitates or even condones the "treating of women like animals" isn't exactly true. You gave a list of countries, but that does not necessarily show what exactly is to blame, as my following examples show:

You know the country said to have the highest prevalence and intensity of rape and sexual violence in the world is the Democratic Republic of Congo, a country with a 90% Christian population? It is so because of a general attitude of considering such behaviour normal, and women being inferior to men. In this country, just a few years ago, if an adult woman had not been married she was taxed as a prostitute. It might not be so far out (sarcasm) because there are reports of families pressuring their children into prostitution, and the country is a destination for human trafficking. Even within the framework of the government women (legally) require their husbands permission for everything from jobs, bank accounts and property (which the husband is completely within right to take if he wishes).

In Uganda (which is 85% Christian), polygyny is not uncommon, and women are definitely considered inferior to men (except when husbands sometimes granted their senior-most wives the status of "man").

In Zambia, another country with an 85% christian population, rape and domestic abuse is prevalent (and there are no laws about domestic abuse and spousal rape), and polygyny is again allowed. When the wife becomes widowed, it is customary to have "sexual cleansing" where the widow has sex with her husband's family members. It has been recorded that personnel request sex from female prisoners as a condition of their release.

Female genital mutilation also occurs widespread in Africa, and is certainly not restricted to the muslims (countries like Kenya and Ethiopia, with their overwhelmingly large christian populations practice it too). .Human trafficking for the purpose of sexual exploitation is also prevalent in several African countries with Christian majorities (so much so that they've become sex tourism destinations). Spousal and domestic abuse is also widespread.

India has about 40,000 women and children imported for sexual exploitation yearly. They also have similar statistics to muslim countries of honour killings among their hindu and sikh communities. Although it is illegal, 40% of the world's child marriages occur in India. There are many cases of domestic violence, and strong indicators of sex-selective abortions and (since tests to determine the sex of the child during pregnancy are banned,) female infanticide. And while incidences of sati (burning the widowed bride along with the dead husband) are rare now in India, the custom IS supported by their scriptures.


Now I'm not saying that Christianity or Africa or India is evil, or that they are somehow intrinsically responsible for these examples, but they clearly show that "treatment of women as animals" isn't something exclusive (or even mostly done) by people calling themselves muslim. You may say "but those examples are not indicative of those people's religious view", and you may be in some cases right, but then, you'd have to apply the same standard to muslim majority countries.

reply to post by babloyi
If the subject of this thread were Christians, Hindi and Sikhs, I would understand why you would make your post that focuses on those religions.
But the subject at hand is Islam.

Curiously, you didn't touch on Sharia law.

I'm not quite sure what you mean by "treat women as animals", though.

I will try to clue you in on what I meant.

When a woman has to walk behind a man in public......
When a woman can't go out in public without her husband or a male relative to escort her......
When a woman can't go out in public without covering her head.......

And if she does, She is beaten.

She would have a better life as a dog living in a western country.

That is the point.

reply to post by butcherguy

Thank you for clarifying what you meant. I only mentioned these Christian, Hindu and Sikh countries to show you that it is not always the religion itself that is the cause. So where you laid out a list of supposedly "muslim" countries that you believed have abominable treatment of women, as an example, I laid out a list of countries which have the EXACT SAME problems, but are of other religions.

The clarification of what you meant is a good example of this. I don't think there is any country in the world which has these 3 rules and the punishment, except maybe Saudia Arabia (and even that, I've only got the information from hearsay, which, if I'm not mistaken, is how you probably got it to). They are certainly not requirements and punishments of Islam.

The walk behind thing is certainly not.

The male escort thing is taken from a hadith where Muhammad said that even if your wife or daughter wants to go to the mosque or school late at night, you shouldn't stop them, and in fact, help them by escorting them. Some groups of muslims (the salafis for example), have grabbed this from the opposite end, and made it up that "muslim women must always have an escort while going out". Salafis have this habit of grabbing things from the opposite end.. another example being a narration where it was told that in Medina, during the Prophet's time, some travellers came into the city and saw that all the shops were open and empty and all the streets were empty. They later found out this was because everyone had gone to prayer. The Salafis grabbed this from the opposite end to mean "When it is time for prayer, you must all immediately abandon your shops and place of work".

As for the hijab, aside from a specific instructions about Muhammad's wives and daughters, muslims (both men and women) are only instructed to have modesty, and women should cover their bosoms. Some women follow the instructions that were given for Muhammad's wives and daughters (perhaps believing that is making them even "more" holy), and cover their heads and stuff when "out and abroad" so as to distinguish themselves from others.
Besides, as long as the woman is not being forced by someone else, and is covering their heads or whatever of their own free will, I don't see how this makes them "worse than a dog living in a western country".

There is nothing about being beaten if they don't do these things.

All religons are evil.
its just islam follows the old ways.
the othere religons have melowd.

religon is for the cave man,
the primetive man.

if there is a god,
he is an alien as old as space.

reply to post by Sahabi


Thank you for the very interesting thread. I've taken a pretty hard-line against Islam since I actually studied the Qur'an and Hadiths and discovered the truth is much different than the PR. There's also the issue of Islamic eschatology (and this is what really freaked me out about Islam) basically being Christian eschatology turned on it's head. I really hate to be divisive, I have a number of Muslim friends who I talked to in order to assuage my fears of Islam. I really did want to believe that Islam was simply an offshoot of Abrahamic monotheism that just got things wrong. My fears have not been assuaged, they've strengthened, I am dead certain that Islam was a deliberate attack on Christianity, has roots in Mystery Babylon (the moon! why the moon? It shouldn't be there), and will be a tool of the Anti-Christ. In fact, I learned more about Christian eschatology in a couple hours of studying Islamic eschatology than I had learned in years previous. It all fits. The Beast is the Mahdi, the False Prophet is Isa, who gives authority to the Beast, the Romans who the Muslims are supposed to side with and turn on is obviously the Roman Catholic Church which corroborates the theory that the RCC is the Whore of Babylon (Rome is the spiritual successor to Babylon, refer to Nebechadnezzar's dream in Daniel). Please don't mistake this for bigotry, I love Muslims, and I would love to believe that we are all children of the God of Abraham. I think most Muslims are great, in fact, as a whole they are more loyal to their religion and less hypocritical than Christians. You know how Ghandi said "I like your Christ, but I do not like your Christians", well I say, "I love your Muslims, but fear their Prophet".

Anyways, all religious divisiveness aside (I do so hate proving atheists right), what revelations have you come to after having been a part of both religions? What is your comparison? Has your view of Christianity changed since your departure?

reply to post by babloyi


May Peace be upon you. Thanks for contributing to the conversation. I'm glad you noticed I didn't do a copy/paste, hate-mongering debate. I took my own accumulated knowledge of Islam and presented why I feel I was duped and tricked into believing I was following a Path of Love, Peace, and Equality.

Muslims tell a person who sincerely believes in God all about the good verses in the Qur'an, about how Allah's word is perfect and unaltered. Give moral Guidance, teach moral virtue, righteousness, and brotherly love. Get this new devotee praying five times a day, fasting, doing good deeds, and loving God even more than ever. All of the spirituality and energy is so overwhelming at this point, it's hard to deny the experience.

Then right at this moment of great devotion, one is asked to hate for Allah. Hate what Allah hates. Why hate what Allah hates? Why hate at all? Surely Allah is the Creator of All things... has power over All things... so why hate His own creation, His own doing? Surely the All Knowing must know a better way to solve mankind's problems than to Hate for His sake? Separate humanity into two polarized groups; believers and nonbelievers.

You blind people of their own emotions! You teach people to love, say Peace, and be kind for the sake of Allah. What about the mere sake of being human, or for one's own heart's sake? Even Allah steals your good niyah (intentions) because it is all for Him. So if you are doing good for His sake, one's heart is not doing a thing for it's own sake... therefore more easily manipulated into the "darkside."

Here are some examples I have been using:

• I love Muslims for the sake of being my fellow human. I love nonbelievers for the sake of being my fellow human. Allah hates disbelief, disbelievers, and apostates. Allah teaches that a BELIEVER is a brother of a BELIEVER. Am I more inclined towards human unity than Allah?

• Regarding jihad and any believer versus nonbeliever situation. My dad feels pain and my mother cries when their children fight... they don't encourage the son that is more correct to fight against the son that is incorrect... they stop the fighting with sincere love, they talk sense into both of them in the way each one understands... and they create Peace. If God is All Loving why does he command killing, oppression, and eternal fire? Is He less loving than my parents?! Surely an All Knowing God knows a better way to make Peace than through jihad?

• I do not wish torment on anyone except the child molester, rapist, and murderer... does this make me more merciful or more loving than God?



You have done an excellent job of responding, and I will reply to your points when time permits. For now, just ponder "Love" and "Human Equality". When reading Qur'an, ask yourself at each ayat, "Is this verse teaching Love?", "Is this verse productive or counter-productive to mutual human equality?". I do not believe Creator would guide any heart except into Love and Human Equality. Peace to you.

reply to post by butcherguy


Valid points. Moderates and apologists proclaim the Peaceful versus, but actions speak louder than words. You judge a tree by the fruit it bears. Show me one single country where the Law of the Land is "Islam", and the country is a beacon of Peace, Prosperity, Freedom, and Equality. Show me one single Shariah Constitution based on TRUE equality and TRUE fairness. Can't find it, doesn't exist. Believers are above rank of nonbelievers, men are one level above women, and a slave must obey it's master.

"When a woman has to walk behind a man in public......
When a woman can't go out in public without her husband or a male relative to escort her......
When a woman can't go out in public without covering her head.......

Don't forget:
• A husband may beat his wife.
• A husband can order who his wife may be friends with.
• A woman's testimony is half that of a man's.
• Women get a significantly smaller amount of inheritance, even if they are the eldest child.
• Women will be the majority of Hell's inhabitants for disobeying and being undutiful their husbands.

reply to post by kallisti36


Thank you for taking the time to read and contribute. I too learned more about Christianity after being introduced to Islam. And the whole end-times prophecies of both Christianity and Islam are strikingly counter-opposed to each other. If the end time events of an Antichrist do come to pass, Christians and Muslims will be hard pressed blaming each other of following the Antichrist. Who will be right, who will be wrong? The one who speaks, teaches, and acts more purely according to Love, Peace, and Equality is the one to be followed. God will not tell one man to murder another, He will say Love and Forgive. That's what I believe anyway, and that belief is the final shove the pushed me fully away from Islam.

After knowing of Islam and Christianity first-hand as a devout follower and cross-comparing the two religions, I do see Islam as a direct opposition to Christianity. Why is this? We can play around with a few scenarios:

• Because one religion is truly from god, and one religion is truly from man or devil.
• Because both religions are made to control people. Setting each against the other to assure an eternal conflict of spirituality: divide and conquer. Christ versus Antichrist being the ultimate climax of the script.
• Muhammad saw a niche to be filled with a new religion (Islam). Possibly to civilize the savage Arabs (pre-Islamic Arabs were horrible), or to consolidate power.

Such great questions you have asked me! I'm more than excited to answer

"what revelations have you come to after having been a part of both religions?

To a Christian: You know the feelings inside... of being Baptized.. of accepting Jesus as your Lord and Savior.. that feeling of spiritual empowerment when you are filled with the Holy Spirit... the feeling of knowing that your Father loves you and He has prepared a place for you in Heaven... that feeling you get when you tell someone new about the good news of Jesus.. the presence and comfort you feel when praying?

To a Muslim: You know the feelings inside... of submitting yourself to your Creator.. the feeling you get after praying... the feeling you get during Ramadan and after fasting... the awe you feel when you wake up in the twilight hours for the sole purpose of worshipping Allah... that Peace you feel after reciting the Qur'an... the wonderful feeling of praying shoulder to shoulder with your fellow brothers?

Both are experiencing the same energy. Both feel the same bliss. Both answer your prayers or give you strength to overcome. Both give you that same internal feeling. Why do you think Christians and Muslims believe so much? They believe because they are both experiencing the same wonderful feeling.

My revelation is that spirituality is very real, and both religions tap into that same spiritual energy. One gets the same exact feeling when worshipping the Father through Jesus as if one were praying to Allah. That feeling is why I felt comfortable leaving Christianity for Islam in the first place. I am willing to bet that same feeling is experienced by Jews, Wiccans, New Agers, Hindus, Buddhists, and any other system of morals and spirituality. Point being? Spirituality, regardless of the label, is very real. Religion is different men trying to explain that feeling that is universal to those seeking the Path. Basically the point I was trying to stress in my thread Human Unification Through Understanding Spiritual Relativity

What is your comparison?

Islam is more similar to Judaism with all of the Mosaic Law. More focus on Law, Command, Decree, and Obedience. Islam is the Jury, the Judge, and the Executioner.
Christianity deals more exclusively with spirituality than law.

Has your view of Christianity changed since your departure?

Yes, indeed my view on Christianity has changed since leaving Islam.
I came to believe Jesus as a Poor Righteous Teacher (Prophet) instead of God, part of Trinity, or God's literal Son when leaving Christianity for Islam. Entering Islam, I rejected the Bible in it's entirety.

Now that I have left Islam, I see Christianity so much different than any other time. Even though I still believe Jesus to be non-divine, I now see nothing but pure love, beauty, and wisdom in his words. I see the Gospels as a wonderful guidance of love, forgiveness, and brotherhood. The Bible in its entirety is just like Islam... guidance mixed in with darkness, however, the Gospels alone illustrate love in a way not shown even in the best verses of Islam.

Leaving Islam, I have a much better understanding and respect for Jesus' message. So much so that I am currently studying Christian Gnosticism.

Originally posted by buddha
All religons are evil.
its just islam follows the old ways.
the othere religons have melowd.

religon is for the cave man,
the primetive man.

if there is a god,
he is an alien as old as space.

Hello, thanks for weighing in.
I would have to humbly disagree with your post.
I think religion is evil in as much as technology is evil. It is a Tool. Tools can be used both for good or bad, for righteousness or as a weapon. Religion can open doors to the soul and spirituality, enlighten, bring peace, guidance, teach wonderful morals and ethics, give strength and hope in times of hardship or despair, and can help people to become more righteous. On the other hand, religion can separate, it can dominate, oppress, control, subjugate, close minds, murder, cause hate and fear.

I like to believe that if there is god, it is the collective micro and macro consciousness into infinity, and of which we are all a piece.

reply to post by Sahabi


How did you come to Islam? Did you practice in a Mosque or solitary?

I came to Islam at the height of my Christianity. A Muslim that was a daily aquaintance saw my love of God and extreme devotion to Christianity. This Muslim thought I would make a good Muslim, and he thought he was leading me into Light. He debated me and illustrated to me the fundamental flaws in my doctrine. With intense prayer, fasting, and research, I followed my heart into Islam.

I practiced Islam at mosques and at home. If you've ever heard a Muslim say, "Islam is not a religion, it's a way of life," that was me! I lived, ate, and slept Islam. I prayed about three out of the five daily prayers at my local mosque every single day. I was an extreme fundamental Muslim in the mosque, while alone, and at all times.

The first year of my Islam I learned arabic, Qur'an, Hadith, Fiqh, Seerah, and Tafsir directly from an extremely humble, wise, knowledged, and pious sheikh (Islamic Scholar). He didn't radicalize me, that was my heart's own doing due to the extreme love and devotion I had for Allah and His prophet. This sheikh gave me the best religious foundation that any Muslim could get in America. Afterwards, I purchased books upon books on Islam and traveled to mosques and communities out of state to learn from even more sheikhs and muftis of all sects and mathabs (schools of thought).

I was elected first Treasurer then followed by Amir (general leader) by my peers of the first Islamic community I ever joined. The final community I joined almost voted me into leadership council, but I was only a few votes shy. The elders said I would become a leader the following year, but the following year I started to drift from Islam and quit going to the mosque. I was a man walking the true path of Islam.

Actually the Bible has more violent verses than the Quran does. Someone has already did the research and made graphs on it.

Number of Cruel or Violent Passages
Bible 1121
Quran 520

So the Bible has more than twice as many cruel or violent passages as does the Quran. But the Bible is a much bigger book. How do they compare when size is taken into account?

Violence and Cruelty Total verses Percent
Bible 1121 31173 3.60
Quran 520 6236 8.34

Of course this analysis does not consider the extent of the cruelty in the marked passages. And that is an important consideration. Is Numbers 31:14-18, for example, more cruel than Quran 5:34? That is something that each person must decide.

Source Link

Also there is another researcher who takes it all into account as a whole and has this to say:

"Much to my surprise, the Islamic scriptures in the Quran were actually far less bloody and less violent than those in the Bible," Jenkins says.

Violence in the Quran, he and others say, is largely a defense against attack.

"By the standards of the time, which is the 7th century A.D., the laws of war that are laid down by the Quran are actually reasonably humane," he says. "Then we turn to the Bible, and we actually find something that is for many people a real surprise. There is a specific kind of warfare laid down in the Bible which we can only call genocide."

It is called herem, and it means total annihilation. Consider the Book of 1 Samuel, when God instructs King Saul to attack the Amalekites: "And utterly destroy all that they have, and do not spare them," God says through the prophet Samuel. "But kill both man and woman, infant and nursing child, ox and sheep, camel and donkey."

When Saul failed to do that, God took away his kingdom.

"In other words," Jenkins says, "Saul has committed a dreadful sin by failing to complete genocide. And that passage echoes through Christian history. It is often used, for example, in American stories of the confrontation with Indians — not just is it legitimate to kill Indians, but you are violating God's law if you do not."

Jenkins notes that the history of Christianity is strewn with herem. During the Crusades in the Middle Ages, the Catholic popes declared the Muslims Amalekites. In the great religious wars in the 16th, 17th and 19th centuries, Protestants and Catholics each believed the other side were the Amalekites and should be utterly destroyed.

Source Link

edit on 26-2-2011 by ArchIlluminatus because: (no reason given)

This has been a very interesting thread to read so far, thanks OP and other comentators.

It strikes me that all three of the major monotheistic religions -- the Abrahamic religions, sometimes called the "Revealed Religions" of Islam, Christianity, and Judaism -- are prone to having unhealthy relationships with their holy texts. Whenever a pedantic, narrow, legalistic, literalist, anti-metaphoric, non-heuristic reading of the foundational texts of any of these religions sets in, you see them at their worst, in my humble opinion. Text and doctrine should be handrails, not handcuffs, if you ask me.

The Divine gave us hearts and the ability to reason and to learn from experience, over and above minds that simply submit and obey. The U.S. President Kennedy once said, "There is something immoral about abandoning your own judgement." Think about it. Also, is it not blasphemous to obey something as a command from the Divine when it is an invention of man? Can't this be as blasphemous as neglecting to sincerely honor the Divine from within our hearts, humbly day to day rather than in a dramatic or extremist way?

I hope all humans of every faith and those of none as well consider these matters carefully as the world becomes smaller and we must all live with each other like it or not.

Peace.

reply to post by babloyi

"As for the original lack of diacritical marks, they weren't needed originally, because the first muslims were mostly arabs, who spoke arabic completely fine, and didn't need them. They were introduced later, after Muhammad had died, because that is when new, non-arab adherents to the religion started showing up. The Quran had certainly been written (by others) at the time of Muhammad, and he used to hear their recitations as well, but knocking it because it also had an oral tradition doesn't always work. Just because something is oral doesn't make it less valid or accurate or consistent than a non-oral tradition, especially in early communities where oral traditions were so important.

This was also my reasoning and understanding of the Qur'an while I adhered to Islam. But I assure you this is not the simple truth. As I said, I read a color-coded Qur'an that indicated different qurra' (Reader/Reciter) versions.

One pure Qur'an from Muhammad to today is a lie, misunderstanding, ignorance, and deception.

Not only are there seven levels of Heaven, but there are also seven (7) "ordained" Qur'ans. Each one being different in recitation, reading, AND meaning, but all being acceptable. These versions are called al-qira'at as-sab' ("the seven readings"). And even beyond these seven are many other versions. And each version of the Qur'an has their own isnad (chain of narration) "proving" their authenticity.

I'm not knocking the Qur'an because it is an oral tradition, I'm knocking it because the different written versions are based on different oral versions!

Seven Different Qur'an Versions, each ordained and acceptable...

• Nafi` (from Medina; d. 169/785)
• Ibn Kathir (from Mecca; d. 119/737)
• Abu `Amr al-`Ala' (from Damascus; d. 153/770)
• Ibn `Amir (from Basra; d. 118/736)
• Hamzah (from Kufah; d. 156/772)
• al-Qisa'i (from Kufah; d. 189/804)
• Abu Bakr `Asim (from Kufah; d. 158/778)

(Cyril Glassé, The Concise Encyclopedia of Islam, p. 324)

So you tell me akhi (brother), if there are seven ordained and acceptable versions, with many other uncertain versions... which one is the real word of Allah? Now that it is CONFIRMED that there is not one pure Qur'an, but many versions... how can we even continue to debate that Islam is God's pure religion?

Check out this link. It does a great job of presenting the facts behind the lie, ignorance, misunderstanding, and deception that the Qur'an is pure.
]The Different Arabic Versions of the Qur'an


Additionally, it does not matter today that the Qur'an is recited or orally transmitted. That argument is no longer valid, because the Qur'an is constructed of a poetic medieval version of Arabic that is NOT spoken or easily understood by average everyday Arabs. Kind of comparable to modern English and Shakespearean English. To fully understand the Qur'an, even fluent Arabs must take additional schooling in ancient traditional Arabic.

I will reply to your other points when I find time. I understand the falsity of religion, and that is enough for me, but I am only making these kind of threads and posts to help others avoid the Fear, Separation, and Hate that monotheism creates in one's heart.

Assalaamu alaikum.

reply to post by Sahabi

Walaikum Salaam!

I was waiting for your more detailed response before I would answer to your post. I hope you get time to respond more completely soon. I will answer your latest response first.

There are seven different authorised "readings" of the Quran, yes (certainly not 7 different Qurans), but they just occasionally change the pronunciation and some of the phrasing. And considering that there are hadith that show that all seven of these recitations are valid, I don't quite see the issue?


reply to post by Sahabi

There are many passages in the Quran and Hadith that proclaim the unity of mankind. However, there are some also that speak of and celebrate how some people have different culture, different religion, and different ways of life. So what? Nothing intrinsically wrong with differences. I'd rather have a rich and diverse world culture and history rather than a monolithic, boring, "everything is exactly the same for everyone" sort of existence.

Still, Islam, and the Quran is here as a guidance. Sure, many people may theoretically be able to "reach God" on their own, and the Quran acknowledges that. However, being as it is a "religion", it is obviously going to say that it is the BEST way, thus those who follow Islam would be better off than those who do not. Muslims are supposed to be an example for mankind.

There is plenty of love in the Quran and Islam. People like talking about Surah Rahman, and while I admit it is really beautiful, currently, one of my favourites is Surah ad-Dhuha. Not only is it a reaffirmation of God's love, it is also a solution for humanity. I'd post it here, but I might get accused of "preaching" . You should check it out again when you get the chance!

Now of course, Islam allows fighting when a person is put under threat. This might go differently than (some people's interpretation of) Christianity, but if you ask me, that way is not really feasible for most of humanity. And sure, according to Islam, all good that you do comes from God's grace. I believe it is the same for Christianity. Why is that an issue? Doing things for your "own heart's sake" brings in the ego. And that is never a good idea.