muslims PART 2

[Nurvingiel]

Originally Posted by Spock

...fact.....there are more verses for violence and forceful conversion or killing non-muslims in the quran than there are peaceful advocates.

If that is, indeed, a fact, then you wouldn't mind supplying a reference to a peer-reviewed article or the like, right?

Though if it were a fact, then it would be proven beyond a doubt (which doesn't even happen in social science), rather than merely commonly accepted by members of Western society?

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally Posted by Spock

Thanks for catching that, when written I was in a hurry-what else is new.

Actually it can mean both. Verses and muslims speaking out.

I haven't read the Koran, but I rather doubt that there are more verses 'for violence and forceful conversion or killing non-muslims' than there are Muslims advocating peace. Do you have proof?

Nurvi, does a fact have to be proven to be a fact? I mean, if I say I have brown hair, is it a fact if I haven't proved it?

[Nurvingiel]

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

Nurvi, does a fact have to be proven to be a fact? I mean, if I say I have brown hair, is it a fact if I haven't proved it?

You don't have to prove it, but you do have to have some evidence that stands up to scrutiny.

I also have brown hair. If you were here in person I'd offer you two pieces of evidence:
1. My hair.
2. My driver's liscence. (Picture, and what the government put down for hair colour on the back.)

I'll take your word for it that you have brown hair.

One thing I won't take someone's word for is apparently subjective statements, or statements accusing an individual or group of people of violence.

You do have to prove a statement to call it a fact. Or, it has to already have been proven (eg. it is a fact that the Earth orbits the Sun, thank you Copernicus).

[hectorberlioz]

More importantly, what are the contexts of advocating violence or general peace within the Koran? I have heard people say it is definitely not a violent scripture, and then I hear someone say that that supposed peace in the Koran was taken out of context etc, and the same for the violence...

...But I insist, it is futile to argue until you've read it yourself...and perhaps even then you didn't grasp all the concepts.

Violent or non-violent, there is a non-friendly vision of Islam being taught and spread, whether it is in conjuction with Koranic teachings I know not, but either way it has to be stifled.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

You don't have to prove it, but you do have to have some evidence that stands up to scrutiny.

I also have brown hair. If you were here in person I'd offer you two pieces of evidence:
1. My hair.
2. My driver's liscence. (Picture, and what the government put down for hair colour on the back.)

I'll take your word for it that you have brown hair.

One thing I won't take someone's word for is apparently subjective statements, or statements accusing an individual or group of people of violence.

You do have to prove a statement to call it a fact. Or, it has to already have been proven (eg. it is a fact that the Earth orbits the Sun, thank you Copernicus).

Hmm...isn't the definition of a fact "something that actually exists; reality; truth"? Isn't the independence, reality, or truth of something prior to any evidence thereof?

[Nurvingiel]

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

Hmm...isn't the definition of a fact "something that actually exists; reality; truth"? Isn't the independence, reality, or truth of something prior to any evidence thereof?

It is, but one must show that by providing evidence. I mean, you asked Spock for proof too, how else are you supposed to know?

The Earth orbited the Sun before Copernicus discovered this fact, but people only knew it was so after he proved it. (Unless they were the Vatican. Then no. )

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Silly Nurv; Copernicus was a Catholic clergyman.

You are right, I did ask him for evidence; but I am just curious about your above words: "Though if it were a fact, then it would be proven beyond a doubt", which seem to indicate a necessary sequence between the two, that in order for something to be a fact, it must be proven beyond a doubt. Or do I misread them?

[hectorberlioz]

Speaking of great accomplishments, clergy and monks have been denied some deserved praise, i.e. Mendel, you nearly never hear that he was a monk...


Kierkegaard; "Father of Existentionalism"...a christian! (Not Camus, Maureen Dowd you fool...)

[Gwaimir Windgem]

[hectorberlioz]

Was that supposed to be funny?

She's a foolish woman...

[Spock]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

If that is, indeed, a fact, then you wouldn't mind supplying a reference to a peer-reviewed article or the like, right?

Though if it were a fact, then it would be proven beyond a doubt (which doesn't even happen in social science), rather than merely commonly accepted by members of Western society?

It involves reading the quran. There are numerous articles and books about this fact also.
I've neither the time nor the inclination to list them all for you as I'm sure you'd not agree with them nor my own count.

[Spock]

Qur'an Quote On This Topic

"Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then Kill Him" ** It's also based upon a statement: "but whoever of you recants and dies an unbeliever, his works shall come to nothing in this world and the...

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Spock

It involves reading the quran. There are numerous articles and books about this fact also.
I've neither the time nor the inclination to list them all for you as I'm sure you'd not agree with them nor my own count.

I agree with her that it would help if you could provide a citation on this. It might be true, indeed considering my own views on the nature of Islam, you probably could convince me. But I would like to see your citation.

Originally Posted by Spock

Qur'an Quote On This Topic

"Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then Kill Him" ** It's also based upon a statement: "but whoever of you recants and dies an unbeliever, his works shall come to nothing in this world and the...

Yes, this quote is used a lot to justify the persecution of converts from Islam in the Middle East in modern times. Though that quote is actually from the Hadith. But the Hadith is strongly accepted among most Muslims. I read in one book by peaceful Muslims that if you have read the Qur'an alone and not the Hadith, you still don't understand Islam. More reading! Here's a citation for your quote:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article...095264,00.html

[Spock]

I'll try to come back with a few - and just a few- later today. Right now I should be sleeping.

[Nurvingiel]

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

Silly Nurv; Copernicus was a Catholic clergyman.

But the Vatican... denied... aaaugh *head esplodie*

I should go to bed too.

[The Gaffer]

Hehe. Nicely done Nurv.

Aren't we at risk of attempting to evaluate an entire religion from a neo-Protestant viewpoint? Islam is not, to my knowledge, a religion where one would pick up the Qu'ran and decide for oneself how to interpret it, in the same way that Prostestants (are supposed to) do. Islam has not been through a Reformation, to my knowledge. Rather, the (deep and profound) divisions within Islam have arisen for other reasons.

Looking at a holy book and counting the numbers of words to prove a point seems a bit like counting the leaves on the trees and trying to talk about forests.

EDIT: Oh, and Copernicus's De Revolutionibus was banned by the Catholic Church until about 300 years after its publication. The interesting thing, though, is that it was not "fact" in a sense. It presented a mathematical account of the solar system based on the observations available which put the Sun at the centre. There already were equivalent (Ptolemaic?) accounts which put the Earth at the centre, and which also fit with the observations, but which were more complex.

Clerics have a long and distinguished history of discovery and the sciences, not surprising, perhaps even disappointing given the amount of time they had on their hands. However, the Enlightenment was hoaching with strongly religious thinkers whose endeavour was to understand the mind of God by mapping out his creation. Then along came Darwin and (probably more importantly) Einstein and it all went a bit pear-shaped.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

Hehe. Nicely done Nurv.

Aren't we at risk of attempting to evaluate an entire religion from a neo-Protestant viewpoint? Islam is not, to my knowledge, a religion where one would pick up the Qu'ran and decide for oneself how to interpret it, in the same way that Prostestants (are supposed to) do.

This is true.

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

Islam has not been through a Reformation, to my knowledge. Rather, the (deep and profound) divisions within Islam have arisen for other reasons.

Looking at a holy book and counting the numbers of words to prove a point seems a bit like counting the leaves on the trees and trying to talk about forests.

Doing so can be interesting, though I agree that it isn't proof of anything.

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

EDIT: Oh, and Copernicus's De Revolutionibus was banned by the Catholic Church until about 300 years after its publication. The interesting thing, though, is that it was not "fact" in a sense. It presented a mathematical account of the solar system based on the observations available which put the Sun at the centre. There already were equivalent (Ptolemaic?) accounts which put the Earth at the centre, and which also fit with the observations, but which were more complex.

Clerics have a long and distinguished history of discovery and the sciences, not surprising, perhaps even disappointing given the amount of time they had on their hands. However, the Enlightenment was hoaching with strongly religious thinkers whose endeavour was to understand the mind of God by mapping out his creation. Then along came Darwin and (probably more importantly) Einstein and it all went a bit pear-shaped.

It shouldn't have. But I don't really understand your point, or how it relates to Islam .

[Spock]

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

Aren't we at risk of attempting to evaluate an entire religion from a neo-Protestant viewpoint? Islam is not, to my knowledge, a religion where one would pick up the Qu'ran and decide for oneself how to interpret it, in the same way that Prostestants (are supposed to) do.

To answer this : The Qur'an is NOT open to interpretation by the masses.
The fact is that violent jihad against unbelievers is not a doctrine held by a minority of extremists but a constant element of mainstream Islamic Theology still taught today.

[Lief Erikson]

I agree that there is probably a large mainstream current of Muslims who are taught violent jihad. Most of them aren't on a jihad right now, though.

[Spock]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

You don't have to prove it, but you do have to have some evidence that stands up to scrutiny.
You do have to prove a statement to call it a fact. Or, it has to already have been proven (eg. it is a fact that the Earth orbits the Sun, thank you Copernicus).

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

If that is, indeed, a fact, then you wouldn't mind supplying a reference to a peer-reviewed article or the like, right?

Though if it were a fact, then it would be proven beyond a doubt (which doesn't even happen in social science), rather than merely commonly accepted by members of Western society?

1. There are over 100 verses in the Qur'an the tell believers to wage jihad against unbelievers. (Qur'an 9:123) "Oh ye who believe! Fight the unbelievers who gird you about..."

2." ..make war on the unbelievers and the hypocrites and deal rigorously with them. Hell shall be their home...." (Qur'an 9:73)

3. "...if a country doesn't allow the propagation of Islam to its inhabitants in a suitable manner or creates hindrances to this, then the Muslim ruler would be justifying in waging a Jihad against this country..." commentary by mufti Ebrahim Desai concerning the Tafsir Uthmani (comentary on the Qur'an).

4. The violent verses of the ninth sura, including the Verse of the Sword (9:5) abrogate the peaceful verses because they were revealed later in the prophets career. (many scholars agree that the ninth sura was the very last section of the Qur'an to be revealed.