The accusation I have made is that you’re using the hardships others have caused in order to justify some Islamic practices, namely the Jizya; a bigoted, discriminatory tax.Go easy on the accusations. If you see my posts throughout this thread you will see that I have bothered to construct a proper argument. The conversation went where it did out of its own volition You are free to disagree with me, and you won’t have me demanding tax from you if you do.
And that’s fine, but it doesn’t mean it’s true.And I have never “defended to koran”. I am offering an non-militarist reading of it - it doesn’t mean I agree with it.
This is where my issue with your explanations lay. Here you’re comparing what is meant to be the greatest book, for all time, for all people, to what people here on Earth do.The point I was making is that religious or pseudo-religious justifications for obedience and tax exist in all forms of government. That does not necessarily have to be a bad thing. Queen Elisabeth II is the head of state in the UK, and a religious figurehead that justifies the collection of tax. That doesn’t mean I have a problem with it, or that as a non-anglican I feel horribly repressed; even though British coronation ceremonies include anti-Catholic imagery and themes. If I lived in the Tunisia, for example (even though they are quite liberal), and I paid tax under a different name I still wouldn’t have a problem with it.
That isn’t what I meant by my argument. I was trying to say that any form of government ultimately must have a reason for collecting tax, and that it has often been the case, even in modern societies, that the justification has been found in religious principles. I wanted to make the point of “why do we object to one particular form of tax, simply because it is Islamic, but not to others?” I was also making the point that all ideologies, even liberalism, claim the same level of authority as islam, even if they define that authority in Christian terms or humanist ideals. There is no reason why jizya cannot simply be collected as a matter of course without the religious dimension being highlighted.The accusation I have made is that you’re using the hardships others have caused in order to justify some Islamic practices, namely the Jizya; a bigoted, discriminatory tax.
Basically you’re saying, “other people have done bad things, therefore the Jizya is okay.” And my retort is that a book that claims to be the perfect guidance for all mankind, for all time cannot be judged by human standards. There is no moral relativism, therefore the Qur’an is bigoted.
And that’s fine, but it doesn’t mean it’s true.
This is where my issue with your explanations lay. Here you’re comparing what is meant to be the greatest book, for all time, for all people, to what people here on Earth do.
If Islam claimed to be just a way of life that could work; then okay, you’d have a debate. But Islam claims to be the absolute truth; with the Qur’an demanding a Jizya that would cause Christians to be considered different just based on their Religion. That’s what we call discrimination, and it doesn’t fly in this day.
Muslims do have scholars who help them interpret their faith, but they don’t have some sort of magisterial authority to define doctrine or make binding pronouncements upon the faithful.As pointed out previously, Muslims have their own interpreters ,to help them understand their faith better.
This is what Ibn Kathir says of verse 9.31
“Fighting the Jews and Christians is legislated because They are Idolators and Disbelievers”
Allah the Exalted encourages the believers to fight the polytheists, disbelieving Jews and Christians, who uttered this terrible statement and utter lies against Allah, the Exalted. As for the Jews, they claimed thatUzayr was the son of God, Allah is free of what they attribute to Him. As for the misguidance of Christians overIsa, it is obvious. This is why Allah declared both groups to be liars,
qtafsir.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2565&Itemid=64
All your arguments ultimately are against authentic Islamic sources,and not against those quoting from them.
The last of the three videos in the series is outright propaganda. Islamic philosophy and science were just as important an influence to the advancements she was describing as those of any other civilisation. One could also make the point that when the germanic tribes invaded the roman empire they destroyed everything and practically eliminated literacy in western Europe for centuries; but when the arabs invaded, literacy, medical care and the arts and sciences flourished. I don’t want to romanticise medieval Islamic civilisation, but at the same time I have to point out that this woman is abusing and deforming history to fit her narrative.youtube.com/watch?v=up3yuQDAWKQ&list=PL89FA1CBCAF670D2E
Please take time out to view this youtube presentation by someone who knows,and speaks the truth about the Islamic faith.
No other faith is a danger to humanity like the Islamic faith, which seeks to control the world with oppressive laws, which eradicate freedom of conscience and the freedom to live as dignified human beings created in the image of God, to love and receive love as He intended.I find it very telling that CAF tolerates all these anti-Muslim posts. Why is it okay to blatantly stereotype and attack one faith, while even the most gentle and circumspect observations regarding other faiths are viewed as “uncharitable?”
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamophobia
Thank you for that comment.I find it very telling that CAF tolerates all these anti-Muslim posts. Why is it okay to blatantly stereotype and attack one faith, while even the most gentle and circumspect observations regarding other faiths are viewed as “uncharitable?”
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamophobia
The irony of your post is undoubtedly lost on you.No other faith is a danger to humanity like the Islamic faith, which seeks to control the world with oppressive laws, which eradicate freedom of conscience and the freedom to live as dignified human beings created in the image of God, to love and receive love as He intended.
Islamic teachings destroys all this and more, with its intolerant, divisive, discriminatory mind-set, which permeates all aspects of a person’s life, eliminating all feelings of empathy and compassion towards those who believe differently to them.
By not bringing this truth out into the open, you become complicit with its poison, enabling it to further its agenda unhindered, towards its ultimate aim of the destruction of the human race.
It is strongly recommend to those who believe it is “Islamaphobic”to speak the truth about Islam, to research for themselves what Islam is, and what it stands for, before they use unfounded, derogatory terms for those who do know the truth.
If you are a Muslim, you know who you put your trust in.Muslims do have scholars who help them interpret their faith, but they don’t have some sort of magisterial authority to define doctrine or make binding pronouncements upon the faithful.
Not only that, but simply because a scholar is well respected doesn’t mean that everything he said or commented upon represents orthodoxy. These people hold a position nowhere near as official as that of our doctors of the church, and even our doctors of the church can be found to be wrong about certain things, even if the majority of their contributions are accepted. So it seems unfair to use scholarly opinions from the 14th century as a sure key to decipher the “authentic” meaning of a particular verse. What I said earlier still stands, the verse in question can be read, perfectly legitimately, to mean the Jews and Christians in the Mecca and surrounding areas of the time, who were antagonising the muslims.
Depending on your secular interests.If you are a Muslim, you know who you put your trust in.
I believe this could be partially correct, but then Mohammed put a "religious "slant on the whole affair by proclaiming himself a prophet in the same calibre as all previous Bible prophets, speaking on behalf of the Bible God, which is provably false, as each respective rules conflict with each other.I mentioned in an earlier post that I believe it came from Mohamed. I think that he was a semi-influential person in 7th century Arabia, which was deeply divided socially and politically at the time. In my view, his actions, including the recitation of the Koran, were his attempt at gaining influence and creating political stability and an ideology to maintain it; this system was based largely on existing customs, although sharia law was a significant step forward compared to how tribes would sometimes act. I believe it was an attempt to create something good, although it was marked by the mentality and events of the day, including Christological controversies and constant wars between the Arab’s northern neighbours. There was also a considerable Zoroastrian influence (through Salman the Persian, and the Persian presence in southern arabia) and Judaism.
This is just a theory however. I have read history books which propose similar ideas, but who knows.
All what you have written would ring true but for one thing, Mohammed was a deceiver, he used the concept of god ,in this instance the Bible God to get what he wanted ,be it booty,sex slaves, or land.Granted,he may have started out with the intention of uniting his countrymen, but he fell foul to his own selfish desires, which then took precedence.Agreed. Although I don’t know how far, despite what he said, Mohamed really intended his religion to go. One thing is filling his fellow arabs with feelings of mission and grandeur in order to unite them, and another entirely is the projection of those ideas beyond their intended audience. I guess it depends on whether Mohamed really believed what he was saying, or whether he was trying to motivate people who were otherwise trapped in constant infighting. Perhaps he was victim to his own rise to power.
The conditions of 7th century Arabia are manifest in the Koran and the modern muslim religion, yet those conditions are also the basis for Islam’s more positive aspects, which allow it to be more than just a testimony of religiously themed shrewd political actions. Late antiquity was a time rich in philosophical and theological discourse; Christians, Jews, Zoroastrians, Neo-Platonists, Manicheans… you name it! All these people were debating and putting forward all sorts of theories and concepts. Although I don’t find the Koran especially rich in any of them, it does often invite the reader to think and question, and has a very strong argument from design running throughout. It does serve as a solid platform to start a discussion on ethics, the nature of creation and time, the soul, or the implications of monotheism. Because it is so amorphous and cryptic, it actually creates a potentially very open space for discussing practically anything, and tying any philosophical findings to the concept of a first cause. In that sense, islam can both undogmatic yet intellectually consistent. It won’t make it agree with the events it claims to follow on from; namely, God’s genuine revelation; but it does create a homogenous system of thought that qualifies as a religion.
At its best, this form of islam was intellectual, gentle, tolerant and very creative. And most importantly, there was nothing unorthodox about it. It gave sufficient value to reason as to allow contextual readings of the Koran, which, with a fully developed philosophical concept of evil, allowed for the iffy passages to be interpreted in a more informed light.