Study the Qur’an?

[Matthew_Light]

There are also Muslims who do not accept the idea of “abrogation” of any verses of the Qur’an:

quran-islam.org/main_topics/quran/false_accusations/abrogation_claims_(P1216).html

 

[Contarini]

Also, this list of the surahs in their traditional chronological order is helpful. This reflects traditional Islamic scholarship, not necessarily modern critical scholarship. (It is funny to see notes like “most of this is from Medina except these verses which are from Mecca,” because in Biblical scholarship that’s usually the sort of thing you see critical scholars doing rather than traditional ones.)

Edwin

 

[dronald]

What is the context of those verses? When were they revealed? What was happening to Muhammad and the companions at that time? Are they universally applicable 1000+ years later, or limited in scope to a specific event?

No context is given within the Qur’an for Surah 9:29. I suppose we could leave the context interpretation in the hands of imams but Islam is not monolithic and it’s evident by you not really belonging to “Islam” but rather Baha’i. Obviously you would disagree with a tonne of Imams on surah 9:29 who believe the Qur’an is universal, eternal, never changing, etc.

This also applies to Surah 4:34.

 

[Matthew_Light]

No context is given within the Qur’an for Surah 9:29.

The Qur’an cannot be understood without understanding the historical context of its surihs, when they were revealed, and what was happening to the fledgling Islamic community at that time.

I’ll just link to one Muslim commentary regarding 9:29

discover-the-truth.com/2014/06/03/examining-quran-929-does-islam-sanction-the-killing-of-christians-and-jews/

 

[CEDRIK]

As for Daniel Pipes (and Robert Spencer), be aware that these people are not considered to be scholars. They are advocates for a certain position–against Islam. What they say is not necessarily wrong, but it is a one-sided view. But if you go to the Pipes article, he does give a very good bibliography, which is balanced.

Respectfully,

Whether or not Daniel Pipes and Robert Spencer qualify as scholars seems irrelevant to me. What matters is whether what they write about Islam is accurate or not,and when I check what I read from them against original Arabic sources, I find most of it to be.

Obviously, they are not infallible and besides, since Muslims themselves disagree on some key issues, we cannot reasonably expect non-Muslims to always get things right.

I can see why one would describe Robert Spencer as being against Islam. Daniel Pipes however is more subtle in his approach,much less “one-sided” I would say. He believes for instance that Islam can be reformed and occasionally butts heads with other people on this issue.

meforum.org/2534/moderate-islam-western-ally-myth

danielpipes.org/15156/rushdie-rules-25-years

 

[dronald]

The Qur’an cannot be understood without understanding the historical context of its surihs, when they were revealed, and what was happening to the fledgling Islamic community at that time.

Then there lies the question of what the “Historical context” is.

For example, does Surah 4:34 only apply to husbands and wives in the 7th Century? And for how long?

And can you show me where the Qur’an says that Surah 9:29 is contextual for its own time and not an eternal command? I understand that Surah 9:5 seems contextual regarding a broken treaty, but there is nothing that suggests this in the text surrounding 9:29.

 

[dronald]

I’ll just link to one Muslim commentary regarding 9:29

discover-the-truth.com/2014/06/03/examining-quran-929-does-islam-sanction-the-killing-of-christians-and-jews/

I can certainly believe that Liberal Muslim Scholars who call critics of Islam “Islamophobes” in the very first paragraph can find a way to tiptoe around a passage about subjugation. But who are the earliest Muslims (I mean 10th Century and earlier) to say that this is contextual and has no relevance anymore? Look:

Ibn Kathir says that the dhimmis must be “disgraced, humiliated and belittled. Therefore, Muslims are not allowed to honor the people of Dhimmah or elevate them above Muslims, for they are miserable, disgraced and humiliated.” The seventh-century jurist Sa’id ibn al-Musayyab stated: “I prefer that the people of the dhimma become tired by paying the jizya since He says, “‘until they pay the jizya with their own hands in a state of complete abasement.’” As-Suyuti elaborates that this verse “is used as a proof by those who say that it is taken in a humiliating way, and so the taker sits and the dhimmi stands with his head bowed and his back bent. The jizya is placed in the balance and the taker seizes his beard and hits his chin.” He adds, however, that “this is rejected according to an-Nawawi who said, “‘This manner is invalid.’” Zamakhshari, however, agreed that the jizya should be collected “with belittlement and humiliation.”

In explaining how the Jews and Christians must “feel themselves subdued,” Ibn Kathir quotes a saying of Muhammad: “Do not initiate the Salam [greeting of peace] to the Jews and Christians, and if you meet any of them in a road, force them to its narrowest alley.” He then goes on to outline the notorious Pact of Umar, an agreement made, according to Islamic tradition, between the caliph Umar, who ruled the Muslims from 634 to 644, and a Christian community.

This Pact is worth close examination, because it became the foundation for Islamic law regarding the treatment of the dhimmis. With remarkably little variation, throughout Islamic history whenever Islamic law was strictly enforced, this is generally how non-Muslims were treated. Working from the full text as Ibn Kathir has it, these are the conditions the Christians accept in return for “safety for ourselves, children, property and followers of our religion” — conditions that, according to Ibn Kathir, “ensured their continued humiliation, degradation and disgrace.” The Christians will not:

1. Build “a monastery, church, or a sanctuary for a monk”;
2. “Restore any place of worship that needs restoration”;
3. Use such places “for the purpose of enmity against Muslims”;
4. “Allow a spy against Muslims into our churches and homes or hide deceit [or betrayal] against Muslims”;
5. Imitate the Muslims’ “clothing, caps, turbans, sandals, hairstyles, speech, nicknames and title names”;
6. “Ride on saddles, hang swords on the shoulders, collect weapons of any kind or carry these weapons”;
7. “Encrypt our stamps in Arabic”
8. “Sell liquor” — Christians in Iraq in the last few years ran afoul of Muslims reasserting this rule;
9. “Teach our children the Qur’an”;
10. “Publicize practices of Shirk” — that is, associating partners with Allah, such as regarding Jesus as Son of God. In other words, Christian and other non-Muslim religious practice will be private, if not downright furtive;
11. Build “crosses on the outside of our churches and demonstrating them and our books in public in Muslim fairways and markets” — again, Christian worship must not be public, where Muslims can see it and become annoyed;
12. “Sound the bells in our churches, except discreetly, or raise our voices while reciting our holy books inside our churches in the presence of Muslims, nor raise our voices [with prayer] at our funerals, or light torches in funeral processions in the fairways of Muslims, or their markets”;
13. “Bury our dead next to Muslim dead”;
14. “Buy servants who were captured by Muslims”;
15. “Invite anyone to Shirk” — that is, proselytize, although the Christians also agree not to:
16. “Prevent any of our fellows from embracing Islam, if they choose to do so.” Thus the Christians can be the objects of proselytizing, but must not engage in it themselves;
17. “Beat any Muslim.”

Meanwhile, the Christians will:

1. Allow Muslims to rest “in our churches whether they come by day or night”;
2. “Open the doors [of our houses of worship] for the wayfarer and passerby”;
3. Provide board and food for “those Muslims who come as guests” for three days;
4. “Respect Muslims, move from the places we sit in if they choose to sit in them” — shades of Jim Crow;
5. “Have the front of our hair cut, wear our customary clothes wherever we are, wear belts around our waist” — these are so that a Muslim recognizes a non-Muslim as such and doesn’t make the mistake of greeting him with As-salaamu aleikum, “Peace be upon you,” which is the Muslim greeting for a fellow Muslim;
6. “Be guides for Muslims and refrain from breaching their privacy in their homes.”

 

[Thorolfr]

There are many others. A final word of warning: if you delve into the murky world of Muslims propaganda, you will find a couple common tactics:

1. what I call the “fantasy Islam” (example: Myriam/Emilie Francois-Cerrah) In this case, the speaker creates an individualized Islam where they chose only the parts of Islam they like and reject the rest. This is common and all too easy–since there is no central authority in Islam, and since Islam has been in factions since the death of Muhammad, you find all sorts of groups saying “We are the true Muslims,” and other groups saying, “No, WE are the true Muslims.” So someone can present you with their idealized version of Islam, and you will be impressed by how wonderful it is. Be aware you’re only seeing the tip of the iceberg.

This doesn’t sound all that different from Christianity. Catholics say, “WE are the true Christians,” Baptists say, “WE are the true Christians,” Lutherans say, “WE are the true Christians,” etc.

1. If you challenge something in Islam (the treatment of women, Jihad, enslaving female captives, etc.) the reply is almost always “Well, this verse applied to a specific situation in 633 (or whatever) and doesn’t mean anything today.” Ask yourself if this makes sense in an inspired book that is supposedly uncreated; are there any Gospel stories that relate only to Caesarea in 31 AD? Does it make sense that so many verses in the Qur’an seem to be there only to justify some action of Muhammad (for example, where did the veil come from? Well, Muhammad was visiting his adopted son, and he saw his adopted son’s wife nude, and he liked what he saw; the adopted son divorced his wife so Muhammad could marry her, and Muhammad (“the Qur’an”) decided it would be a good idea to veil women from now on).

Happy to answer questions.

If you point out that the Old Testament is full of examples of people who practiced polygamy (Abraham, Jacob, David, Solomon), Christians will say that this does not apply any more. The same thing happens if you point out verses that seem to support slavery. I don’t see a big difference between Islam and Christianity in the above examples.

 

[Thorolfr]

There are many things to learn from Islam–not beliefs, but ways of looking at religion, and how religions develop. For example, both Islam and Christianity had to deal with issues of free will and “Can a serious sinner be a real Muslim (or Christian)?”

Indeed. And many Christians in the Middle Ages learned from Muslims such as Avicenna (Ibn Sina), Averroes (Ibn Rushd), Al-Ghazali and others. The writings of many Muslim mystics such as Ibn Arabi are extraordinary. Scholars such as Michael Sells have done interesting comparisons of the thought of Ibn Arabi with medieval Christian mystics such as Johannes Scotus Eriugena. The American Catholic writer and Trappist monk Thomas Merton was very interested in Islamic mysticism (Sufism). There is a lot to learn from Islam, even for Christians.

 

[mamlukman]

My comment on lack of authority in Islam and your comment that it doesn’t sound much different than Christianity–I think it IS different. Until the Reformation, although there were occasional heresies, they were branded as such and eventually disappeared. With the Reformation, you do have a situation somewhat similar to Islam–anyone could gather a number of followers together and announce a new religion or church. But I’m not aware that anyone ever came along and made the claim that those who did not believe what he believed were not Christians, and certainly the Catholic Church–although it certainly wasn’t happy with the situation–never said these people weren’t Christians. (I could be wrong about the position of some of the Protestant sects; and certainly there are those who say the Mormons are not Christians.) But in Islam it is standard practice to say about those who disagree, “They are not Muslims.” And in the specific example I was giving (Emilie/Myriam Francois-Cerrah), she often defends her own beliefs by dismissing any criticism by saying “That isn’t Islam.” But of course she never backs that up; it’s just an assertion. Other Muslim apologists do the same.

And certainly if you belong to a large denomination (Anglican, Catholic, Lutheran, Presbyterian, etc.), there are Church councils in the case of Catholics and annual (?) meetings in the case of the others, where limits are set, and yes, schisms occur. But that’s my point–if some Episcopal churches in the US, for example, split off over an issue, it’s clear what has happened, and the breakaway churches are quick to put themselves under another bishop–I think the Anglican bishop of Uganda, if I’m not mistaken. In other words, there is still a recognition of authority. In Islam, you just declare yourself prophet (the Bab or the Ahmadis) or the Madhi (Sudan, late 19th c.) and declare everyone who doesn’t join you isn’t a true Muslim.

As for the Old Testament, you’re making the same type of argument that Muslims make. My point was that the Gospels have only stories or morals that can apply to any place at any time; they’re universal. The Qur’an, on the other hand, has numerous verses which (according to Muslim apologists) only apply to a specific place and time and are not universal. The Epistles are a different story since of course they are usually written to respond to specific issues in a specific group of Christians. The Old Testament is filled with all sorts of things we would condemn today (human sacrifice, revenge, killing women and children in war, slavery, concubines, polygamy, etc.). Today no one would promote those practices and cite the Old Testament as justification. (There may be fringe groups like pseudo-Mormons who believe in polygamy, but even the Mormon Church–not to mention state law–condemns them.) But in Islam there are large groups (ISIS, al-Qaeda, etc.–and the huge minorities–49% according to some polls–who support them) who justify their actions using the Qur’an.

Again, I would argue that what Christians can learn from Islam is various approaches or philosophical arguments to address common problems–NOT beliefs. Obviously there are similarities in all types of mysticism, and it’s interesting to note the similarities, but I wouldn’t go so far as to say that Ibn al-'Arabi has mystical insights that Christian mystics lack.

 

[Matthew_Light]

Then there lies the question of what the “Historical context” is.

For example, does Surah 4:34 only apply to husbands and wives in the 7th Century? And for how long?

I think the usual translation Surih 4:34 is based on a transcription error.

The Qur’an was originally written in Arabic script without vowels. That means that the passage could have read read “leave them” instead of “beat them”. Which makes much more sense as the next verse says to appoint arbiters from his and her family. Would not make much sense to seek arbitration from her family after beating her, would it?

The bulk of the Hadith (as problematic as I find them!) make it very clear that Muhammad was very gentle and loving towards his wives.

 

[Matthew_Light]

But who are the earliest Muslims (I mean 10th Century and earlier) to say that this is contextual and has no relevance anymore? Look:

I do not hold Jesus and the New Testament responsible for the bad actions of many early and late Christians, even if they cited passages in support of their actions like “thou shalt not suffer a witch to live”, “I come not to bring peace, but a sword” and “And the Lord said to the servant: Go out into the highways and hedges, and compel them to come in, that my house may be filled.”

 

[Thorolfr]

My comment on lack of authority in Islam and your comment that it doesn’t sound much different than Christianity–I think it IS different. Until the Reformation, although there were occasional heresies, they were branded as such and eventually disappeared.

The notion that Christianity was very unified before the Reformation might be the Catholic version of early Christian history, but in my opinion, early Christianity was also very divided with many different groups of Christians and many different views of who Jesus was. What became the Catholic Church (what Bart Ehrman calls the proto-Orhodox group) was just more successful at stamping out its rivals.

But in Islam it is standard practice to say about those who disagree, “They are not Muslims.” And in the specific example I was giving (Emilie/Myriam Francois-Cerrah), she often defends her own beliefs by dismissing any criticism by saying “That isn’t Islam.” But of course she never backs that up; it’s just an assertion. Other Muslim apologists do the same.

We get people here in CAF saying all the time that certain beliefs and practices of Protestants are not true (and therefore not real Christianity) and Protestants say the same kinds of things about many beliefs and practices of Catholics.

As for Muslims, nowadays there are probably more Muslims going around saying that other Muslims are not “real” Muslims, but historically, that behavior was certainly discouraged since that was associated with the Khawarij. So I wouldn’t consider it “standard” practice in Islam. Early creeds such as the Fiqh Akbar I says, “we do not declare anyone an unbeliever through sin, and we do not exclude anyone from iman.” The Wasiya of Abu Hanifa says, “Sinners of the community of Muhammad are all believers, not unbelievers (i.e. kuffar).” Anyone who confessed with the tongue that they were a Muslim was usually considered to be Muslim by most Sunni Muslim scholars. That was the Murji’ite position which pretty much became the Sunni position. That’s why most Sunni scholars recognize the Shi’a as fellow Muslims (even if they consider them misguided). The Shi’a are allowed to go on the hajj to Mecca. Even nowadays, it is simple to become a Muslim by saying the shahada (“There is no god but God and Muhammad is his messenger”). No confirmation classes or membership classes are required to make sure you have proper or “orthodox” beliefs. You can even do it over the Internet.

 

[dronald]

I do not hold Jesus and the New Testament responsible for the bad actions of many early and late Christians, even if they cited passages in support of their actions like “thou shalt not suffer a witch to live”, “I come not to bring peace, but a sword” and “And the Lord said to the servant: Go out into the highways and hedges, and compel them to come in, that my house may be filled.”

That’s because Jesus and the New Testament were not actively quoted while committing atrocities, including “Peace but a sword” and the highways and hedges.

And yes, an extremely small group of Christians did quote the OT in order to kill “witches”. But it doesn’t even address your points of “Early Christians and New Testament.”

But I have found you quotes within the first 500 years of Islam; of people having the passages readily available such as Surah 9:29. During Muhammad’s time, also 500 years after, continually after that, and now, we have Muslims quoting Surah 9:29 as an excuse to subjugate Christians and Jews. Heck, even the Hamas Charter quotes at large the Quran and Hadith. Word for word they quote “The trees will speak up and tell Muslims Jews are hiding so they can be killed.” Which is Hadith.

You can look for sporadic examples of a Christian group here or there. But I seriously challenge you to find what I can find with a simple Google search.

1. Early interpretations within the first 150 years of Christian text that is “misinterpreted” to mean go out and kill.
2. Within the first 500 years
3. Any leader of any Church who has quoted Jesus Himself, or the NT as an excuse to subjugate and kill.

Since all of my examples can easily be proven regarding Islamic history, then it should be just as easy for Christianity.

The fact is, when Christians did horrible things; they did them despite their texts. They did not make an effort to find the text and misinterpret, because it was never there. Jesus only spoke peace and so did His Disciples. Muhammad spoke of both peace and war, and that’s why in Islam you get both.

 

[Mount_Carmel]

What is the context of those verses? When were they revealed? What was happening to Muhammad and the companions at that time? Are they universally applicable 1000+ years later, or limited in scope to a specific event?

Anything in the ‘Noble Qur’an’ is supposed to be the eternal will and voice of ‘Allah’, so not for negotiation. Also, if you trawl through the ‘Islamic Trilogy’ of texts you will find that the stuff traditionally deemed as ‘safe’ that Muhammad is reported as saying or doing that hasn’t been abrogated is also not to be questioned or ignored - according to mainstream [Islamic] ‘jurisprudence’.

 

[Matthew_Light]

Anything in the ‘Noble Qur’an’ is supposed to be the eternal will and voice of ‘Allah’, so not for negotiation. Also, if you trawl through the ‘Islamic Trilogy’ of texts you will find that the stuff traditionally deemed as ‘safe’ that Muhammad is reported as saying or doing that hasn’t been abrogated is also not to be questioned or ignored - according to mainstream [Islamic] ‘jurisprudence’.

I think Abrogation is terrible exegesis of the Qur’an, and I certainly don’t accept the idea that the social teachings of religion are eternally relevant (such as “Slaves, obey your masters”).

Regarding the “Hadith”, many are fallacious or even fraudulent, so I do not give them undue weight.

 

[Matthew_Light]

That’s because Jesus and the New Testament were not actively quoted while committing atrocities, including “Peace but a sword” and the highways and hedges.

I’ve read quotations from Christians involved in the Crusades, forced conversions and the Inquisition, and they certainly did reference the New Testament and the words of Jesus.

Here is a modern example:

armyofgod.com/

Now you are right about this - Islamic extremism is a huge enormous problem today, and Christian extremism more or less a footnote. That’s because of the Enlightenment with its separation of Church and State that the West has gone through, and the Muslim countries have not.

 

[dronald]

I’ve read quotations from Christians involved in the Crusades, forced conversions and the Inquisition, and they certainly did reference the New Testament and the words of Jesus.

Here is a modern example:

armyofgod.com/

Now you are right about this - Islamic extremism is a huge enormous problem today, and Christian extremism more or less a footnote. That’s because of the Enlightenment with its separation of Church and State that the West has gone through, and the Muslim countries have not.

What words of Jesus did they use and who used them during the Crusades? I would love exact quotes from Jesus by a spiritual leader.

Regarding the abortion people:

Michael Bray
Paul Jennings Hill
David Leach
Scott Roeder
Eric Robert Rudolph
James Charles Kopp[9]
Shelley Shannon
Donald Spitz
Clayton Waagner
Fritz Springmeier

Not even close as you admit. It’s not because the West is ‘smarter’ it’s because of the Islamic texts. How many educated men are involved in terrorist activity while actively quoting the Qur’an?

Why haven’t any Christians flown to Iraq to join ISIS? If it’s not an ‘Islam problem’ we should expect all Religions trying to join.

Kenya saw over 150 people killed this month in a school shooting organized by a very educated man. This isn’t a ‘poor and stupid people’ problem. It’s due to Surah’s like 9:29.

 

[Contarini]

What words of Jesus did they use and who used them during the Crusades? I would love exact quotes from Jesus by a spiritual leader.

Urban II calling for the first Crusade, as reported by Robert the Monk:

Let the deeds of your ancestors move you and incite your minds to manly achievements; the glory and greatness of king Charles the Great, and of his son Louis, and of your other kings, who have destroyed the kingdoms of the pagans, and have extended in these lands the territory of the holy church. Let the holy sepulchre of the Lord our Saviour, which is possessed by unclean nations, especially incite you, and the holy places which are now treated with ignominy and irreverently polluted with their filthiness. Oh, most valiant soldiers and descendants of invincible ancestors, be not degenerate, but recall the valor of your progenitors.

But if you are hindered by love of children, parents and wives, remember what the Lord says in the Gospel, “He that loveth father or mother more than me, is not worthy of me.” “Every one that hath forsaken houses, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands for my name’s sake shall receive an hundredfold and shall inherit everlasting life.” Let none of your possessions detain you, no solicitude for your family affairs, since this land which you inhabit, shut in on all sides by the seas and surrounded by the mountain peaks, is too narrow for your large population; nor does it abound in wealth; and it furnishes scarcely food enough for its cultivators. Hence it is that you murder one another, that you wage war, and that frequently you perish by mutual wounds. Let therefore hatred depart from among you, let your quarrels end, let wars cease, and let all dissensions and controversies slumber. Enter upon the road to the Holy Sepulchre; wrest that land from the wicked race, and subject it to yourselves. That land which as the Scripture says “floweth with milk and honey,” was given by God into the possession of the children of Israel Jerusalem is the navel of the world; the land is fruitful above others, like another paradise of delights. This the Redeemer of the human race has made illustrious by His advent, has beautified by residence, has consecrated by suffering, has redeemed by death, has glorified by burial. This royal city, therefore, situated at the centre of the world, is now held captive by His enemies, and is in subjection to those who do not know God, to the worship of the heathens. She seeks therefore and desires to be liberated, and does not cease to implore you to come to her aid. From you especially she asks succor, because, as we have already said, God has conferred upon you above all nations great glory in arms. Accordingly undertake this journey for the remission of your sins, with the assurance of the imperishable glory of the kingdom of heaven.

Edwin

 

[Matthew_Light]

Not even close as you admit. It’s not because the West is ‘smarter’ it’s because of the Islamic texts.

If you look at history fairly, Christian religious groups often behaved very savagely until the Enlightenment and the (today) nearly universal principle of the separation of religious and political authority in the West which has led to pluralist societies. We can recount an endless litany of examples if needed - the Crusades, Inquisition, burning of witches, wars conducted between Christians of different beliefs.

When you say that the religion of some other group of a billion people is irredeemably savage and violent, you are essentially saying that peace with Muslims is impossible. That’s bigotry and is, of course, completely unhelpful for relations between Christians, Jews and muslims.

The Qur’an is not any more violent than the Old Testament, and for similar reasons.