KafirGirl

We read the Quran so you don’t have to.

9: Repentance (Part I — This chapter sucks balls.)

with 155 comments

Digg del.icio.us StumbleUpon Reddit

I took a solid hour to write out this cute little intro about repentance and sin, and just as I was about to start digging in to chapter 9, I scrapped it.  I hit delete and I got up and walked away.  I went to get some coffee, I air drummed to Phil Collins, I picked my toes, I battled the rancor, I sent KafirBoy so many text messages that he could probably get a restraining order against me.  Is it possible to sexually harass your own husband?  I was willing to find out.

Now it’s been just over 24 hours since I first sat down to pound chapter 9 out, and I’ve only made it to verse 5.  Verse 5…out of 130.  Why, you ask?  Whhhhy??  Because Chapter 9 contains such a concentration of hatred and ugliness and big fucking piles of bullshit that I don’t even know where to start.  That’s why.  And a funny little intro to a chapter like this just felt wrong.

I don’t want to be a whiner — I mean, we get enough of that from the Jews in the Quran.  But chapter 9 fucking sucks balls.  In an entire book full of ball-sucking chapters, chapter 9 is by far the ball-suckiest one so far.  It’s really hard to be lighthearted and silly all the time when the subject matter is all doom and fucking gloom.  Especially since every time I sit down to write, it makes me feel like I’ll puke up every thing I’ve ever eaten since kindergarten.

Anyway, I realize that if I don’t get started on it now, we’ll just be stuck here forever.  Grab some Advil and get ready to pop a blood vessel.   Lets fucking do this already before I blast Phil Collins again.

First off, I think Repentance is a total misnomer.  This chapter should be called Fight.  Seriously.  The words repent and repentance show up 10 times.  Fight and Fighting?  17 times.  And just for procrastination fun, I checked out a couple more words:

  • Punishment = 8
  • Mercy = 3
  • Pain = 6
  • Joy = 1
  • Hell = 10
  • Heaven = 1

That mention of heaven, by the way, is not even in a positive context:

127. Indeed God has turned their hearts away (from the truth), for they cannot discern the law of heaven.

Yup.  One mention of heaven and it’s all about how God has turned off peoples’ hearts to Islam.  That’s the kind of chapter this is.

It actually doesn’t even start out like all the other chapters so far.  The usual “In the name of Allah, most benevolent, ever-merciful” is missing in action.  And it’s not just my Ahmed Ali translation either.  It’s missing from every translation I checked — both the English and Arabic.  So either this is a mistake in the Quran(!) or Mo forgot to tip his hat to God in this revelation.  Orrrrr he finally realized that God is neither merciful nor benevolent, and he left that shit out on purpose!

OK, fine, that last one is probably just wishful thinking on my part.  The sheer number of God is fucking greats in this chapter more than make up for the missing verse.  I looked up Muslim reactions to chapter 9′s unusual kickoff and most of them seem to think that old Mo left it out on purpose. Why?  Because. Chock it up to another one of those mysteries of God, I guess.  Mohammed doesn’t make mistakes.

As far as chronological order goes, there is some disagreement about which chapter was the last to be revealed.  They’re all pretty much the same shit repeated over and over again, so I can understand the confusion.  Most sites I checked agree that Chapter 9 was one of the last of Mohammed’s revelations.  WikiIslam lists it as the second last.

One thing that all the sites agree on is this:  chapter 9 was revealed at a time when Mohammed was a force to be reckoned with.  He was a political, religious and military leader.  Oh, and he was also king of the douchebags.  That one wasn’t really on any of the sites, but I thought I’d throw it in anyway.  Anyway, Mohammed had established some peace treaties with the pagans in his area.  Sort of a you scratch my back / I won’t rip your head off deal.  Check it out:

(1) IMMUNITY is granted those idolators by God and his Apostle with whom you have a treaty.
(2) (They can) move about for four months freely in the land, but should know they cannot escape (the law of) God, and that God can put the unbelievers to shame.

So God gives these pagans four months of freedom to roam around as needed.  But he wants them to know that he’s doing it reluctantly.  And that he could punish them if he wanted to. He’s just been really, really busy lately with all that nothing he does up in heaven.

(3) A general proclamation is (made) this day of the Greater Pilgrimage on the part of God and His Apostle, that God is not bound (by any contract) to idolaters, nor is His Apostle. It is, therefore, better for you to repent. If you do not, remember that you cannot elude (the grip of) God.  So announce to those who deny the truth the news of painful punishment,

Yup.  God’s all about that abrogation shit, huh?  After those four months, all contracts with the pagans are null and void.  God and Mohammed are off the hook, and the pagans are, um, about to be on the hook.

By the way, I don’t think God was legally bound to any contract to begin with.  Did the pagans get him to sign anything?  Did he sign it “God” or “Allah” or one of his other 99 names?  Did lightening come out of the sky and leave a big X on the paper?  Or, since God is too busy and important to deal with this kind of thing himself, maybe he asked Mohammed to sign for him.

Can you imagine the looks on the pagans’ faces if he brought that shit up?  “Oh, uh, listen pagans.  God told me to just go ahead and sign for him.  He was totally going to be here today, but he has all this shit going.  One of the fire generators in hell overheated and now the whole back corner is cooling down.  So, you know, I’ll take care of it for him.  I’ll just use this blue pen — that way his is in blue, and mine is in black.  And I’ll make his o’s the way he makes them.  His o’s are loopier than mine.  Oh, don’t worry, we do this all the time.  He’s a busy guy.”

Anyway, after God revokes the treaty, he starts spouting off about repenting and punishment.  If the pagans do not turn away from sin and turn to God, they will be punished.  Painfully. Ooooh ominous!  In other words, if they don’t convert to Islam, they’re in trouble.  And here I thought there was no compulsion in religion!  Where the fuck did I get such a silly idea?  Oh, I know!  I got it from the fucking Quran:

(2:256) There is no compulsion in matter of faith.

So just a few short chapters back, God said you can’t force someone into converting.  And now he’s forcing the pagans to convert to Islam by giving them the choice of conversion or death.  Again, I’d like to bring up this verse:

(2:2) This is a book free from doubt and involution

Seriously?  No doubt or complexity in this here book?  Seriously??   Well,  what the fuck is all of that up there?  One minute there’s no compulsion in religion, and then next it’s the Godfather ultimatum.  The offer they can’t refuse:  convert to Islam or else.  Doubt!  Complexity!!  The Quran is full of shit.

(4) Except those idolaters with whom you have a treaty, who have not failed you in the least, nor helped anyone against you. Fulfil your obligations to them during the term (of the treaty). God loves those who take heed for themselves.

The only pagans who are exempt from painful punishment are the ones who haven’t done anything to piss Mohammed off.  No, not God.  Mohammed. It’s all about Mohammed.  Seriously.  Read verse 4 again:  Except those idolaters with whom you have a treaty, who have not failed you in the least, nor helped anyone against you. It’s like Mo’s not even trying to hide it anymore.

OK, this is where I’m confused even further.  This verse seems to imply that some of the pagans actually struck the first blow by breaking the treaties.  And that the Muslims were giving them four months to hightail it before hunting them down.  But I can’t find a single fucking thing aside from really general statements like this:

This verse was revealed during a historical period when the small Muslim community had entered into treaties with neighboring tribes (Jewish, Christian, and pagan). Several of the pagan tribes had violated the terms of their treaty, secretly aiding an enemy attack against the Muslim community.

Um, details please?  Like when?  And which tribes?  And what enemy attack?  Why can’t I find a single fact anywhere?  Again with the doubt and complexity.  I mean, maybe it actually happened like the Quran claims.  Maybe a bunch of asshole pagans made a treaty with the Muslims, and then secretly helped attack the Muslims.  It could have happened.  Now here’s my question:  why the fuck didn’t anyone write anything down?!  And if they did, why don’t the Muslim apologists have some goddamn references when they make their neat little claims that the pagans struck first?

It would seriously help this shit make a tad more sense if there was some evidence that any of it actually happened.  But then again, this is religion we’re talking about.  It doesn’t make a whole lot of sense to begin with.

(5) But when these months, prohibited (for fighting), are over, slay the idolaters wheresoever you find them, and take them captive or besiege them, and lie in wait for them at every likely place. But if they repent and fulfil their devotional obligations and pay the zakat, then let them go their way, for God is forgiving and kind.

Ohhhhhhhhh.  Their.  Fucking.  God.  There is so much that is so wrong with that verse.  It gave me hernias on my eyeballs having to read it over and over.  Lets break it down one line at a time, OK?  Anything more than that and these poor peepers might explode.

(5) But when these months, prohibited (for fighting), are over,

That’s the four months God was talking about earlier.  The more I think about it, the more I realize how fucking ridiculous that four month ceasefire is.  I mean, if God has predestined everything those pagans are going to do, what’s the fucking point of dragging that shit on for four months?  Why not just *poof* knock down the ones who weren’t going to become Muslims anyway?  And let everyone else live?  Why go through this whole four month song and dance number?

slay the idolaters wheresoever you find them, and take them captive or besiege them, and lie in wait for them at every likely place.

And that right there is the infamous sword verse that Osama bin Laden is so in love with.  This shit is from Ahmed Fucking Ali, apologist extraordinaire, and it’s still so in your face about killing people.  I checked out a couple of other translations just to make sure he didn’t water it down too much:

A. J. Arberry:
(5) Then, when the sacred months are drawn away, slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them, and confine them, and lie in wait for them at every place of ambush.

Pickthall:
(5) Then, when the sacred months have passed, slay the idolaters wherever ye find them, and take them (captive), and besiege them, and prepare for them each ambush.

Yusuf Ali:
(5) But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war);

So Ahmed Ali did soften the blow a tiny bit — he didn’t actually use the word ambush.  Not that it matters much.  Look at that fucking verse again.  Slay the idolaters wheresoever you find them. Kill em all. Take them captive or besiege them, and lie in wait for them at every likely place. Trap them and take them as captives.  Hide out and wait for them to come by so you can take them out.  No amount of watering down can disguise what that says.

But if they repent and fulfil their devotional obligations and pay the zakat, then let them go their way,

Devotional obligations?  The fuck??  Here’s the AJ Arberry translation, which is a little more straightforward:

A. J. Arberry:
But if they repent, and perform the prayer, and pay the alms, then let them go their way; God is All-forgiving, All-compassionate.

Repent.  Perform the prayer.  Pay the alms.  Notice that it doesn’t say “a prayer.” It says “the prayer.”  As in the Muslim prayer.  As in convert to Islam.  Unless you want the Muslims will kill you. Yeah.

You know how a lot of Muslims get all defensive when someone says Islam is a convert-or-die religion?  How do they explain that verse?  I was curious, so I looked it up.  The usual excuse is that it’s taken out of context.  But is it really?

Here’s what those verses say:  some pagans broke a treaty with Mohammed so God gave them had 4 months to get their shit together before the Muslims went after them.  If the pagans converted to Islam, they’re safe.  If they didn’t?  Slay the idolaters wheresoever you find them.

How the fuck is that not convert or die?  ‘Splain that to me.

This is right around the time when the word Islamophobe gets tossed out.  It’s like the Muslim wildcard.  You’re saying that Islam is not a religion of peace?  Islamophobe! That word makes me gag.  So does Islamofacism.  Fuck that shit. I’m making up my own word:  anyone who uses the words Islamophobe and Islamofacism is an Islamotard.  Actually, scratch that.  I checked UrbanDictionary and Islamotard is taken.  Boo!  Hiss!  I like my definition better.

By the way, I was totally not kidding when I said Osama bin Laden loves verse 5.  It’s in his 1996 fatwa:

The most Exalted said in the verse of As-Sayef, The Sword: “so when the sacred months have passed away, then slay the idolaters where ever you find them, and take them captives and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush” (At-Tauba; 9:5).

Oh, and also in a 1993 sermon:

“Praise be to Allah who revealed the verse of the Sword to his servant and messenger [the Prophet Muhammad], in order to establish truth and abolish falsehood. Praise be to Allah who said ‘When the sacred months are over, kill the idolaters wherever you find them, take them captive, lay siege to them and lie in wait for them at every place of ambush. But if they repent and perform the prayers and give alms, let them go. For God is most forgiving and merciful.’

Wow.  I don’t even know what to say.

…wait, yes I do:  Osama bin Laden is a fucking Islamophobe for taking the Quran’s verses out of context, right?  Right??

Also, what the fuck was God thinking?  If he predestined everything like Islam says he did, it means he wanted people to use those verses as justification for genocidal sprees against non-Muslims.  He fucking wanted it.  And if that’s not what he wanted, then there’s no such thing as predestiny and God’s a liar.

And if God is all-knowing, then he would have seen this shit coming a mile away.  He would have known that idiots would use verses from his book to fuck shit up, and he would have put a disclaimer at the beginning of the chapter.  You don’t need much:  This is just for Mohammed and his situation with pagan tribes X, Y and Z in the year.  Do not, for fucks sake, try to apply this to any situation outside of that specific situation. Nowhere in chapter 9 does it say that slaying the idolaters is only for Mohammed.  And guess what?  There’s no fucking time limit.  Slay away!

Also, that whole you have to learn Arabic to really get the Quran shit doesn’t fly one bit in this case, does it?  This might come as a shock to you, so brace yourself:  Osama bin Laden speaks fluent Arabic.  And so do a lot of other Arabic-fucking-speakers who are hell-bent (or is it heaven-bent?) on the destruction of all non-Muslims.  So fuck anyone who comes on here touting that pile of bullshit.  They’ve read this book in Arabic and they didn’t walk away thinking Islam is the religion of peace and that killing anyone is a sin.

So why exactly doesn’t God make it 110% clear so there’s no doubt as to what these verses are talking about?  Whhhhy?  I’ll tell you why:  it’s really hard to recite or reveal anything when you don’t fucking exist.  Mohammed was a goddamned opportunist.  He saw an opening and he took it.  God conveniently released him from his contractual obligations and gave him permission to wipe out anyone who would raise a stink about it.  He could never have guessed that 1400 years later, some other shithead would use the same fucking verses to further his own agenda.  Or that a bunch of other shitheads would coin the phrase Islamophobe to scare people into not talking about it.

Bah fucking humbug.  That’s all I have for this post.  I realize at this rate, we might be stuck on chapter 9 for a while, but there’s a lot to discuss.  A lot lot.  Coming up next:  more hate, more ugliness, more bullshit.  Stay tuned.

About these ads

Written by kafirgirl

August 21, 2008 at 4:15 pm

Posted in Quran

Tagged with

155 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. “So why exactly doesn’t God make it 110% clear so there’s no doubt as to what these verses are talking about? Whhhhy? I’ll tell you why: it’s really hard to recite or reveal anything when you don’t fucking exist.”

    Well played.

    Alice

    August 21, 2008 at 5:15 pm

  2. -Maybe the faith verse is saying you can’t be made to believe something e.g. I can’t make you believe there is a god, you have to believe that yourself, and if you can’t it’s a sign that god has sealed your heart, so basically your just human garbage. Why live in garbage when you can burn it.

    - sacred months or forbidden months. Seems like there is more here, like, for some reason (other then a treaty) they couldn’t go kill them right then. Religious days of the year, winter, waiting for more fighters to show up etc. etc.

    - I would guess that this all made perfect sense back in the day, after all it grew to over a billion people today…..

    BTW the answers add on doesn’t work on this page (all the other ones I used it on were OK). Did you use some setting that you haven’t used before? It’s hell not having my popup definitions.

    GAD

    August 21, 2008 at 5:30 pm

  3. Not only does Bin Laden speak Arabic, he knows Classical Arabic too, so he’s better qualified to speak on true meanings of the Qu’ran than 90%+ of the Muslims in the world.

    I also think you’re being too hard on the neologism “Islamofascism”. It doesn’t mean Islam is fascism, or that Muslims are fascist (if it was a sweeping statement, there would be no need for the qualifier). It refers to a particular movement after the Second World War where various Islamic religious/political movements found inspiration from European fascism in the goals, culture and appearance. Think the Ba’ath Party, Hezbollah or Hamas. Note that a syncretism between religion and fascism is not unique to Islam – the Catholic Church shamefully indulged in fascist politics in Italy pre Second World War and Spain up until the 1970s, as well as providing support for conservative military regimes in Latin America.

    The infamous idolaters verse is what prompted the pogrom of Hindus when the Muslims invaded India. Probably about 70 million people died in that invasion, and it only ended when Muslims realise that most Hindus would never give up their religion, even on pain of death, and so had a sudden “revelation” that Hindus were not idolaters after all.

    Phew!

    Quentin George

    August 21, 2008 at 5:32 pm

  4. Breathtaking! Stomach churning, or whatever it is in en/US. Please, keep up the excellent work.

    Yours sincerely,

    DutchA

    DutchA

    August 21, 2008 at 5:43 pm

  5. i’ve heard that line about how the Quran can only be fully interpreted correctly if read in Arabic, presumably due to context which i never really understood. i figured it was bullshit. now i know it is bullshit because you can’t really take that shit out of context any damn way. perhaps it’s one of those verses that later on can be cancelled or something, to the delight of the cherry-picking believers.

    not surprisingly, the pagans are asked to convert and hand over their belongings and shit. but smile, god loves us. and mo needs convenience to get his pimp on.

    Priest

    August 21, 2008 at 5:44 pm

  6. Alice, thank you.

    GAD, I’m not sure about the forbidden or sacred months thing. It could be during hajj or ramadan, but again, I couldn’t find any actual sources that talk about when and why this was going on. Only speculative ones. So it’s hard to tell.

    As far as things making sense back then, I don’t know about that either. I mean, this shit doesn’t make sense today and people still convert to Islam. In my experience, things don’t necessarily need to be logical and reasonable for people to believe in them.

    I didn’t do anything different to this page — not sure why the answers thing isn’t working. I did install it on my computer right before I typed out the post. But I doubt that did anything to it.

    QG, exactly. It’s a depressing thought that Osama might actually be the kind of Muslim God wanted everyone to be. I grew up thinking Islam was a religion of peace, and now that I’m reading this thing for myself, I keep wondering, “Peace? What peace?”

    I know the history of the term Islamofascism, and maybe I’m being too hard to the term itself. I’m talking more about the tennis game between the right and the left. One side tosses out one word and the other side tosses out the other. Repeat till your head explodes.

    The infamous idolaters verse is what prompted the pogrom of Hindus when the Muslims invaded India. Probably about 70 million people died in that invasion, and it only ended when Muslims realise that most Hindus would never give up their religion, even on pain of death, and so had a sudden “revelation” that Hindus were not idolaters after all.

    Wow, I had no idea. 70 million people. I can’t even wrap my head around that number, it’s so big. More details on this please, kthanks!

    DutchA, thank you. Glad you’re enjoying it!

    Priest, know another one I love? “You can’t read the Quran literally, it’s all metaphors.” Um, the book itself says that you’re supposed to take it literally. Is that a metaphor?

    kafirgirl

    August 21, 2008 at 6:24 pm

  7. It really doesn’t seem to me like any of these ancient religious text actually offer much morality. It just seems like an endless chronology of religious invasion and war, and justifications for said brutality.
    I hope people give up on believing this sort of nonsense.
    There are a whole lot of less violent forms of nonsense to believe in.

    Joe McCraw

    August 21, 2008 at 7:56 pm

  8. “Maybe a bunch of asshole pagans made a treaty with the Muslims, and then secretly helped attack the Muslims.”

    I’ve heard Muslim apologists talking about the Banu Qurayza (you know, the Jewish tribe where Muhammad beheaded about 600-900 men and enslaved the women and children). They claim the Banu Qurayza had broken their treaty and were conspiring against the Muslims.

    Guess what? This is true. Sort of. When the Meccans attacked Muhammad (Battle of the Trench), the Banu Qurayza then plotted with the Meccans to attack from the rear. You see, the Banu Qurayza were neighbors with the Muslims, but Muhammad had already driven all the other Jewish tribes out of Medina (by attacking/killing/exiling), plus attacked other tribes (like Khaybar) and trade caravans. I’m pretty sure the Banu Qurayza were fearful that Muhammad would attack them at some point, too, so they saw a chance and discussed it. It should be noted, however, that they never DID attack the Muslims or harm the Muslims — they only discussed it. Muhammad got wind of this and after the Meccans retreated, he used it as an excuse to attack the Banu Qurayza.

    Sigh.

    And you know what, KG? You didn’t even make it to verse 29 yet! There is more crap to come! And not just verse 29.

    Michael

    August 21, 2008 at 7:57 pm

  9. I’m not sure about the forbidden or sacred months thing.

    Just seems strange the way it is worded.

    As far as things making sense back then, I don’t know about that either. I mean, this shit doesn’t make sense today and people still convert to Islam.

    Well we are 1400 years removed and just like Christianity Islam cheery-picks and romanticizes what it wants to believe not what it wants to know.

    In my experience, things don’t necessarily need to be logical and reasonable for people to believe in them.

    Well as I always say, if religion was logical and reasonable it would be called science. But back in the day if Mo told someone he just killed tribe X and that someone just got done having dinner with tribe X, the jig would be up.

    I didn’t do anything different to this page — not sure why the answers thing isn’t working. I did install it on my computer right before I typed out the post. But I doubt that did anything to it.

    I sent them mail, who knows maybe they’ll “answer”. :)

    GAD

    August 21, 2008 at 8:01 pm

  10. I’m going to be a bit like KG and comment on multiples.

    KG: “It’s a depressing thought that Osama might actually be the kind of Muslim God wanted everyone to be.” This is what I felt like after picking up the Quran.

    KG: “Wow, I had no idea. 70 million people.” I’ve read 60-80 million. The number isn’t really known. The records aren’t that good, but 70 million is probably a good average estimate. This tragedy is slowly coming to light. Is it any wonder there are such tensions between India and Pakistan? Another number I’ve read (if memory serves) is there have been around 280 million deaths due to Islamic jihads. I think I still have that bookmarked if you want me to find it. Or maybe it was in a book I read.

    Priest: “perhaps it’s one of those verses that later on can be cancelled or something” Well, chapter 9 is the last or next-to-last to be revealed and abrogates all earlier teachings. This is as good as it gets!

    Michael

    August 21, 2008 at 8:19 pm

  11. Joe McGraw, here here. You hit the nail on the head, dude.

    Michael, I did read about the Banu Qurayza for the last chapter. So this is the same tribe they’re talking about in these verses? So fucking confusing.

    Priest & Michael, you’ve made me really curious about how the earlier verses stack up to the later verses, and I’m kind of kicking myself for not deciding to read this thing in chronological order. Most of the earlier verses don’t show up until later (according to WikiIslam, 96 was the first revelation, then 68, 73, 74, and 1). We’ll get to them eventually I guess.

    P.S. the WikiIslam chronological order can be found here http://www.wikiislam.com/wiki/Chronological_Order_of_the_Quran in case anyone is curious.

    kafirgirl

    August 21, 2008 at 8:56 pm

  12. KG:

    I don’t know if these verses are referring to the Banu Qurayza — I’m just speculating that could be part of it, but not all of it. I do know I’ve been told by Muslims that the Banu Qurayza betrayed Muhammad and their treaty and that’s why Muhammad attacked — he had justification (ha!), even though the Banu Qurayza didn’t harm a single Muslim. Well, he also attacked because Gabriel interrupted his bath and said, “What are you doing? Go kill them!” Kind of like GW Bush was justified in attacking Iraq. Make up any sorry excuse you need to go kill others. Sorry, didn’t mean to make you gag.

    The Meccan verses (such as “no compulsion in religion”) are often much more peaceful/etc. The Medinan verses … well, you’ve just been reading them. I’m not saying the Meccan verses are logical, just more peaceful because Muhammad was weak and couldn’t make too many waves. These are apparently where a lot of Muslims draw solace today, but not Osama bin Laden.

    Oh, and here is that link I mentioned. I don’t know much about this guy’s credentials/etc. And I misremembered. He quotes 270 million deaths — the Tears of Jihad as he calls it.

    http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=77D37794-BF74-4BD5-9AD4-D8736FDC82BB

    Michael

    August 21, 2008 at 9:18 pm

  13. I’ve never read the Quran. Glad you’re doing it for me!
    Keep up the good work!!

    ATL-Apostate

    ATL-Apostate

    August 21, 2008 at 9:38 pm

  14. The whole argument about ‘taking out of context’ only works if the context is more palatable than the quote you’re extracting, which is far from the case in this instance. In fact, the only context that would make acceptable “slay the idolaters where ever you find them” would be the word “Don’t” before it.

    As for the idea that it is somehow a translation problem, if the Quran in Arabic is some paean to peace and brotherhood, then all the English translations must be SERIOUSLY piss-poor. To paraphrase Sam Harris, I doubt that statements like Verse 5 above even survived translation into the Arabic.

    With regards to the Banu Qurayza, if the best the apologists can come up with is saying ‘it was OK to butcher the men and enslave the women and children because they were conspiring against Muslims’, I’d hate to hear what the fundies have to say on the matter.

    Lance

    August 21, 2008 at 10:10 pm

  15. Michael, thank you sir, I’ll definitely check it out. And you totally did make me gag, by the way!

    ATL, thanks! Glad you’re digging it so far.

    if the Quran in Arabic is some paean to peace and brotherhood, then all the English translations must be SERIOUSLY piss-poor.

    Lance, exactly. And how is it that people reading it in Arabic — classic Arabic, as Quentin George pointed out — are walking away with the conclusion that it’s their duty to attack the non-Muslims? That argument makes no sense to me whatsoever.

    kafirgirl

    August 21, 2008 at 10:30 pm

  16. I think, at this point, that I’m fully and utterly sick of the “it’s taken out of context” line of argument. Like Lance says, there are just things that context ain’t going to help, unless it’s the “don’t.” Especially this chapter — frankly, it doesn’t matter whether you say “Allah meant this to applicable everywhere” or “Allah was just talking this one instance.” The one instance is morally wrong, general application is morally wrong, it’s all just morally wrong!

    Mostly, it’s just become a magical phrase. Chances are, if someone uses the phrase “you’re taking it out of context,” you might as well stop arguing, because that person is not at all interested in real discussion or rational discourse of any kind.

    I’d add to that, by the way, “it’s meant figuratively/metaphorically/symbolically.” One wonders what the figurative meaning of “kill all the bastards” is, exactly.

    Gregory

    August 21, 2008 at 10:50 pm

  17. Ooh I got one: “Of course it’s got mistakes and nonsense in it. It was written 1400 years ago! But I’m still a Muslim because I have faith.

    Barf. Works for Jews and Christians, too. Doesn’t really matter if it’s stupid, I guess.

    kafirgirl

    August 21, 2008 at 11:08 pm

  18. Oooo, kafirgirl, another one for the pile: “Of course it seems barbaric to us: God had to speak to those people in a way that would make sense to them and their culture.” That is one I’ve heard to explain away Joshua, for one. And the subjugation of women. It’s Cultural Relativism for the Holy Book set. I like to call it the “It wasn’t Rape to *them*” argument.

    Gregory

    August 21, 2008 at 11:27 pm

  19. Gregory,
    What makes the cultural relativism argument even weaker is that everywhere else in the book, God IS telling people to stop doing stuff that was considered OK at the time, such as ‘Stop worshipping idols’ or ‘stop worshipping more than one God’. So why not just add a few more revolutionary ideas into the mix like ‘stop raping anyone’ or ‘stop owning slaves’?
    And ‘worship or die’ isn’t exactly being sensitive to anyone’s culture…

    Lance

    August 21, 2008 at 11:55 pm

  20. Lance — I also hate it because it’s epochism — ie, “We’re so much smarter and betters than them ugly barbarian folks of yesteryear!” We, apparently, are so Sophisticated and Smart and Good that we can, for instance, have radically changed social views on homosexuality in the space of a few generations. The folks of yesteryear, this obnoxious viewpoint implies, were incapable of that.

    In this, of course, it’s the same problem that cultural relativism has in the modern context — there’s the same implicit assumption that the “other” is not open to being reasoned with, and thus we just have to accept their viewpoint as “valid for them.”

    Gregory

    August 22, 2008 at 12:35 am

  21. Yeah, its lovely as well that those ‘ugly barbarian folks of yesteryear’ are also sometimes known as ‘The Son Of God’ or ‘The Prophet of God’. When such relativism is put forward as a form of religious apologism, what they are really saying is that these people were not morally or intellectually sophisticated enough to understand that rape or slavery might be wrong, yet we are to take their writings and ideas as the ultimate in moral guidance today.
    I always find amazing the amount of intellectual gymnastics people will go through to try and justify their ‘holy’ books, when the obvious answer is right there – “IT JUST ISN’T TRUE”. It is kind of like trying to leave a room by scratching at the wall, when there’s an open door right in front of you.

    Lance

    August 22, 2008 at 1:07 am

  22. It is kind of like trying to leave a room by scratching at the wall, when there’s an open door right in front of you.

    Brilliant. That’s the best description I have heard on this subject. EVER. You win.

    kafirgirl

    August 22, 2008 at 1:12 am

  23. Excellent post Kafirgirl. Ur brought out very accurately the sheer monstrosity of Chapter 9. For one thing, the killing instructions in this chapter and open-ended-no time and place restrictions and unconditional(not qualified by any conditions/situations).

    The hatred against idolaters in Quran prompted the holocast of hindus. Elsewhere in Quran , u wud find in verses 21:51-71 and also Chapter 37, Abraham braeking idols to pieces. In verse 9:28, u will find idol worshippers referred to as najasun(unclean).

    The hindus played their card well or so it seems.Whenever imposition of Islam was attempted, they fought back. But they didnt oppose Islam per se the way v r doing. They made no attempt to study Quran.Probably they had no access to it.

    This “practice ur religion but dont impose on me” attitude and also the fact that hindus have scriptures -Vedas etc propmpted a rethink.The muslims thought hindus (despite) their idolatry are not same as pagans but are ahl-e-kitab(people of the book) like Jews and Christians.

    For more details on the holocaust of hindus:
    http://www.historyofjihad.org
    In this connection, one shud also read the recent e-mail of Indian Mujahideen who carried out blasts in Gujarat.

    Anand

    August 22, 2008 at 2:08 am

  24. Anand – I doubt it was Hindu theology that won them over, I imagine it was more the fact that the Hindus were determined, and numerous, and the Muslims knew if they kept pushing things eventually the Hindus would find a strong leader, and push out Muslim invaders with a vengeance. It was the latter Mongol and Timurid invasions which probably halted the ongoing genocidal wars, as they pushed against the Arab states from the east.

    Quentin George

    August 22, 2008 at 4:41 am

  25. “It was the latter Mongol and Timurid invasions which probably halted the ongoing genocidal wars, as they pushed against the Arab states from the east.”
    U mean Chengiz Khan, Hulagu Khan…?

    Anand

    August 22, 2008 at 5:12 am

  26. Genghis, Hulagu, Kitaqaqu, Timur the Lame, et al. India was overrun in almost all of these invasions meaning Arabs could never achieve the religious penetration of the peninsula that they had in north Africa and the Levant.

    Quentin George

    August 22, 2008 at 5:50 am

  27. Hulagu’s main contribution was the destruction of Baghdad and Damascus, shifting Islam’s power centre to the Mamluks of Cairo, who preceeded to make the religion even more inward looking, intolerant and reactionary.

    Quentin George

    August 22, 2008 at 5:52 am

  28. He could never have guessed that 1400 years later, some other shithead would use the same fucking verses to further his own agenda.

    many above me here have touched this, but i couldn’t resist from saying it again. its not like 1400 later it’s more like since 1400 years. this fucking verse probably caused more deaths and destruction than anything before/after this.

    KG, you do realize that Pak, part of Afghan thru burma was once a part of India right? The number of Hindus / Indians killed due to the Muslim invasions puts the Holocaust numbers to shame. Well… that verse is still causing so much pain and suffereing in the world.. fucking short sighted bastardic verse.

    Shashi

    August 22, 2008 at 11:10 am

  29. Quentin, u know a lot about the Mongols, i have written a book about them, not braggin’ or nothing, just sayin.
    U ever heard of an Armenian monk called ‘Sergius’ who was in Karakoram around the same time as Carpini?

    jasminefrompakistan

    August 22, 2008 at 12:06 pm

  30. Ok, Quentin, just another, about Hulaghu, u know how the Mongols converted to Islam, right? Sheikhs from Cairo went up to Batu’s camp at Sarai on the Volga and did their dawah, and as early as 1255, the Golden Horde was Muslim. What does that tell us about America- in fundamentalist eyes, i mean?
    U know what the main Mongol “contribution” was? It was to push the kipchak Turks west where they seized power dispalcing the Ayubbiyya and the result? A brutal military government in Cairo that was led by Bundukdari and pushed the Crusaders out Outremer.
    The west is doing the same now, we’re undermining Arab governments like Saddam and Syria, and in their place, they are helping the Jihad into power.

    jasminefrompakistan

    August 22, 2008 at 12:16 pm

  31. What’s a Islamophobe? Are you one? Take Jasmine’s test!

    a) Someone who sees contradictions in the Qu’ran with Islam being a peaceful religion.
    b) Someone who sees the nihilism and the reactionary nature of Political Islam and uses the term Islamofascism to explain this.
    c) Someone who highlights the low quality of life in Muslim countries and recognizes Islam has a lot to do with that
    d) Someone who wants to highlight the innate bigotry and misogony in Qu’ranic theology.
    e) Someone who sees Muslim immigrants and their families, regardless of their personal views, as essentially alien and unwelcome and harbingers of Islamic values that can not co-exist within western society.
    f) Someone who highlights the sexual and gender oppression in Muslim society and Islamic atttitudes that ennable abuse like honor killings and child marriage.

    There is 1 correct answer.

    jasminefrompakistan

    August 22, 2008 at 12:27 pm

  32. motherfucking fucked up fucking FUCK!
    what’s fucken wrong?

    My post just went back into your source code; apparently I’M doing something wrong. (No suprise there) Dbo, can you help?

    watercat

    August 22, 2008 at 12:52 pm

  33. I have no idea WHY it’s doing it, but I think I figured it out: everytime you post a link, it goes in my spam box. It also happens to Anand. But apparently it’s not happening to other people. The fuck??

    kafirgirl

    August 22, 2008 at 12:57 pm

  34. jaz.. i saw a couple of right answers …;-)

    @watercat… LOL. dont screwup kg’s source code. i am confident she wouldn’t be able to get this working if u did.. :D

    Shashi

    August 22, 2008 at 12:59 pm

  35. Shashi, I literally shook my fist at the screen when I read your comment.

    ….mostly just because you’re right. I’d be fucked.

    kafirgirl

    August 22, 2008 at 1:00 pm

  36. OK; that post worked fine. Then I sent one with a link in it–it got eaten. The link That Will Not Be Sent is the same one that’s linked to my name: clink on my name and it takes you right to the site. But if I include that same link in the comment, I fuck up KG’s code the body of the comment gets lost. What can I do?

    ——n00b on the interwebs.

    watercat

    August 22, 2008 at 1:01 pm

  37. Shashi, i think being accussed of being a Islamophobe is a way to stop persons discussing what’s really going on and there’s actuallly only one thing in the test that would make u a Islamophobe.

    jasminefrompakistan

    August 22, 2008 at 1:26 pm

  38. Edit: works fine for me, but my own comments don’t get moderated. No idea wtf is going on.

    Shashi, can you try a link without the http:// part? Also skip www.
    Try just lolkoran.blogspot.com

    kafirgirl

    August 22, 2008 at 1:30 pm

  39. whoops I lied. My comment didn’t dissappear, It’s in there between comment 1735 and 1743

    watercat

    August 22, 2008 at 1:36 pm

  40. Dude, watercat, your last comment ended up in the old moderation box and it didn’t even have a link in it. I approved your other comment — that’s why it showed up.

    kafirgirl

    August 22, 2008 at 1:38 pm

  41. All me comments are always on mod, but this is cos me of reputation as being retarded-fucktarded and in rehab and a downclass also (in fact me comments are ok mostly, clever also to some extent).

    jasminefrompakistan

    August 22, 2008 at 1:41 pm

  42. Jasmine, sheddup, you’re not in moderation. Yours actually go to spam. Anand’s used to do that also and sometimes Gregory ends up in there, too. I have no idea why. I wonder if your IP number is similar to one of the people I had to ban — although there are really only 5 or so banned people.

    kafirgirl

    August 22, 2008 at 1:44 pm

  43. Shashi, still nothing. WTF?

    kafirgirl

    August 22, 2008 at 1:48 pm

  44. i doubt it, cos it would have to be exactly the same, check me ip numbers against there’s, but i thought u do it deliberately cos as u know, on me meds an d stuff in case i ramble and stuff, u know…. anyhow.
    All this stuff about ip’s, i got only 2 ip’s kg, no one can have same as me, it’s impossible, so it’s another reason, maybe cos u deleted some of me posts (if they was a bit rambly u can say) and then it’s automatically on mod everytime after a deletion, i think that’s what it is.

    jasminefrompakistan

    August 22, 2008 at 1:49 pm

  45. Ok, another, ip ban doesn’t go to spam i don’t think, it just gets zapped, like it doesn’t even register. Maybe it’s cos we post a lot?

    jasminefrompakistan

    August 22, 2008 at 1:50 pm

  46. Jasmine, seriously, you’re not on mod. WordPress is getting fucking crazier and crazier. Now people can’t even post links?

    I thought for a second that it might be the http:// or www. but now I’m just lost.

    *Edit: banned IPs don’t just vanish. They go straight to my spam box. I can read them and I can take them out of the spam box if I want.

    kafirgirl

    August 22, 2008 at 1:50 pm

  47. Oh snap, I think I might have figured it out.

    When a comment contains any of these words in its content, name, URL, e-mail, or IP, it will be held in the moderation queue. One word or IP per line. It will match inside words, so “press” will match “WordPress”

    press will match WordPress. Does that mean numbers match too? So 124 would match 723124??

    kafirgirl

    August 22, 2008 at 1:53 pm

  48. I tried to look around KG, but not much help. there are a couple of tweaks for longer URLs but noting for URLs in comments. I will try blogspot and get back to you. :( one of those days i guess.. nothign seems to work..

    Shashi

    August 22, 2008 at 1:55 pm

  49. WTF? Shashi….everything you’re writing is now ending up in moderation now. Both you AND watercat. I don’t get it.

    The only thing I’ve changed is the layout. That shouldn’t do anything.

    kafirgirl

    August 22, 2008 at 1:56 pm

  50. well wordpress is doing this revamp thing right now, about 10 minutes ago all the avatars changed and now everyone’s got these Scooby Doo Halloween type faces some of which look like goblins, maybe it’s cos of that. Actually, i tried to post several links and i have never ever been able to do it.

    jasminefrompakistan

    August 22, 2008 at 1:57 pm

  51. Yeah this is kind of fucked up. I just went in and removed all 5 IPs that are banned and replaced them with names and email addresses instead. And I made sure my setting were fine — they are. If I authorize you once, you should be free to post as you want. And yet a bunch of you guys are ending up in mod or spam. I’m sooooo frustrated.

    I’ll email wordpress and try to figure this shit out.

    kafirgirl

    August 22, 2008 at 1:59 pm

  52. Kafir Girl, so just 3 consecutive digits of a ip shared with someone else mean u go into span? How come, the ip’s need to be exactly the same, just one digit out means it’s totally someone else. What’s the sense in that?

    jasminefrompakistan

    August 22, 2008 at 2:00 pm

  53. No Jasmine, I thought maybe that’s what it was, but I removed every single number from my moderate list and it didn’t make any difference. I don’t think it’s the numbers at all. Ugh.

    kafirgirl

    August 22, 2008 at 2:02 pm

  54. Kg, this is from discussion, also there’s the first box above

    Before a comment appears
    Before a comment appears An administrator must always approve the comment
    Comment author must fill out name and e-mail
    Comment author must have a previously approved comment
    Comment Moderation
    Comment Moderation Don’t discard spam on old posts

    Hold a comment in the queue if it contains or more links. (A common characteristic of comment spam is a large number of hyperlinks.)

    When a comment contains any of these words in its content, name, URL, e-mail, or IP, it will be held in the moderation queue. One word or IP per line. It will match inside words, so “press” will match “WordPress”.

    jasminefrompakistan

    August 22, 2008 at 2:07 pm

  55. Yeah, I have it set up so I only have to authorize your first post, so as long as you’ve written a post before, you should be all good to go. And you can post as many links as you want. My settings are definitely not the issue. I emailed WP support — they better get back to me ASAP or I’ll be grumpy all day.

    kafirgirl

    August 22, 2008 at 2:27 pm

  56. My settings are definitely not the issue.

    I think wordpress settings are to blame. I tried blogspot and it worked fine. Maybe something with the initial settings or something. Let me know if this post went into spam as well.

    Shashi

    August 22, 2008 at 2:41 pm

  57. It went into moderation.

    Sigh. I’m waiting for them to email me. After that I’m harassing Db0, who no doubt is sick to death of me by now!

    kafirgirl

    August 22, 2008 at 2:44 pm

  58. Update on the comment situation: a WordPress techie wrote me back and I think she’s solved the problem. Even the issue with Jasmine & Anand going to the mod box. Comment away!

    kafirgirl

    August 22, 2008 at 4:43 pm

  59. My comments used to go into moderation for hours before appearing, and now they appear straight away. I assumed this was because I’d prayed for a mighty earthquake to smite those who would obstruct my wisdom, but it turns out it was just a bug in WordPress. How am I going to fit THAT into my worldview?

    Lance

    August 22, 2008 at 7:53 pm

  60. You too, Lance?? Yiish! I guess it was an even bigger problem than I thought. Glad it’s working now.

    kafirgirl

    August 22, 2008 at 8:45 pm

  61. What’s a Islamophobe? Are you one? Take Jasmine’s test!

    a) Someone who sees contradictions in the Qu’ran with Islam being a peaceful religion.
    b) Someone who sees the nihilism and the reactionary nature of Political Islam and uses the term Islamofascism to explain this.
    c) Someone who highlights the low quality of life in Muslim countries and recognizes Islam has a lot to do with that
    d) Someone who wants to highlight the innate bigotry and misogony in Qu’ranic theology.
    e) Someone who sees Muslim immigrants and their families, regardless of their personal views, as essentially alien and unwelcome and harbingers of Islamic values that can not co-exist within western society.
    f) Someone who highlights the sexual and gender oppression in Muslim society and Islamic atttitudes that ennable abuse like honor killings and child marriage.

    There is 1 correct answer. Being any one of the remaining doesn’t make u a Islamophobe. Now answers below guys!

    jasminefrompakistan

    August 22, 2008 at 10:07 pm

  62. is good test; made me think; and what I thought was: I’m sure some people call Kafirgirl an Islamophobe (and worse) but I’d say she is the opposite.

    KG identifies problems with the Qu’ran, (a, d) with using it for moral guidance (f) and what that implies for society (c,b). All these are good; necessary first steps in fixing anything is to admit there’s a problem, and identify the source. And there is a problem with Islam Religion, for sure. (I’d nitpick over that term Xfascism)

    (e) would be an Islamophobe. KG doesn’t do that: she is FTW.

    watercat

    August 23, 2008 at 12:43 am

  63. Shiz, I am the Muslim immigrant that (e) talks about. I was a Muslim when I moved to America. Or at least that’s what my passport said — I seriously doubt anyone can choose a religion when they’re 6.

    It’s funny because I think if someone read this blog blindly, they might actually think I was a right-wing nutter. Which I can kind of understand because a lot of expose-Islam sites are run by right wing nutters (no offense, dudes).

    kafirgirl

    August 23, 2008 at 1:04 am

  64. I get called a right-wing nutter by left-wing people and a godless liberal by others, so I feel am an equal opportunity offender.

    Quentin George

    August 23, 2008 at 1:22 am

  65. I read the post and that email by Indian Mujahideen, 9:14 is quoted and some other stuff from that chapter too. I am still reeling in disbelief. Sadly people still believe that British imperialism was responsible for the rift between hindus and muslims. These people should read the sad history of invasion of India by muslims and the number of lives lost.

    Another Kafir

    August 23, 2008 at 3:31 am

  66. I think I made a mistake earlier when I said Muhammad had already attacked the Jews at the oasis of Khaybar before he attacked the Banu Qurayza Jews. I think Khaybar occurred afterwords. I’m not so good with timeline stuff. Also, I started thinking (be afraid) and if chapter 9 is the last or next-to-last chapter revealed, it is unlikely 9:5 was talking about the Banu Qurayza, since Muhammad had already slaughtered them. It was probably aimed more at the Meccans and other pagans/idolaters. Maybe someone more knowledgeable than I can help out here.

    KG (and others), check out Robert Spencer talking about the Crusades, jihads, and more, including chapter 9, here:

    He starts nearly 2:30 minutes into it.

    Michael

    August 23, 2008 at 9:51 am

  67. Michael, I just figured out what all that slaughtery stuff in chapter 9 is about. At least I think. It’s coming up in the next post. It’s hard to get a timeline on this thing — the Quran is all over the damn place. And finding an unbiased source? Fuggedaboudit.

    kafirgirl

    August 23, 2008 at 9:55 am

  68. Kafir Girl, ure dead right, the answer is e, and I am that immigrant also, so is me mum, so is me best friend who got sent to Pakistan. See, people got to realize maybe, just cos we’re Pakistani, we’re not all preprogrammed to think in a certain way, we are individuals, and people who don’t like us as a community, when they chat with us… they find we’re ok and stuff. Huh, so it’s only apostate Pakistanis who is ok, there’s millions, maybe 99% in UK who is just normal persons, normal citizens, got no interest in bad stuff in any way. Now a Islamophobe is someone who can’t accept that, and so can’t accept us living in the west, huh, sorry, we got born in the west and we’re going nowhere- so get it over it right wing nutters. Another, right ring mental cases are just feeding extremism. Anyhow, ure never a Islamophobe if you don’t say bad stuff against normal Muslim persons, cos u don’t know what they are thinking also, don’t assume they are against the west. Is she mum? No. Islamophobes don’t see us as people, just as walking representations of a religious idea- and that’s very dangerous.

    jasminefrompakistan

    August 23, 2008 at 10:06 am

  69. Michael, Robert Soencer is from Jihad Watch, think about what i just said

    jasminefrompakistan

    August 23, 2008 at 10:09 am

  70. Yup, my family and and the families they hang out with are absolutely normal. My parents even go to a mosque that’s considered “liberal” by a lot of Muslims. Most of the Muslims we know are completely integrated into American society. So it’s fucking stupid to me to lump everyone together as a fucking terrorist. It’s like saying all Christians bomb abortion clinics. We should round em up and put em on an island somewhere.

    I’ll watch the Robert Spencer video to see what he has to say, but I honestly can’t stand the guy. We agree that the Quran is a big old pile of bullshit, but that’s probably where it ends.

    P.S. Jasmine you’re posting in real time! Whoo! I think it’s working for everyone, which is fucking awesome because it was a lot of work having to check every few hours to “release” the comments that were sitting around in mod. Score one for everybody.

    kafirgirl

    August 23, 2008 at 10:16 am

  71. Yes, Jasmine, I know Robert Spencer is from Jihad Watch. I sometimes read comments on that site and it cracks me up all the right wingers blaming the left/liberal types for Islamic issues in the west. I’m very much a social liberal, but even I can see the oppression/etc that the Quran creates for women and non-Muslims. Being a liberal, I want equality and respect for women. In fact, I want equality and respect for all people, regardless of race or gender or sexual identity/preference. Having differences of opinions is fine — we can debate them, but harming people is not.

    Michael

    August 23, 2008 at 10:28 am

  72. I sometimes read comments on that site and it cracks me up all the right wingers blaming the left/liberal types for Islamic issues in the west.

    Me too :D

    kafirgirl

    August 23, 2008 at 10:37 am

  73. well i think that’s very fair indeed Micheal and i think ure right to be concerned about Islam and oppression that we suffer, but having concern for Muslim women doesn’t make much sense if ure not a feminist….. just sayin’.
    I face racism in the blogosphere all the time, it works like this..
    Them: We want to liberarate u.
    Me: Ok.
    Them: By deporting all Muslims
    Me: Fuck that
    Them: Ure obviously a Muslim ureself then, so ure going with the rest.
    Some liberators.
    Oh and check out Chicken Girl’s rant against me on her blog site, so funny, posted under the tag of Muslim + Stupid. Ok, ure pinged, no need to go there no more.
    Now, back to business, Khaybar was after the battle of the trench and the massacre of the Banu Qurayza (where Rehanna was taken). Khaybar was where Safiyya was captured, Feb 628 and the Jewish tribe involved was the Bani Sa’d.

    jasminefrompakistan

    August 23, 2008 at 10:39 am

  74. but having concern for Muslim women doesn’t make much sense if ure not a feminist….. just sayin’.

    I don’t know if I agree with that. I think you can support and promote womens’ rights without necessarily attaching the label “feminist” to yourself. I have never referred to myself as a feminist. I guess I’ve never really felt the need to. Mostly just because I have a hard time with labels. I like to think that above all else, I’m just a human being. I even fought the label atheist for a while because I didn’t want to feel like that’s “all” I was. I can’t speak for everyone — that’s just how I feel.

    kafirgirl

    August 23, 2008 at 11:19 am

  75. Ok Kafir Girl, I get ure point about labels, but just within the scope of the above few posts, why would a conservative white man (like Robert Spencer), be ever so concerned about our rights- as (ex)Muslim and practicing Muslim women? Why specifically us- if he isn’t worried about womens’ rights per se? Or is the situation many Muslim women face just a vehicle to push some other agenda, a exploitation tool, cos ignoring the status of women in America, then overfocusing on it in Muslim societies- doesn’t add up. Yet I find it all the time, white guys who don’t even know the basic issues their own women face- out to rescue us. No, it doesnt make sense at all- women are women, Muslim women are not some special sub section of the species.

    jasminefrompakistan

    August 23, 2008 at 12:01 pm

  76. Oh absolutely. In his case, I absolutely question his motives. I just meant in general.

    kafirgirl

    August 23, 2008 at 12:08 pm

  77. I’m not really trying to defend Robert Spencer (he is a big boy and can certainly take care of himself), but I cannot recall reading anything by him where he said or gave the impression that he was against the rights of women (of any faith or race). And if he did, I would certainly not agree with him on that point. I *do* recall, though, a couple years ago where he blogged a very nice note about a Muslim friend of his who passed away, so I don’t think he is solely Muslim-bashing. (Sorry, I don’t have the link handy and I didn’t bookmark it.) I know I personally try to keep a separation between what the Quran/Hadith say and what Muhammad as a role model did versus individual Muslims, who are individual people and must be evaluated on their own merits, just like everyone else.

    Does Robert Spencer have other motives? Perhaps. Don’t we all have motives? To me, he is just another data point. A source of information which I can then filter. I don’t necessarily agree with his politics, but I don’t have to.

    Michael

    August 23, 2008 at 12:28 pm

  78. The Bismillah is the opening phrase of every chapter of Quran, except Chapter 9, “The Repentance”. But an extra one is found in 27:30 thus making the number of repetitions equal to the number of chapters in the Quran (114 = 19 x 6 where 19 is the number of letters in the Bismillah).

    It is not that
    ” old Mo left it out on purpose”

    Nimmy

    August 24, 2008 at 1:59 am

  79. Hi,interesting..I wish you’ld bother to read my ‘copy-paste’..I copy-paste bcoz I couldn’t tell it better..

    A few selected verses from the Qur’an are often misquoted to perpetuate the myth that Islam promotes violence, and exhorts its followers to kill those outside the pale of Islam.

    1. Verse from Surah Taubah

    The following verse from Surah Taubah is very often quoted by critics of Islam, to show that Islam promotes violence, bloodshed and brutality:

    “Kill the mushriqeen (pagans, polytheists, kuffar) where ever you find them.”
    [Al-Qur’an 9:5]

    2. Context of verse is during battlefield

    Critics of Islam actually quote this verse out of context. In order to understand the context, we need to read from verse 1 of this surah. It says that there was a peace treaty between the Muslims and the Mushriqs (pagans) of Makkah. This treaty was violated by the Mushriqs of Makkah. A period of four months was given to the Mushriqs of Makkah to make amends. Otherwise war would be declared against them. Verse 5 of Surah Taubah says:

    “But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war); but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practise regular charity, then open the way for them: for Allah is oft-forgiving, Most merciful.”
    [Al-Qur’an 9:5]

    This verse is quoted during a battle.

    3. Example of war between America and Vietnam

    We know that America was once at war with Vietnam. Suppose the President of America or the General of the American Army told the American soldiers during the war: “Wherever you find the Vietnamese, kill them”. Today if I say that the American President said, “Wherever you find Vietnamese, kill them” without giving the context, I will make him sound like a butcher. But if I quote him in context, that he said it during a war, it will sound very logical, as he was trying to boost the morale of the American soldiers during the war.

    4. Verse 9:5 quoted to boost morale of Muslims during battle

    Similarly in Surah Taubah chapter 9 verse 5 the Qur’an says, “Kill the Mushriqs where ever you find them”, during a battle to boost the morale of the Muslim soldiers. What the Qur’an is telling Muslim soldiers is, don’t be afraid during battle; wherever you find the enemies kill them.

    5.Critics find it easy to skip frrom verse 5 to verse 7

    6. Surah Taubah chapter 9 verse 6 gives the answer

    Surah Taubah chapter 9 verse 6 gives the answer to the allegation that Islam promotes violence, brutality and bloodshed. It says:

    “If one amongst the pagans ask thee for asylum,grant it to him, so that he may hear the word of Allah; and then escort him to where he can be secure that is because they are men without knowledge.”
    [Al-Qur’an 9:6]

    The Qur’an not only says that a Mushriq seeking asylum during the battle should be granted refuge, but also that he should be escorted to a secure place. In the present international scenario, even a kind, peace-loving army General, during a battle, may let the enemy soldiers go free, if they want peace. But which army General will ever tell his soldiers, that if the enemy soldiers want peace during a battle, don’t just let them go free, but also escort them to a place of security?

    This is exactly what Allah (swt) says in the Glorious Qur’an to promote peace in the world.

    Excerpt from irf.net

    I hope that clarifies it all..

    Nimmy

    August 24, 2008 at 3:51 am

  80. It actually doesn’t clarify anything. Those are all arguments we’ve heard before. Did you read all of the comments in this post before you copied and pasted from the Islamic Research Foundation?

    And are you actually using one of the “mathematical miracles” of the Quran to “prove” that the verse was left out on purpose? http://www.wikiislam.com/wiki/19

    For those who want the short story, here’s the conclusion from the WikiIslam article:

    1. This “miracle” of 19 is not a miracle. The actual chance of finding this ‘miracle’ is 1 in 19 which is not an impressive probability at all.
    2. Equal number of miracles, sometimes more are found in anti-Islamic texts.
    3. What was Quran talking about when it said “over it are Nineteen”? It was simply talking about the number of Angels in Hell. This is also confirmed by Islamic websites (e.g. [1]). Even Rashad Khalifa, the inventor of 19 ‘miracles’ believes that 19 is the number of Angels in heaven (for him, he sees it as a ‘miracle’ that everything is 19)
    4. Rashad Khalifa changed or ‘corrupted’ the Quran to highlight the ‘miracles’ of 19.

    kafirgirl

    August 24, 2008 at 9:57 am

  81. See for me the issue about copy and paste isn’t plaigarism, it’s respect for our little community, cos we can’t really engage with someone who;
    a) Raises a huge number of issues that would take hours to individually address
    b) Isn’t actually talking with us- they already made up their mind and it’s a done deal
    Er, so why come here, if engagement isn’t the issue, it’s not like it’s going to convince us as such.
    The nightmare scenario for this blog is guys like Nimmy start pitching up slugging it out with guys from Jihad Watch- with no engagement on either side. I see it happen on Ali Eteraz’s site and it screwed everything up. Cut and paste….. it’s a bad sign.
    How can it possibly be clarified by the way, how bizarre!

    jasminefrompakistan

    August 24, 2008 at 10:05 am

  82. Jasmine, agreed. It’s not doing anything to further discussion or make us think. It’s the same bullshit apologist arguments I’ve read a hundred times over.

    To me, there’s a huge difference between posting sources for your own arguments and just cutting-and-pasting entire arguments from somewhere else. I take it as a sign that someone is either a) too lazy or b) too inarticulate to make their own arguments. And it’s annoying when they just ignore your refutations and then continue to copy and paste from these other sites (which, by the way are not credible sources for much of anything).

    I guess what I’m saying is, I’m annoyed. Nimmy, please check out the comment policy here ( http://kafirgirl.wordpress.com/2008/08/16/commentpolicy/ ) and think before you post a comment.

    kafirgirl

    August 24, 2008 at 10:15 am

  83. Ok, what’s Bism occurs 31 times and Allah occurs 1121 times and Rahman occurs 66 times and Rahim occurs 74 times so 31+1121+66+74=1292=19×68 and bingo.

    That’s exactly what Christians do with the bible, that’s no mathematical miracle, it’s something Christians have been doing for decades- to sell these little pot boiler books like “The Bible Decoded,” it’s a cottage industry in the west. Here’s the problem, u can apply the same mathematical logic to anything, to a Stehpen King novel if u want, and still find the same meanings. That’s sicence? Er no, cos ure arguing to prove a point u already believe in, not surprisingly, the numbers always ad up in ure favor.

    jasminefrompakistan

    August 24, 2008 at 10:22 am

  84. Michael, sorry, your comment got lost somewhere in the mathematical miracle of the comments. I know I keep going back and forth on this, but I do agree with you. Just because he and I don’t agree politically doesn’t mean he’s totally wrong on all the arguments he’s making against Islam. I think we’ve talked about this before — how I don’t really like sites like Answering Islam because they can see all the holes in another religion without seeing all the holes in their own. The whole pot / kettle / black thing. But at the same time, they do make some really good, valid arguments against Islam, so it’s a shame if I can’t learn from them. I don’t have to agree with them on everything to see when they make a good point. Same with Spencer. So high five, we agree.

    kafirgirl

    August 24, 2008 at 11:03 am

  85. Guys, the same stuff Robert Spencer says, I say meself all the time and i even done worse than what they have done, like, i mean, i have even spat on a Qu’ran. Of course quite a lot of what they say is correct, doesn’t mean they’re right, not if they’ve got a dee[er purpose. What motivates them? Most of them have never been to a Muslim country, know Muslims or have any real stake in it. Seriously, what winds them up so much? Or are Muslims fulfilling a role here, that was Slavs, Jews, blacks before? They will not be openly racist towards me-providing i agree on their all or nothing terms, and it’s not a all or nothing situation, mostly, Islam in the west is a grey area.
    What these personages want is people like me along for the ride to support their agenda, er maybe i got a agenda of me own? Yet it poses a question, who would u rather invest ure time in or try to reach out to for support, ure target audience if ure serious about change
    a) Jihad Watch
    b) Moderate Muslims
    Who are the people of good will?

    jasminefrompakistan

    August 24, 2008 at 11:24 am

  86. @Kafirgirl,if i were too lazy,I’ld not have bothered to read your whole article ..and pin point even the smallest mistake(verse reference)..

    Neither am i interested in fighting with you..It seems to me that Jasmine has pre conceived notions about who talk against their views..I just thought of having a constructive discussion..Im not here to ‘spoil’ the spriti in your blog and make it sluggish..Nor am i here to have non-stop copy-paste..

    I told why am a doing it,bcoz all points lsited in short and readable manner.Also,the other comment too had the same accuse by watercat..Wonder why you guys don’t see my effort in taking points from a 2hr readable article to a 4-6 mints readable comment..

    @Kafirgirl,”It actually doesn’t clarify anything”..what more clarification do you want..Im glad to look into it and see if i can contribute..

    @Jasmine,”Raises a huge number of issues that would take hours to individually address
    b) Isn’t actually talking with us- they already made up their mind and it’s a done deal”…

    Well,didn’t i bother to spent hours reading the post?Also,can i also blame you for having amde up your mind,and closing all disuccions as a done deal..

    Lets live and let live..Afterall,we all are just humans..

    Good day to all

    @Kafirgirl,i am sorry to have violated your comment policy..But that was not intentional..Will take care next time:)

    Nimmy

    August 24, 2008 at 12:46 pm

  87. It doesn’t take me 2 hours to read any short article. Honestly. And I’d be surprised if any of my posts took hours for anyone to read. They go by pretty quickly. Regardless, I don’t think you can provide further clarification. You think Mohammed did not accidentally forget the bismillah in chapter 9. I do. And seeing as how I don’t believe in God or miracles — especially the already debunked numbers miracle — what more is there to clarify? If your idea of clarification is an already debunked number “miracle,” then you don’t really understand what proof means.

    kafirgirl

    August 24, 2008 at 1:00 pm

  88. There can’t be any divine miracles cos there isn’t no Allah and tallying it all up to number 19 hardly proves me wrong. Let’s live and let live, quite right, stop killing us apostates then in countries where Islam is in full control.
    Ure Pakistani right? Ditto that then for Ahmadis.

    jasminefrompakistan

    August 24, 2008 at 1:28 pm

  89. okay.. i am not sure i understand what is going on. what’s up with number 19? is there any ..ANY siginificance to that number? or is just a number some fucker came up with to prove that islam == science?

    Shashi

    August 24, 2008 at 1:35 pm

  90. i explained Shashi darling 5 posts up how dr. rashed got 19

    jasminefrompakistan

    August 24, 2008 at 1:39 pm

  91. Shashi, there’s a verse in the Quran that says there are 19 angels who hang out in heaven. So this Muslim biochemist named Rashad Khalifa thought the number 19 must be a mystical number in Islam, and he “discovered” all these things that added up to the number 19 in the Quran. Like the Quran has 114 chapters. And if you divide 114 by 6, you get 19. There are 6346 verses in the Quran, total, and if you add 6+3+4+6 together, you get 19. MIRACULOUS!

    Here’s the really hilarious thing, though: when something didn’t add up to 19, Khalifa just said, “Oh, obviously that means this part is a fake and it wasn’t in the original Quran!” He dismisses a couple of verses in the Quran just to make his #19 work. And his 19 miracle actually supports the Baha’i faith. Heresy!

    Check this out:

    Islamic leaders were incensed by his demand that the last two verses of Sura 9 be removed. Their fury increased when Khalifa’s egotism grew to the point of declaring himself the divine messenger of Allah foretold in the Koran (3:81). Death threats against him steadily mounted.

    Yup. That sums it up. A lot of well-meaning muslims believe in this numerology garbage, but they don’t realize where it came from and what they’re supporting.

    You can read the whole article here:
    http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2843/is_n5_v21/ai_20121071/pg_1

    And a few more:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rashad_Khalifa
    http://www.rashadkhalifa.org/ (actually says Rashad Khalifa, God’s messenger)
    http://www.answering-christianity.com/19.htm (a Muslim site)

    kafirgirl

    August 24, 2008 at 1:51 pm

  92. SHAKIR: When your Lord revealed to the angels: I am with you, therefore make firm those who believe. I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them. (8:12)

    Let’s see … 8 + 12 = 20. 20 – 10 stricken finger tips = 10. 10 + 10 remaining toes = 20. 20 – 1 head = 19. A Quranic miracle!

    Michael

    August 24, 2008 at 1:59 pm

  93. …..bahahahahaha!!! Michael, you win. You just proved that God really is an asshole.

    kafirgirl

    August 24, 2008 at 2:08 pm

  94. Now in “The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy,” the colussus super computer ‘Deep Thought’, labored for tens of thousands of years to find the answer to life, the universe-and everything. And the answer?………..
    42

    jasminefrompakistan

    August 24, 2008 at 2:19 pm

  95. Jasmine, 42 is not divisible by 19. It is obviously the work of Iblis.

    kafirgirl

    August 24, 2008 at 2:26 pm

  96. Ha ha! kg, I dunno if u ever had Hitchhikers in the US, but if u can get the original sci fi BBC comedy, ure in for a treat cos it is ‘atheist sic fi,’ if u know what i mean.
    Oh well, sigh, time to do me meds, one more day in rehab over, so time to set me bed up now and say goonight until tomorrow.
    Bye bye everyone!

    jasminefrompakistan

    August 24, 2008 at 2:31 pm

  97. Jasmine, I’m a huge fan. I adore Douglas Adams. Have a good night.

    kafirgirl

    August 24, 2008 at 2:35 pm

  98. I wonder what Khalifa had to say about the number of hijackers on 9/11 ?

    Lance

    August 24, 2008 at 3:00 pm

  99. WTF.. it jsut doenst make any sense.. u divide somethign by something just to get 19? convoluted logic.. then again.. it doesnt have any logic to it..
    Thanks KG and Jaz. And btw, the answer to everything is really 42.

    Shashi

    August 24, 2008 at 3:13 pm

  100. Nimmy,
    The Koran was a behavioural guide for a bunch of semi-literate desert nomads of the 7th century, so surely trying to apply any of it to modern society is ‘taking it out of context’. Do Muslims just get to pick and choose which verses can be protected by the ‘context’ defence and which are the eternal and universal laws of god?
    Even if you are to be granted the context defence, even your own post shows it to be a pretty weak one: when you do try to apply chapter 9 to a modern context, you choose of all things the Vietnam war, the conduct of which was considered morally abhorrent then as it is now.
    You also seem to think that verse 6 makes everything all better, by stressing the part about granting your enemies asylum, and ignoring that this is AFTER they have heard the words of Allah. Verses 5 and 6 need to be read together, and they say ‘Kill all the unbelievers wherever you find them, except for those who submit and convert to Islam’. In short, ‘worship or die’.
    If all this is considered OK in the context of a war, then how about this for a modern scenario:
    The British Army march on the Muslim populations of Leeds and Bradford, and demand they convert to the Church of England and start paying tithes. Gordon Brown learns that some Muslims are still going to mosques, and may be planning a resistance, so gives them 4 months to submit. If they do not, would he be justified in telling his troops:
    “slay the Muslims wherever ye find them, and take them (captive), and besiege them, and prepare for them each ambush”? I certainly don’t think so, and assume you don’t either.
    As I argued above, the whole argument about ‘taking out of context’ only works if the context is more palatable than the quote you’re extracting, which is far from the case in this instance.
    (Oh, and by the way, tradtional methods of improving troop morale include improving the food, granting leave or proving some entertainment for the soldiers. I’ve never heard of ordering genocide being used in this way).

    Lance

    August 24, 2008 at 7:57 pm

  101. Lance, think again about your last point. Rape and pillage has always been a motivator for armies, both in the old days and in modern wars in for example Darfur. Isn’t your point actually that what we consider “civilized” armies don’t do it?

    That’s why the vietnam example is bogus. The US and their allied did take captives, etc as per the last half of verse; that’s why Mai Lai resulted war crimes trials. Had we followed Wimmy’s advice, it would have been a great victory, and also there would not be a single living person in Iraq or Afghanistan today. Fortunately, us atheists have a moral sense and prefer ‘civilized’ behavior to religious.

    watercat

    August 24, 2008 at 9:11 pm

  102. Watercat,
    I didn’t read verse 5 as rape and pillage, just extermination and subjugation. Good point about that war crimes trials – ‘ I ordered my soldiers to kill everyone they found, purely to boost their morale’ probably wouldn’t go down so well as a defence. It’s none too hot as a piece of religious aplogism either.

    Lance

    August 24, 2008 at 9:39 pm

  103. @Jasmine,”Ure Pakistani right? Ditto that then for Ahmadis.”..i wonder what made you think that i am a paki!!

    @Kafirgirl,your atricle is only scrolls lenghty..But it takes much time to refer each line to other translations,look up related topics and stuff..and that was what i was talking about!

    @Lance,”The Koran was a behavioural guide for a bunch of semi-literate desert nomads of the 7th century, so surely trying to apply any of it to modern society is ‘taking it out of context’”Thanks that finally takes it in right sense..

    See,by ‘context’ im not just reffering to the verse,but also,the history when which this verse was revealed.Chapter 9 is when the Pagans broke the Treaty. To our Prophet , the enemies were numerous. From all sides. He came to a people who were the worst in the history of man. Who were fighters one another for tribes, who used to eat the dead. Who used to drink and had no laws of marriage. Whose people always carried a sword in them and killing was very normal. This is the people of Makkah. Prophet (s.a.w) did the efforts of Da’wa in Makkah. Just for believing in One Allah, they all were tortured while they tortured none. It was for them to Pray and give alms nothing beyond that. But the people of Makkah kept harming them. It was only after Hijarah, the permission For Qital (war) was given against those coming to oppress Muslims. So were some of the wars when people of Makkah came to attack Muslims. It was never to expand, never to take control of a territory or anything like that. It was the simple effort to preserve that light of Islam and to make it visible.

    So, many Prophets had to fight with their enemies. Prophets never wished a war with it’s people. It is done for a purpose. If it were for the land and people, Prophet would call himself as the King which they never wished or did, but their aim is to strive in order to fulfill that light.

    I have no need to convince if you don’t have an open mind..By open mind,you guys think that it relates to converting to islam..No,ratther it means to be compassionate to others and their beliefs..

    good day to all

    Nimmy

    August 25, 2008 at 4:20 am

  104. Nimmy

    So, many Prophets had to fight with their enemies. Prophets never wished a war with it’s people. It is done for a purpose. If it were for the land and people, Prophet would call himself as the King which they never wished or did, but their aim is to strive in order to fulfill that light.

    For goodness sake, if god was just, kind and merciful there would be no need for any prophets – he’d just hire sky-writers all over the world and relay his message to everyone. The prophets were all control freaks who didn’t want people to question them. Mohamed had someone assassinate a poet (Asma bint Marwan) for writing in opposition to him. Wouldn’t it have been more appropriate and moral to simply write a refutation to her piece? What kind of a prophet has someone killed for writing a poem he doesn’t like? Is this a prophet after whose name you are comfortable saying ‘peace be upon him’? How can you assert that behaviour as being exemplary?

    I have no need to convince if you don’t have an open mind..By open mind,you guys think that it relates to converting to islam..No,rather it means to be compassionate to others and their beliefs..

    Now this is possibly THE most annoying matter when it comes to discussion with supporters of Mohamed – your position that the reason why people don’t agree with Islam is because they are incapable of doing so until they look at it with an open mind – once a non-believer finally opens their mind, the truth of Islam would surely become evident.

    It seems that it has not occured to you that you may be a supporter of Islam because YOUR mind has not opened as yet?

    kics

    August 25, 2008 at 7:59 am

  105. Re: kics said, on August 25th, 2008 at 7:59 am
    I tried to get the quotes working, but my tags weren’t recognised. What tags do we use to show the indented italicised quote graphic?

    kics

    August 25, 2008 at 8:01 am

  106. kics, the code is blockquote in between carrots, not brackets. Use <

    P.S. I fixed em for you in your post so it wasn’t confusing when others read it.

    kafirgirl

    August 25, 2008 at 8:18 am

  107. @Kafirgirl,your atricle is only scrolls lenghty..But it takes much time to refer each line to other translations,look up related topics and stuff..and that was what i was talking about!

    OK fine. And what about my argument to your #19 / bismillah claim? Which I took time out of my very busy day to write up to explain to you why you are wrong? Do you have anything to say about that?

    kafirgirl

    August 25, 2008 at 8:55 am

  108. Nimmy, u asked me what makes me think ure Pakistani…. er cos maybe i heard it all before and said in such a similar way? And don’t be sad, be happy ure from our lovely Islamic Republic.
    Like the way ure really silent and stuff about Ahmadis, must be kind of embrassing for u, huh.

    jasminefrompakistan

    August 25, 2008 at 9:37 am

  109. @Jasmine..eeeeww…stop it,im not from Pakistan…

    What is there to be so talkative about Qadayanis uh???Just another sector..Now pls dn’t divert from topic of discussion please..

    Nimmy

    August 25, 2008 at 11:34 am

  110. Nimmy what’s with the eeeww? I’m Pakistani. And I’m fucking proud of it. A simple “No, I am not Pakistani” would have sufficed.

    P.S. Three posts up — that’ll get the discussion back on track.

    kafirgirl

    August 25, 2008 at 12:08 pm

  111. Nimmy,
    As well as missing the bismillah at the start, this chapter was also evidently missing the verse which said “DISCLAIMER: The following only applies when you are surrounded on all sides by treacherous, cannibalistic, sword-wielding, alcoholic bachelors. Otherwise, it’s all love , peace and flowers”. You would think an all-knowing God should have been quite aware of the interpretations his words might be given in later years, and at least put in some extra clauses to remove the doubt. Ah, but of course, “this is a book free from doubt and involution” – you just need an in-depth knowledge of early Middle Eastern history to be able to apply any of it…

    That aside, you rather seem to have missed or ignored my point about context. If you can say that chapter 9 doesn’t apply outside of its limited historical context, then why not the rest of the book? Can Muslim women around the world now joyously throw off their burqas and grab a beer and bacon sandwich, saying ‘ah, all that stuff was only meant in the context of medieval Saudi Arabia”?

    And a word of advice: all the people on this board take time out of their day to actually learn about the Koran and to discuss its meaning. For you to come on here and call us all close-minded is not just incorrect, it is also extremely arrogant and frankly insulting. If you want this dialogue to continue, I suggest you keep the insults to yourself, and instead try answering a few of the points people on here have made.

    Lance

    August 25, 2008 at 8:35 pm

  112. Sounds pretty much like Morpheus telling Neo about Matrix.

    Mo: Take the blue pill and you will enjoy heaven with pretty boys. Take the red pill and you stay a pagan and all agents will come after you, making you believe in hell.
    Muslim: Yes Mo, I will take the blue pill.

    KK

    August 26, 2008 at 1:39 am

  113. Michael said:

    I’m just speculating that could be part of it, but not all of it. I do know I’ve been told by Muslims that the Banu Qurayza betrayed Muhammad and their treaty and that’s why Muhammad attacked — he had justification (ha!)

    I guess it was a dog eat dog world. Whoever got the opportunity first to amass the riches, struck. Only in case, the top dog-god were instituted in a single lunatic.

    KK

    August 26, 2008 at 1:49 am

  114. Quentin George:
    Anand – I doubt it was Hindu theology that won them over, I imagine it was more the fact that the Hindus were determined, and numerous, and the Muslims knew if they kept pushing things eventually the Hindus would find a strong leader, and push out Muslim invaders with a vengeance. It was the latter Mongol and Timurid invasions which probably halted the ongoing genocidal wars, as they pushed against the Arab states from the east.

    As a matter of fact, it was a brilliant military strategy adapted by Hindus that stopped these conversions and genocide. At the height of Auragzeb’s rule, Sikh panth (way to god) was found by Gobind Singh. Following muslim tactics, he asked voluntary warriors to follow 5 K’s which relate to things that will help you to be continuously at war. Successfull guerilla warfare ensured that Aurangzeb, who was collecting Jaziya from hindus, did not succeed in total conversion. A large percentage of muslims today in India can easily trace their lineage to some hindu family in times of aurangzeb.

    KK

    August 26, 2008 at 2:01 am

  115. @Kafirgirl,I told Jasmine not to deluded that im paki.

    Did you read her response?”Nimmy, u asked me what makes me think ure Pakistani…. er cos maybe i heard it all before and said in such a similar way? And don’t be sad, be happy ure from our lovely Islamic Republic.
    Like the way ure really silent and stuff about Ahmadis, must be kind of embrassing for u, huh.”

    thatz an insult and rather insiting that im lying..I don’t like being labelled being from another country wich is not mine..I respect Pakistan,that doesn’t mean im a pakistani.Sorry for that.

    Also,kafirgirl,you seem to dictate to me ina different tone,than to others..I agree you are the owner of the blog..but that doesn’t mean that im at your mercy..I can leave this blog in moment and you can continue the show and get appluaded from atheits alone..I just thought of giving a different view..Thatz it.I don’t have time or effort to beg or apologize for whatever i speak..

    I am talking as calm and polite as i can and i still let go the insult all of you are making, taking it in a religious sense..

    @Lance,”Can Muslim women around the world now joyously throw off their burqas and grab a beer and bacon sandwich, ” hijab was made compulsory for Prophet’s wives..it is the middle eastern culture to wear that dress..Why are you insiting that all cultures and socitiesshould wear what you prescibe?

    Also,is drinking beer and bacon ,what freedom or liberation is?I guess no…

    Nimmy

    August 26, 2008 at 4:18 am

  116. OK, Nimmy, I’m going to give you one more go:
    The restrictions on dress and diet were just EXAMPLES…
    What I am saying is:
    If you can say that chapter 9 doesn’t apply outside of its limited historical context, then why not the rest of the book?

    Lance

    August 26, 2008 at 4:23 am

  117. To make my point clear,i don’t intend to cling on here withstanding loads of insults..Im not obsessed with defending my faith,and you can continue with athiests alone blog..But if you are interested,we will talk and share ideas..but take care to speak polite.Nobody is to be taken for granted..

    @Lance,the answer you r asking in reference to chapter 9 is simple..

    Answer from Holy Quran:

    2:190 AND fight in God’s cause against those WHO WAGE WAR AGAINST you, but do not commit aggression-for, verily, God does not love aggressors.
    002.190 Fight in the cause of Allah THOSE WHO FIGHT YOU, but do not transgress limits; for Allah loveth not transgressors

    This law hold true ,whenever muslims are first attacked..not the other way round..Allah doesn’t tell “go kill people who are watching mive in thier bedroom”,Intstead,this verse allows to fight against people who pick and fight with muslims..That too,Islam has a set of war ethics..But who follows the rules:-/ then again,that is fault with muslims and not fault with Islam

    History is not static, it is dynamic and cyclic. So it applies to the same conditions, whenever such a situation happens.

    “…then why not the rest of the book?”..can u make it clear..Any reference?
    .

    Nimmy

    August 26, 2008 at 8:03 am

  118. Oh please, what loads of insults? You seemed grossed out at the idea of being Pakistani and I take offense at. I think everyone, including me, has been incredibly patient with you. You are the most intelligent Muslim commenter we’ve had on here — no joke — but some of your arguments are not logically sound. If it hurts your feelings to have that pointed out, this may not be the right place for you.

    You found some verses that say it’s ok to fight in self defense. Note that it’s from chapter 2, which was the first one revealed after the flight to Medina. So the verses from chapter 9, by Mohammed’s own rule, would abrogate those earlier verses. “But do not commit aggression” from chapter 2 suddenly doesn’t hold up very well against “slay the idolaters wheresoever you find them”, which does not have a geographic or time limit.

    Here’s another one from chapter 2 that actually says God likes people who go out and kill for him:

    Fighting is prescribed for you, and ye dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you, and that ye love a thing which is bad for you. But Allah knoweth, and ye know not. (2:216)

    Fighting is REQUIRED. And it’s a GOOD thing. There’s no amount of apologetics that can explain that one away.

    Therefore listen not to the Unbelievers, but strive against them with the utmost strenuousness. (25:52)

    And who does more wrong than he who invents a lie against Allah or rejects the Truth when it reaches him? Is there not a home in Hell for those who reject Faith? And those who strive in Our (cause), – We will certainly guide them to our Paths: For verily Allah is with those who do right. (29:68-69)

    Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya [poll tax] with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued. (9:29)

    O ye who believe! fight the unbelievers who who are near to you, and let them find firmness in you: and know that Allah is with those who fear Him. (9:123)

    I believe what QG is saying is that you’re trying to make it appear as if chapter 9 was sent down only for Mohammed, only for a certain period of time, even though the Quran says nothing about that. And even though certain people who read classical Arabic — Osama bin Laden, for example — don’t come to that conclusion when they read the chapter.

    But for argument’s sake, even in the light of all those passages above about jihad and how God loves Muslims who fight, lets just say that you’re right. You’re saying that chapter 9 and all those jihad verses were only for those people at that time. Doesn’t that mean that the entire book was only for those people at that time? Hence tearing off the burka and grabbing a beer — if that book and that religion are only for desert people in the 600s CE, then fuck it. Nobody has to follow the book.

    Applying only certain parts of the book to yourself is not an option either.

    2:85: Do you then believe a part of the book and reject another part?

    My bad. I got the verse # wrong and I forgot to post the rest of the verse:

    2:86. Do you, then, believe a part of the Book and reject a part? There is no other award for them who so act but disgrace in the world, and on the Day of Judgement the severest of punishment; for God is not heedless of all that you do.

    That’s better.

    kafirgirl

    August 26, 2008 at 8:24 am

  119. Nimmy, 9:5 (the later verse) abrogated 2:190 (the earlier verse). It really is that simple.

    You also said, “whenever muslims are first attacked..not the other way round” … so why on Earth did Muhammad initiate so many confrontations? From attacking trade caravans (killing/stealing/kidnapping), attacking Jewish/pagan tribes (killing/enslaving/raping), or assassinations of critiques — Muhammad participated or ordered all of this. The only time he was engaged in a defensive battle was the Battle of the Trench in which the Meccans attacked him. Why did hey attack? Could it be they traveled hundreds of miles across the desert to attack him at Medina because he kept attacking their trade caravans and they were tired of it? So, you might could say he even instigated that confrontation, too.

    KG: “Doesn’t that mean that the entire book was only for those people at that time?” Exactly.

    Michael

    August 26, 2008 at 9:58 am

  120. No one here insulted to u Nimmy, we are just proud to be Pakistani. People got to stand up and say that and i just got total respect for Kafir Girl for being proud to be from our side, cos there’s a whole generation of our kids growing up who feel it’s like, u know, not good and stuff. U think i never went through that stage also even, i used to lie and tell persons i was Greek, that was just silliness, now i am upfront and i got nothing to be ashamed of also, no way.
    Another, u said history is cyclic. How come? History is strictly linear in Islam, from the creation- to the last day, it’s a straight line, u should know that. Cyclic is Hinduism- not Islam and i never heard a Muslim ever claim history is cyclic.

    jasminefrompakistan

    August 26, 2008 at 11:08 am

  121. we are just proud to be Pakistani

    Why? Culture-ism, nationalism, political-ism, socialism are completely subjective and are little more then substitutes for, or parallel to religion-ism. It’s just a warm fuzzy feeling to say your proud to be randomly born in a certain place, among certain people, with certain culture and beliefs that you had nothing to do with. The only ism worth pursuing is Atheism (when applied beyond god) because it promotes strong individualism.

    Just my opinion that I felt compelled to share.

    GAD

    August 26, 2008 at 1:09 pm

  122. Getting warm fuzzies about the place you were born is different, to me, than being religious. At least in my case. I can see how some people get out of control on that shit (ie, India vs. Pakistan). I get the same warm fuzzies over being an American and finally being legal to vote in an election(!). I’m madly in love with the city I live in, so I get warm fuzzies about that too. And I’m extremely proud of my dark brown skin. I think all of those things mixed together make me a unique individual. Nothing wrong with that.

    kafirgirl

    August 26, 2008 at 1:20 pm

  123. There’s nothing wrong with it per se that’s just how the human animal rolls. But trying to understand it is where the difficulty lays. An example would be “I’m extremely proud of my dark brown skin” skin color does not define a persons moral, ethical or social value, it is superficial, yet people fight, die and define them self (and others) by it. Not only is that interesting to try and examine, it’s the same engine that drives religion (in my view).

    In any case just a POV I hope you may find interesting to think about.

    GAD

    August 26, 2008 at 1:49 pm

  124. I was blogging one time and one guy was listening to me views on Pakistan and said, “U sound exactly like Eva Peron with Argentina.”
    Now yes, i am a true believer in the destiny of Pakistan and sort of freak out when me country is threatened-insulted in any way.
    How then to explain the immense pride i got? It’s cos of the humiliation we suffered in the Gulf, speaking honestly, ordinarily, i wouldn’t say it, but that’s the truth, we got spat on and humiliated in all ways, and when I grew up all what’s me dream…. very simple, Pakistan to get revenge one way or the other on the low class persons who done that. First step is to unify all our nation into ONE. I CAN’T LIVE WITH THE HUMILIATION, and only sense of relief i get is a STRONG and mighty Pakistan. When we done our nuclear bomb i was in school in th Gulf and wept for joy, cos it was proof of who we are and what we can do, and that’s when we raised our heads high u can say.

    jasminefrompakistan

    August 26, 2008 at 2:02 pm

  125. Another, i got born in UK and am British, but raised in the Gulf, so I am like a outsider even in Pakistan and me Pakistani nationalism is sort of considered ‘out of touch,’ and like implying that i overcompensate for being Muhajir, half Ahmadi and born in the UK and raised in the Gulf with this strong nationalism, so yes, its hard to explain it, but that’s the way it is, i choose to live with pride and honor, it’s like that.

    jasminefrompakistan

    August 26, 2008 at 2:05 pm

  126. I think for me, it’s more that I grew up in an extremely racist area where being dark-skinned and foreign was something you got teased about. And it took me a long time to realize that it’s not something I should be ashamed of. Different is not bad. It’s different.

    But I can see where you’re coming from Gad.

    kafirgirl

    August 26, 2008 at 2:12 pm

  127. U know the funny thing is cos i live in the heart of the Pakistani community in the UK, i don’t experience racism. Me definng experiences was in the Gulf cos i was in the camps for all me teenage years from 11-18 and the camps was hell.

    jasminefrompakistan

    August 26, 2008 at 2:30 pm

  128. but i met Parveen in the camp, so i suppose i wouldn’t have it any other way and a part of me never left the camp. If i was given a choice, to live normally but like this, now, abandoned, or to have me friend returned but on condition i go back to the camp, i don’t know what i would do. Life was simple in the camp also, u just follow all the rules, don’t ever look anyone in the eye, and look very normal and life ticked by. Being raised in the camp left me totally unprepared for coping on me own, or at all.

    jasminefrompakistan

    August 26, 2008 at 2:34 pm

  129. Flash! Ahmed Ali is from South Carolina, USA.

    “Do you, then, believe a part of the Book and reject a part?

    This is verse 2:86 in the Ahmed Ali translation. In Amatl Rahman Omar’s translation, it is verse 85. Specifically, the last half of verse 85. Ali started a new verse there and Omar didn’t. As a result, Omar 86 is Ali 87, and so forth: Until verse 167, Omar splits it into two verses, Ali doesn’t. Result is that the rest of the verses match, but Ali’s 86-167 are all out of synch.

    This should sound familiar since earlier in comments we discovered how Arthur Wendor “fixed” Ali’s error by having two verses 86, and no verse #168? That way, only those two specific verses are numbered wrong, all the rest are numbered like the rest of the people: Arberry, Sale, Pickthall, they all agree with Omar. This supports the hypothesis that Ali is a fuckwit.

    Halfway through marking South Carolina’s northern border, the surveyor’s realized they were in the wrong place. So they just moved forty miles north and kept going. Look at a map of SCarolina and you will still see a zigzag in the border, pretty much like Ali’s versifying.
    Fucken rednecks!

    watercat

    August 26, 2008 at 4:17 pm

  130. Nimmy,
    Ah! The ‘context’ of chapter 9 is now chapter 2. How free from doubt and involution this all is. Anyway, KG and Michael have already dealt with that sufficiently, so let’s move on…

    You asked me for an example, when I already gave you three – beer, burqas and bacon. But let’s stick to the last one for now. It probably made perfect sense from a food-hygiene perspective to prohibit the eating of pork in a desert environment with no refrigeration, but people still follow this law NOW. So why is chapter 9 decreed to be only relevant to its immediate historical context, but other ‘revelations’ are considered to be timeless and universal?

    Even if you are to be granted that Chapter 2 is the context for chapter 9, the big problem we have is that a significant part of the Muslim world DOES think they are under attack, and from the slightest – even imagined – provocation. (Your constant feeling that you are being insulted suggests you aren’t immune to this phenomenon). When the drawing of a cartoon or the naming of a teddy bear can result in rioting and violence, then to say that chapter 9 can only be applied when you feel you have been attacked doesn’t seem much of a restriction. Osama felt that even the stationing of US troops in Saudi to protect it from invasion was an attack on the Umma, and rolled out Chapter 9 in no time.

    And I’m sorry, but it is a problem with Islam. It is a great positive that some Muslims such as yourself can interpret the faith to be peaceful, but there are plenty of people who don’t, and from what I can see, their reading of the Koran is hardly a gross misrepresentation of its content. You say that ‘Allah doesn’t tell “go kill people who are watching mive in thier bedroom”’, but it does say – by your own admission – that if you feel you are under attack, you should then “slay the idolaters wheresoever you find them”. This may not be their bedrooms, but does seem to include their office blocks and subway trains.

    Lance

    August 26, 2008 at 9:38 pm

  131. @Kafirgirl,thank u for you nice words..In fact,you guys have digged into Quran and history so much that I feel ashamed of myself..I admire the know how of all of us.Great..

    As long as you will continue to look at the verses in ISOLATION, you will continue to face this problem of violent Islam.

    Take each of the verse and study the verses BEFORE and LATER to it.

    For example, the Chapter no. 9, is one chapter which is a series of instructions and responses TO the people (disbelievers) WHO violated the peace treatise with the Muslims. It also discusses people who had to consequently strive against such disbelievers, but who chose NOT to (because they were hypocrites).

    In the same manner if you look at the verses in Ch. no. 2, you will find that it is for the people who persecuted the Muslims and DENIED them the right to Pilgrimage.

    In other places you will find that the fighting the disbelievers is to fight against aggression e.g. Why should you not fight the disbelievers in the way of God, when they oppress the weak, the women and children.

    So the apparent tone may sound to be inclined towards some sort of warmongering. But in actual it is meant ONLY against the aggressors OR the ones who violate the peace treatise.

    P.S:Jews and christians are not Pagans

    Can I ask you something,if Allah ordered muslims to slay all non-muslims,

    1.How come so many christians live in muslim countries??

    2.Why there are 80% Non Muslims in India,even when India was ruled by muslims for over 400yrs??

    3.Jews and christians ordered to pay tax,while liiving in muslim countiries,why not kill them instead???

    4.Did u wake this morning knowing that there r 1500 million people in this world who want to kill u??

    The whole of Quran ,in my opinion,is to be taken in context,not historical context..The same verse applies true whenevre such a similar situation happens.i.e.whenever muslims are attacked,try to make peace/treaty..If they still keep pestering you,go defend yourself..That is what ALLAH says,atleast that is what i understand..

    Whoever,may it be any individual or group of people,take the Quran and quote it to suit their motives,are only muslims for namesake..

    They were going for a battle, and what do u do when u see a combatant enemy??do u eat pizza with him?:)

    Fighting is prescribed for you, and ye dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you, and that ye love a thing which is bad for you. But Allah knoweth, and ye know not. (2:216)

    Most people don’t like fighting, but sometimes it’s the only way to end agression. Maybe you’re so peaceful you won’t do anything to harm those that harm you. But this is even more harmful in the longrun. Peaceful religions like Buddhism and Jainism allow them to be walked all over by other people. Do you want other conquerers walking all over you, putting you in humiliation and fear without fighting back? Afghanistan was a Buddhist country- how many Buddhists do you see there now? Jainism was huge in India, but it was easily taken over by northern conquerers- the first masjid in Delhi was built on top of a Jain temple area. This is because they run rather than fight. Also, ‘peaceful’ religions like Buddhism and Jainism allow their followers to kill others in self-defence too. Their self-defence rules are more strict because they can’t attack at all, they can only defend (Islam allows pre-emptive attack as a form of self-defence), but even Buddhists and Jains can be ‘violent’ to protect themselves. But unlike Muslims, they’re unwilling to end oppression..

    Surah Tawbah was revealed in 3 parts

    The first discourse (vv. 1-37), was revealed in Zil-Qa’adah A. H. 9
    The second discourse (vv., 38-72) was sent down in Rajab A. H. 9
    The third discourse (vv. 73-I 29) was revealed on his return from the Campaign of Tabuk.
    When Islam spread,The pagans of Makkah felt desperate and that was when the treaty was broken

    It is decisively clear that the war was against certain people who failed Muslims’ treaties and aided others against them. Are we to be blamed for fighting such people?

    If Iran has a peace treaty with America and then Iran plots to attack America and they find out through the spies so you are telling me that America can’t break the treaty???

    Wasn’t it Prophet Muhammad(pbuh) when he conquered Madina,He forgive every single non combatant??Even when some warriors did not fight,they were also not touched!!!

    Lets agree that many verses you quoted are quoted out of reference and that distorts the true meaning.

    However that is never the problem. The biggest problem is that some Muslims conveniently use these verses as and when it suits them. I know that the world rightly looks at what Muslims DO and not at what is in the Quran.By more and more people learning and understanding Islam in the right way,there will be pace on earth..

    I talk ignoring the facts about oppression against muslims all over the world..Can anybody tell me which Holy book are they using to deal with such cruelity..You guys are atheists,still you are human beings..Tell me what justification can one give for what is happening to women,children,economy of those muslim nations where ‘world police’ went to set things ‘striaght’..Can you tell me why they needn’t justify thier acts,unlike we muslims who are set out to talk against sick acts of sick ‘muslims’..

    That was a long comment..i hope it is readable..Good day.Sorry for spelling mstakes..

    Nimmy

    August 27, 2008 at 3:02 am

  132. This is all what I know about the verses we are talking about.I hope I did some justification from my part..It is indeed very sad that a whole community is under scrutiny just bcoz of some fanatics..Are you telling me that Islam and muslims are the only cause for trouble and misery in this world?I agree these people add fuel to an already set fire..But the roots casues are many many many.We are just commenting about bomb blats..Have we ever thought of what is after or before such acts..Killing others or killing oneself is never a great act.Anybody who has money can buy even a nuclear bomb and blast it..But when too many people does it,we need to look into underlying causes and instead of wiping out the ‘acts’,we should be able to wipe out the ’causes that lead to such acts’…am I right?

    Good day

    Nimmy

    August 27, 2008 at 3:08 am

  133. Sorry for 3 comments in a row..

    Just to make it clear that those verses are meant for when in war alone,see these verses:

    “…If anyone killed a person not in retaliation for murder or to spread mischief in the land, it would be as if he killed the whole of mankind. And (likewise) if anyone saved a life, it would be as if he saved the whole of mankind”(Surah Al-Maaida 5:32)

    “Allah does not forbid you to deal justly and kindly with those who fought not against you on account of religion, nor drove you out of your homes. Indeed, Allah loves those who deal with equity” (Surah Al-Mumtahinah 60:8)

    “There is no compulsion in religion. The right path has indeed become distinct from the wrong. So whoever rejects false worship and believes in Allah, then he has grasped the most trustworthy handhold that will never break. And Allah is All Hearing, All Knowing”(Surah Al-Baqarah 2:256)

    Nimmy

    August 27, 2008 at 3:53 am

  134. As long as you will continue to look at the verses in ISOLATION, you will continue to face this problem of violent Islam.

    Take each of the verse and study the verses BEFORE and LATER to it.

    We have been. I could have posted a lot more verses talking about killing people without any regard to who it’s talking about and when. I think I’ve made that point over and over again (as have a couple of other people), and it’s like beating a dead horse at this point.

    For example, the Chapter no. 9, is one chapter which is a series of instructions and responses TO the people (disbelievers) WHO violated the peace treatise with the Muslims. It also discusses people who had to consequently strive against such disbelievers, but who chose NOT to (because they were hypocrites).

    Someone asked this already — where is the disclaimer at the beginning of the chapter that says that? How is it that you can come up with this interpretation, and then Osama bin Laden, who reads classical Arabic, can come to a totally different conclusion? It’s because this book is not simple and free from doubt as it claims in chapter 2.

    And I also said this in another post, but I might as well say it here because it is extremely relevant: You seem like a moderate Muslim. If you really don’t believe the verse of the sword is a directive to kill all the infidels, you’re probably arguing with the wrong people. Why aren’t you explaining the context of that verse to your fellow Muslims, the ones who are dragging your precious religion through the mud?

    That’s not criticism, that’s a genuine question that I keep thinking about more and more. Believe me, the fundies aren’t reading my site. They’re reading the Quran and they’re coming to their own conclusions — conclusions that are the same as the ones I’ve come to. And we horrible atheists aren’t the ones who would strap bombs to our bodies and head out to fight for God.

    In the same manner if you look at the verses in Ch. no. 2, you will find that it is for the people who persecuted the Muslims and DENIED them the right to Pilgrimage.

    In other places you will find that the fighting the disbelievers is to fight against aggression e.g. Why should you not fight the disbelievers in the way of God, when they oppress the weak, the women and children.

    So the apparent tone may sound to be inclined towards some sort of warmongering. But in actual it is meant ONLY against the aggressors OR the ones who violate the peace treatise.

    That’s your opinion. The truth is that there really is no evidence there were treaties to begin with. Nor is there evidence that those treaties were broken. We’ve already discussed this in comments. Again, dead horse.

    Can I ask you something,if Allah ordered muslims to slay all non-muslims,

    1.How come so many christians live in muslim countries??

    That’s begging the question. You’re making the assumption that “so many” Christians are living in Muslim countries and that they’re doing so openly and freely. Christians are a tiny minority in most Muslim countries, and just because they are allowed to live there does not mean they can practice their religion openly. Do a little research.

    2.Why there are 80% Non Muslims in India,even when India was ruled by muslims for over 400yrs??

    Because the Muslims were overthrown and eventually became the minority? What does that prove, exactly?

    3.Jews and christians ordered to pay tax,while liiving in muslim countiries,why not kill them instead???

    That’s what my next post is about. It’s because the Quran says that you’re only supposed to kill them IF they don’t either convert to Islam or submit to the tax. Those are the only options they’re given. I can’t remember the name of the hadith, but I just read it last night — it was about how the tax was a good source of revenue for the Muslims.

    4.Did u wake this morning knowing that there r 1500 million people in this world who want to kill u??

    You mean 1.2 billion? And no, I didn’t. Why? Because I’m not a retard. I realize there are plenty of moderate people out there who do not believe you must take the Quran literally. I also realize there some liberal Muslims who hardly practice, and some lapsed Muslims who never practice. And there are people like me who believe God is a joke and a lie, but we can’t really go around announcing it to the world for fear of what might happen (Ayyan Hirsi Ali is just one great example).

    The whole of Quran ,in my opinion,is to be taken in context,not historical context..The same verse applies true whenevre such a similar situation happens.i.e.whenever muslims are attacked,try to make peace/treaty..If they still keep pestering you,go defend yourself..That is what ALLAH says,atleast that is what i understand..

    No, that’s what Mohammed says. Allah is made up. Regardless, you’re wasting your breath trying to get us to believe that Mohammed was a peace-loving man who only fought when he had to defend himself. We believe in this little thing called evidence. And all the evidence is against what you’re saying. Dead horse. Beating. Again.

    Whoever,may it be any individual or group of people,take the Quran and quote it to suit their motives,are only muslims for namesake..

    And they think you’re a shitty Muslim for not believing what they believe.

    Wasn’t it Prophet Muhammad(pbuh) when he conquered Madina,He forgive every single non combatant??Even when some warriors did not fight,they were also not touched!!!

    Evidence?

    Lets agree that many verses you quoted are quoted out of reference and that distorts the true meaning.

    I stand by what I said. I think you’re deluding yourself. I think you’ve got your mind so made up that nothing is going to change it. But I agree, lets not discuss it further because it’s getting annoying to have to rehash the same two arguments over and over and over.

    However that is never the problem. The biggest problem is that some Muslims conveniently use these verses as and when it suits them. I know that the world rightly looks at what Muslims DO and not at what is in the Quran.By more and more people learning and understanding Islam in the right way,there will be pace on earth..

    You’re saying that people who learn and understand Islam the right way — YOUR way — will lead to world peace. OK. Get out there and retrain your people, then. We’re just silly, ig’nant heathens here and we don’t need preaching to.

    I talk ignoring the facts about oppression against muslims all over the world..Can anybody tell me which Holy book are they using to deal with such cruelity..You guys are atheists,still you are human beings..Tell me what justification can one give for what is happening to women,children,economy of those muslim nations where ‘world police’ went to set things ’striaght’..Can you tell me why they needn’t justify thier acts,unlike we muslims who are set out to talk against sick acts of sick ‘muslims’..

    Wow, appeal to pity, much?

    You do realize that as atheists we reject ALL so-called holy books, right? Don’t be mistaken by thinking we look at Islam any differently than we look at Christianity or Judaism. I think all religions should be held accountable for the bullshit that they do. Atheists in general tend to support secularism — we don’t want some bullshit holy book governing the way we live and treat people.

    It is indeed very sad that a whole community is under scrutiny just bcoz of some fanatics..Are you telling me that Islam and muslims are the only cause for trouble and misery in this world?I agree these people add fuel to an already set fire..But the roots casues are many many many.We are just commenting about bomb blats..Have we ever thought of what is after or before such acts..Killing others or killing oneself is never a great act.Anybody who has money can buy even a nuclear bomb and blast it..But when too many people does it,we need to look into underlying causes and instead of wiping out the ‘acts’,we should be able to wipe out the ’causes that lead to such acts’…am I right?

    Agreed. It’s unfortunate that the fundies run the show, but they do. Maybe it’s time for moderate and liberal Muslims to step up to the plate and try to educate them on what the religion is “really” about. It’ll be an uphill battle because, as we’re learning on this site, they can use the Quran to pretty much justify anything they do. Change isn’t going to come from people like us the same way it’s going to come from the inside out. Which, again, is why I have a hard time understanding why moderate Muslims spend time arguing with atheists about religion, quibbling over one or two verses, when they could be spending that time trying to reform the fanatics that are “ruining” Islam for everyone.

    OK, and with that I’m calling it quits on this discussion. The insipidity is starting to wear me thin, and it’s obvious that we will never agree. So it’s time to agree to disagree and walk away. If anyone wants to continue playing the yes-it-is / no-it-isn’t game, feel free to take it to a forum (I highly recommend the Faith Freedom boards).

    kafirgirl

    August 27, 2008 at 8:29 am

  135. @Nimmy
    “…If anyone killed a person not in retaliation for murder or to spread mischief in the land, it would be as if he killed the whole of mankind. And (likewise) if anyone saved a life, it would be as if he saved the whole of mankind”(Surah Al-Maaida 5:32)

    You are missing out crucial words at the start of they ayat;
    [005:032] On that account: We ordained for the Children of Israel that if any one slew a person – unless it be for murder or for spreading mischief in the land – it would be as if he slew the whole people: and if any one saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of the whole people. Then although there came to them Our apostles with clear signs, yet, even after that, many of them continued to commit excesses in the land.

    THE ABOVE VERSE APPLIES TO “the Children of Israel:-THE JEWS AND NOT TO THE MUSLIMS.

    anand

    August 27, 2008 at 11:25 am

  136. Anand, good point. I think we talked about that in another post. Context, context, context. I guess there’s a double standard on how that one works. Anyway, we’re moving on. I’m pretty sure this argument is going nowhere.

    kafirgirl

    August 27, 2008 at 11:30 am

  137. I agree with u KG. As of now, it seems that moral courage to face the facts-WHAT QURAN ACTUALLY SAYS-is with two kinds of the people in muslim world:
    1.The Jihadists-These ppl dont pretend that verses means something else, context etc etc.They say reason and humanity be damned.Faith is important and implement it.
    2.The Apostates-These ppl also honestly see what the verses mean. For them reason and humanity mean more than faith and they soo good-bye to Islam.

    It is the lot of moderate muslims-who keep fooling themselves-is pitiable.

    anand

    August 27, 2008 at 11:54 am

  138. So, far u have analysed 9 chapters very well indeed.Several ppl who visit this blog have given valuable inputs like watercat, QG, MIchael etc. I think, seriously u should think about compling all this matter as a book on Quran and publish it. In India publishers dont have the b***s to do it. In US, u will be able to do it. It will help lot of ppl see the truth. Take backup of all ur posts and threads.

    anand

    August 27, 2008 at 12:29 pm

  139. @Kafirgirl,”Christians are a tiny minority in most Muslim countries, and just because they are allowed to live there does not mean they can practice their religion openly. Do a little research..”Except Saudi al;l countries have church..do little research..

    “Because the Muslims were overthrown and eventually became the minority? What does that prove, exactly?”

    Ha ha,you think 400yrs is not enough to finish off everybody..:)

    “Nor is there evidence that those treaties were broken.”..you are saying so,and hence the burden of prrof is on you..Give me proof showing me wrong..

    “And all the evidence is against what you’re saying. “..I wonder why you are telling this even when i talked based on verses…

    “We’re just silly, ig’nant heathens here and we don’t need preaching to.”..i never tried to preach or convert you..just sharing thoughts on what you wrote..

    “I have a hard time understanding why moderate Muslims spend time arguing with atheists about religion, quibbling over one or two verses, when they could be spending that time trying to reform the fanatics that are “ruining” Islam for everyone. “..

    This is the first time i talked with atheists..Believe me..And again,i always talk for this thought of yours..Fat Mullah sitting in air conditioned rooms and issuing fatwas..and instead burning public property in the name of a catrron..Why don’t they come down and talk to people or make protests against sick evil acts by so-called muslims..

    I wish it changes soon..Im trying from my part..

    “The insipidity is starting to wear me thin, and it’s obvious that we will never agree. So it’s time to agree to disagree and walk away.”,,even i am sick..Just bcoz this was my first time with atheists and sicne you all were nice,except few hurtful comments,i was trying to understand your view points..

    No point in arguing..I just wish to tell you that It is not Quran or Islam which is wrong,but its followers,muslims,who are wrong..and i knwo that it hardly makes any difference to the world..Just try not to be over-hate..

    Good day to all..

    Nimmy

    August 27, 2008 at 12:41 pm

  140. Anand, they put their fingers in their eyes, close their eyes and go “LALALALALALALALA!” Which I’m fine with because, whatever dude, it’s their right to delude themselves if they want. But the thing that really gets under my skin is that they think atheists are the ones giving their religion a bad name.

    As for a book, I don’t know if any of this is book-worthy. Plus, US publishers have been neutered by Islam, too. The whole “Jewel of Medina” fiasco is evidence of that.

    kafirgirl

    August 27, 2008 at 12:45 pm

  141. Just try not to be over-hate..

    Towards what? A book? A man-made book? Fuck that. It’s paper. It has no rights. If I want to drop trou and shit all over it, that’s my right. Or do you mean over-hate the religion? In which case, I think Pat Condell says it best: I don’t respect your beliefs and I don’t care if you’re offended.”

    kafirgirl

    August 27, 2008 at 12:52 pm

  142. I respect KG’s word and dont want to prolong the discussion.

    Atheists in general tend to support secularism

    I believe by ‘secularism’ KG meant the absence of any religion not the fucked up form (treating all religions equally).

    P.S: I wanted to clarify that coz in India it’s usually taken to be the fucked up form.

    Shashi

    August 27, 2008 at 12:57 pm

  143. Correct, shashi. I mean absolute separation of church (mosque, temple, whatever) and state.

    kafirgirl

    August 27, 2008 at 1:00 pm

  144. Anand:
    “You are missing out crucial words at the start of they ayat;
    [005:032] On that account: We ordained for the Children of Israel that if any one slew a person – unless it be for murder or for spreading mischief in the land……”

    Actually Anand, this verse is used by Islamic scholars – and not just to paint a nice picture of Islam.
    See that little bit about “except for spreading mischief in the land(Fitna)”? That is the modern basis for killing Murtadoon (ex-Muslims). In Egypt for example in the Hegazi case, “smiling while being a Christian” was felt by one Imam to constitute Fitna – and all Imams felt that Mr. Hegazi had to be killed for his conversion.

    az

    September 6, 2008 at 3:37 pm

  145. I’ve seen this “specific situation” excuse applied to the Bible also, like:

    Jesus Christ telling someone that he ought to sell everything he has and give the money to the poor (Mark 10:21). — JC is mentioning him as an example of a more general principle.

    Paul telling us that women ought to shut up about religion and let their husbands instruct them (1 Cor 14:33-35). — there is no hint of any special problems with any specific church.

    KafirGirl, there are plenty of retarded things in the Bible as well as in the Koran. But I appreciate you spending the time to give the Koran the dissection it deserves.

    Loren Petrich

    September 17, 2008 at 3:38 pm

  146. Paul telling us that women ought to shut up about religion and let their husbands instruct them (1 Cor 14:33-35). — there is no hint of any special problems with any specific church.

    Loren, this was talked about a bit in another thread. 1 Corinthians 14 (34-35) are textual alterations that do not appear in the oldest texts, but appeared in newer texts. The alterations were added by scribes because women were getting to have too much of a voice in the early Christian church and they were trying to stop that from happening (sadly). In all fairness, since this is a well-known error, it should be removed from future Bibles.

    Michael

    September 17, 2008 at 5:15 pm

  147. religion is crap, if it wasn’t, there would be female prophets- the last thing patriachy wants, funny how god and the special interests of the male dominating class always seem to coincide.

    jasminefrompakistan

    September 17, 2008 at 5:35 pm

  148. There were at least female apostles and leaders in the early Christian church, but that changed over time. Mary Magdalene played an influential role, but the Pope later re-branded her as a whore. Bastard.

    Mary was a companion of Jesus as well as the other disciples. She may have even been a disciple or the Beloved Disciple. She witnessed the crucifixion while the other disciples fled and was the first to discover the empty tomb. The fact that the New Testament records this event — the resurrection, which is the foundation of Christianity — is somewhat interesting to me, especially given the role and treatment of women at the time. Prophet? No, but still important. At least that’s the story.

    Michael

    September 17, 2008 at 7:10 pm

  149. Mary Magdaelene is a lot like Sarah Palin, she got co-opted by patriarchy a long long time ago.

    jasminefrompakistan

    September 18, 2008 at 9:13 am

  150. ok, now some personages are thinking i got like a “sicko” thing for Sarah Palin, this is not true (mostly) and even if it was true, it would only be odd cos she is against gay and lesbian rights, so it’s sort of a mismatch u might say.

    jasminefrompakistan

    September 18, 2008 at 10:47 am

  151. Hello again. If I may? A few tidbits I learned from the ulemaa over my long, long years (too long) of being a Muslim. Someone should benefit from all the time I sat listening and studying these things.

    The reason Surah Taubah does not begin with the basmala is that “there is no mercy therein.” Surah Taubah is also known as al Bara’a, or the Ultimatum.

    As I was taught, the pact referred to in the beginning of the chapter is the Treaty of Hudaybiyah, which was between the Muslims, and consequently their allies, and the Meccans, and consequently their allies.

    The Muslims declared the Treaty broken when members of a Quraish-aligned tribe, the Banu Bakr, attacked and killed members of a Muslim-aligned tribe, Banu Quza’ah. I do not recall being told that Banu Quza’ah were themselves Muslims. They may have been. Some historians say that after escalating tensions between Banu Bakr and Banu Quza’ah that the Quraish did supply some small amount of arms and military assistance to Banu Bakr. Surah Taubah and the treaty have nothing to do with the Bani Qurayza or Jews.

    The Muslims claimed that the Quraish could have done more to control or prevent Banu Bakr from attacking Banu Bakr; Abu Sufyan and other Quraishi leaders said they could not. Either way, the Muslims declared the treaty violated used it as a pretext to amass an army against the Quraish, which ended in the victory at Mecca, or the Fathi Makkah. Maybe the Quraish were telling the truth or maybe the Muslims were. It’s hard to say from this distance in history.

    Although I am a former Muslim, and must hide my identity, and can’t start my own blog about this matter because we do not have free speech where I live, I have to say that it does hurt and bother me that the Muslims have to be liars at every single turn for too many who read this great blog. It’s really not the way to bring people who are questioning and in doubt to free thought or away from Islam. Maybe you don’t think they’re here reading this blog, but they are.

    The ‘four months’ may refer to the types of treaties that had been signed with different tribes.

    Here is the problem with this chapter and any of the rest of Islam. It does refer to specific incidents in history, including the verses that are so upsetting here. This is something that is known if pepole study the Quran with specialised scholars, which Osama bin Ladin definitely never did. Every time I have had the opportunity to study this chapter, this point is driven home – that it is referring to a specific incident in history. Like it or not, that is what a lot of Muslims are taught when this chapter comes up. Not that it can be applied at will to any non Muslim out there. That is what a lot of regular Muslims think of this chapter and its directives. That it was meant for a specific time and place. Legal issues are more obscure and mundane than this blog has the time for, as well as beyond my training.

    At the same time, however, it is those same scholars who formulate and then hand down the most ridiculous, oppressive rulings on Muslim people. So on the one hand, you get ‘no, no that refers to a specific incident’ and on the other you get some asshole telling you that it’s haraam to use a microwave. So you lose some, you lose some.

    Happy To Be Gone

    October 8, 2008 at 9:38 pm

  152. I’m not sure I follow this. It seems obvious that it refers to some specific treaty, from reading it, it just doesn’t say which one, so we’re left to interpret it however. I think we get the history you outline above from the hadith, I don’t know if there are any non-muslim accounts of it. All I can think of is the Gulf of Tonkin, USS Maine, the Mukden Incident, false flag operations in general….

    What specialized scholars are you referring to? Do you mean OBL never learned that it referred to the Treaty of Hudaybiyah? That seems impossible. Either way, most of the things in there refer to specific incidents; doesn’t mean they can’t generalize it into a moral lesson of whatever sort. ???

    What do you mean ‘Muslims have to be liars at every single turn” ?

    watercat

    October 8, 2008 at 11:13 pm

  153. Thanks for sharing that, Happy To Be Gone.

    Here is what bothers me, though. If the Quran is the unaltered and perfectly preserved word of Allah and if Allah intended these verses (instructions) to be only for a certain event/incident, the Quran should state “Fight the unbelievers at the oasis of ____ because they broke the treaty with my Messenger.” Or something similar. When you have to resort to the Hadith, which many claim are not reliable, it leads to serious issues. Instead of the Quran describing an event, it ends up being a commandment to kill non-Muslims until all religion is for Allah.

    I fully understand not all Muslims are out to wage war or intentionally harm others, but it leaves me unconvinced when I hear from the Islam is Peace crowd. I just have trouble understanding how they can reconcile things like this.

    Anyway, I’m rambling. Thanks for sharing!

    Michael

    October 8, 2008 at 11:58 pm

  154. You missed something hilarious. You see, in the days of Jahiliyyah, the Arabs observed a lunisolar calendar – they matched their months with the phases of the moon, but every now and then they inserted an extra month, an intercalary or leap month, to make up for the five or six days lost every year because the Moon’s orbital period is slightly less than 1/12 of a solar year. Now old Mo couldn’t quite wrap his mind around the need for this, so what does he do? He bans the intercalary month forever (because he saw it as nothing but an excuse to postpone the “forbidden” months), with the result that the Islamic calendar now has jack shit to do with the actual cycle of the seasons. Check this out:

    [009:036] The number of months in the sight of God is twelve (in a year)- so ordained by Him the day He created the heavens and the earth; of them four are sacred: that is the straight usage. So wrong not yourselves therein, and fight the Pagans all together as they fight you all together. But know that God is with those who restrain themselves.

    [009:037] Verily the transposing (of a prohibited month) is an addition to Unbelief: the Unbelievers are led to wrong thereby: for they make it lawful one year, and forbidden another year, in order to adjust the number of months forbidden by God and make such forbidden ones lawful. The evil of their course seems pleasing to them. But God guideth not those who reject Faith.

    Verily the number of “months” (lunar phase cycles) in the sight of God is twelve in a year, because God just fucking can’t do math.

    Fluffyskunk

    January 29, 2009 at 5:37 am

  155. Fucken Awesome, fluffy. I really wondered what those verses were all about.

    uzza(formerly watercat)

    January 30, 2009 at 1:30 am


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 56 other followers

%d bloggers like this: